Page 1 of 7 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 139
  1.    #1  
    Today a correspondent of a Swiss TV station mentioned that the Iraqi Minstry of Oil was guarded by marines, while US troops refused to stop the looting in the hospitals of Baghdad, even after being asked to do so by the Red Cross and by doctors from these hospitals.

    So first you wound and kill lots of civilians for the public good, and then you do close to nothing to help those people after you have "freed" them? Really bad luck that the US signed the Geneva Convention, meaning that they agreed that the occupying force is responsible for the wellbeing of the people in the occupied territory.

    But we all understand that the the US troops have to protect the Ministry of Oil and not hospitals, I mean, you have to set priorities, no?

    This way, the US may win the war, but never peace.
  2. #2  
    What exactly are they protecting in the Ministry of Oil?
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  3.    #3  
    Originally posted by yardie
    What exactly are they protecting in the Ministry of Oil?
    That was not specified, I would expect the Ministry of Oil to contain files about the oil production in Iraq (maps, production details, etc.).
  4. #4  
    Until I see supporting evidence, I cannot really conclude that this was as you describe. For all we know the reporter happen to walk by as they were searching the building...
  5. #5  
    The world is filled with whiners...

    I see a lot of common people in the streets happy to actually be out from under a dictator’s rule.

    Did you happen to glimpse the interior of the palace(s) that Saddam was living in? Did you happen to see the squalor in the cities around the palaces?
    "Stupid Handspring."
  6. #6  
    This does not mean that the war was/is right.

    Besides, there is no difference between Saddam's palaces and the slums around, and Manhattan and the slums around it.

    Originally posted by MIKE STH
    The world is filled with whiners...

    I see a lot of common people in the streets happy to actually be out from under a dictator’s rule.

    Did you happen to glimpse the interior of the palace(s) that Saddam was living in? Did you happen to see the squalor in the cities around the palaces?
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  7. #7  
    Originally posted by clulup So first you wound and kill lots of civilians for the public good, and then you do close to nothing to help those people after you have "freed" them? Really bad luck that the US signed the Geneva Convention, meaning that they agreed that the occupying force is responsible for the wellbeing of the people in the occupied territory.
    That means providing water, electricity, etc. Looting by the civilian population isn't covered. Looting by the occupying forces is.

    I guess when Saddam was in charge it was lucky for him he didn't have to operate under the Geneva Convention towards his people. Left him free to murder 400,000 (conservative) of his "Beloved People".

    -Maybe they were there to secure the paperwork for the French oil deals. Most likey they were there to prevent the destruction of the infrastructure for the oilfields by pro-Saddam forces, as they weren't able to destroy the actual oilfields like they planned.

    Would so many civilians been injured and killed if Saddam hadn't pulled his forces into the cities to try and protect them (the forces, not the civilians?)

    Any loss of life is horrible, but the negative spinsters can't hide the fact that there has been a surprisingly small amount of civilians killed and wounded compared to any other conflict.

    Originally posted by yardie
    This does not mean that the war was/is right.

    Besides, there is no difference between Saddam's palaces and the slums around, and Manhattan and the slums around it.

    What are you smoking? Do you hate the US so much?

    I think the average income in the US is a tad bit higher than in Iraq.

    And all this hand wringing about the looting thing is a bit silly. These people were suppressed for about a quarter of a century. Longer than a lot of us posting here have been alive. They have a little bit of repressed anger to let out.

    The coalition forces have to worry about sabotage and suicide attacks. Who really cares if someone steals marble off a palace wall?

    I, for one, don't want to see Marines shooting civilians for stealing furniture.

    Doyou think the US should be shooting looters?

    - And is it smart to let the Iraqi police back in charge (to keep the peace)? Since many of them were/are Saddam loyalists, could they be trusted?
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  8. #8  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    What are you smoking?
    <puts on mod had>
    No need to for personal attack.. you know better than that
    </puts on mod had>


    As for my opinion on this matter?
    I find it very 'interesting' that the US has priority over oil infrastructure over hospitals, schools and museums.
    I dont care too much about the palaces, I can understand people looting those... but looting hospitals and schools, thats just plain wrong...

    Another interesting fact is that the city(s) controlled by the UK forces dont have these issues... I guess the brits know how to handle these kind of things better since they got more experience (N. Ireland).

    As for the wealth in the palace compared to manhattan, I think that is a wrong comparison. Comparing it to the wealth in the white house or Bush' ranges would be more appropriate...
    Having a nice residence as a leader doesnt make you a bad man and vice versa...
    In Saddam's case his wealth probably came from robbing his own people...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  9. #9  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    <puts on mod had>
    No need to for personal attack.. you know better than that
    </puts on mod had>

    Just wanted to know he had achieved such a complete break from reality

    Thanks for the reprimand. I'll try to be better.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  10. #10  
    Yes. The U.S. have a higher average income than Iraq. The wealth is concentrated ine hands of a couple of million people. It is not spread out. The same applies to Iraq. The wealth was concentrated in the hands of Saddam and his tribal circle. The slums in Baghdad among the lavish palaces... and the slums in NYC amoing the lavish / upscale buildings in Manhattan are indication of this.


    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    What are you smoking? Do you hate the US so much?

    I think the average income in the US is a tad bit higher than in Iraq.

    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  11. #11  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Yes. The U.S. have a higher average income than Iraq. The wealth is concentrated ine hands of a couple of million people. It is not spread out. The same applies to Iraq. The wealth was concentrated in the hands of Saddam and his tribal circle. The slums in Baghdad among the lavish palaces... and the slums in NYC amoing the lavish / upscale buildings in Manhattan are indication of this.


    Come to think of it the average income may have been even be higher in Iraq, however the income of the average person was probably lower.
    The few super rich oil sheiks probably raised the average quite a bit..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  12. #12  
    I just heard confirmation on NPR (I'm assuming they have no vested interest in making this up) that the Marines indeed did protect the Ministry of Oil while other Gov't Ministries were not defended. I heard nothing about hospitals, but it seems logical to conclude the two were going on concurrently.

    It may be simply a cold-hearted, rational calculation: Protecting the wealth of Iraq will save more people than any single hopital. Of course you can also see a selfish motive as well.

    I will repeat now what I've told my friends for the past few months. The moral justness of this war will not be decided for a long time. I think that if the administration sticks to its pledge to not raid the country's oil, it will have been a just war. If it does what every previous conqueror has done, it will not have been a just war, and everyone in the decision making chain should be punished.

    It's interesting to think that the real tricky stuff starts now. After most of the bombs have stopped falling.
  13. #13  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Yes. The U.S. have a higher average income than Iraq. The wealth is concentrated ine hands of a couple of million people. It is not spread out. The same applies to Iraq. The wealth was concentrated in the hands of Saddam and his tribal circle. The slums in Baghdad among the lavish palaces... and the slums in NYC amoing the lavish / upscale buildings in Manhattan are indication of this.


    Yer being silly again. Since the average income in Iraq was around $1000 and the average income in the USA is at least 20 - 25 times that, maybe more, how can you compare the two? Especially from "evidence" from one trip to New York city ( Not esp. average America)?
    The majority of the houses sold in my area is either in the $100,000 - $200,000 range or in the above $350,000 range (and 2003 was a record year for new house sales) , who's buying these house if it's not average people. The wealth in America is very well spread out. You could stop by my area and I could introduce you to some average citizens (carpenters, nurses, teachers, plumbers) and they could show you that they're doing quite well, thank you. Most families I know have at least 2 cars, sometimes 3 or 4. Families in Iraq feel lucky if someone close to them has a car.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  14. #14  
    I think you are missing my point. A so called first world country as rich as the U.S should not have places that look like places in the third world. It is interesting that when the media is showcasing NYC they show Manhattan and when they are showcasing third world countries they focus on the ugly parts.

    As for the wealth spreading out. I recall reading somewhere a while back that like 25% of the U.S's wealth is concentrated in only 2% of the population. It seems that you live in a wealthy enclave -- far away from the poor innercity slums...


    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    Yer being silly again. Since the average income in Iraq was around $1000 and the average income in the USA is at least 20 - 25 times that, maybe more, how can you compare the two? Especially from "evidence" from one trip to New York city ( Not esp. average America)?
    The majority of the houses sold in my area is either in the $100,000 - $200,000 range or in the above $350,000 range (and 2003 was a record year for new house sales) , who's buying these house if it's not average people. The wealth in America is very well spread out. You could stop by my area and I could introduce you to some average citizens (carpenters, nurses, teachers, plumbers) and they could show you that they're doing quite well, thank you. Most families I know have at least 2 cars, sometimes 3 or 4. Families in Iraq feel lucky if someone close to them has a car.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  15. #15  
    Originally posted by yardie
    I think you are missing my point. A so called first world country as rich as the U.S should not have places that look like places in the third world. It is interesting that when the media is showcasing NYC they show Manhattan and when they are showcasing third world countries they focus on the ugly parts.
    I didn't miss your point. I just think that you have faulty reasoning. The standard of living in the US is much higher, overall, than any of the middle eastern countries and all the third world countries. To deny that is silly. We buy more goods from other countries buy from us, without exception. I think maybe you should spend some time abroad and actually look around the rest of the world. Most of our country is suburbs and rural area, not inner city slums.

    Originally posted by yardie
    As for the wealth spreading out. I recall reading somewhere a while back that like 25% of the U.S's wealth is concentrated in only 2% of the population. It seems that you live in a wealthy enclave -- far away from the poor innercity slums...
    A wealthy enclave? My neighbors are farmers, carpenters, etc. Middle and lower middle class. Mostly blue collar. I think that your percentages could possibly be right, but what does that mean? If the remaining 75% is still more than any other country in the world, per capita, that negates your questionable logic.
    People on welfare in our country live better than most people who live in the Third world. It's why we have a never ending stream of people trying to immigrate here.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  16. #16  
    I think Yardie may have a better argument if he pointed to the applachia region of the US. Rampant poverty, jobs that evaporated decades ago and food is sometimes hard to come by.

    Sure, this may also be true in some really deep inner city regions of NYC/Philly/LA/Metropolis/Gotham City, but many of those large cities have a significant social services infrastructure to help. Applachia doesn't even have a clue what social services would be needed.

    I believe President Clinton highlighted this region a few years ago during his last year in office but Congress was unable to pass anything significant to help.

    A few years ago, I had to go to a wedding in the area for a friend of my wife's. Let me tell you: I've been to third-world countries (ever driven through the poor parts of some caribbean islands?) and when I drove thorough some of these towns on our way to the church, you couldn't help but think of these third world countries.

    Fortunately, our friend qualified for scholarships and was the first in her family to attend college and is doing very well these days.
  17. #17  
    I have mixed feelings about the Appalachian analogy. On the one hand, yes there is quite a bit of 'poverty' there. On the other, I'm sure that driving through a lot of parts of the area where I live, many would get the same impression. The real question, though, would be what the people who live there think. If given the opportunity to become 'average Americans', would they leave their area and take it? Or does their way of life in relative 'poverty' offer them something they can't find elsewhere? I know what nearly all of the 'poor' people around here would say.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. #18  
    So maybe we're talking about freedom?
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  19. #19  
    Freedom from what exactly? If you are thinking freedom from poverty?

    The U.S government can more than afford to take care of its downtrodden if the it has $70 billion to spend to invade a sovereign country, and $400 billion dollar to maintain an army annually. But takign care of the downtrodden is not the American Way right? It is every (wo)man for her/himself.

    I think the priorities are all wrong.

    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    So maybe we're talking about freedom?
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  20. #20  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Freedom from what exactly? If you are thinking freedom from poverty?

    The U.S government can more than afford to take care of its downtrodden if the it has $70 billion to spend to invade a sovereign country, and $400 billion dollar to maintain an army annually. But takign care of the downtrodden is not the American Way right? It is every (wo)man for her/himself.

    I think the priorities are all wrong.

    Well, since you've been proven wrong about Iraq (and how they would view their liberation) and have been proven to dislike anything that the US does with it's money, we'll just have to take what you say with a grain of salt.

    The US is about freedom of choice. Something people like you don't understand because you're to busy nagging everybody else on what to do. Until your system of thinking actually produces positive results, which I don't believe it can, maybe you could take a more unbiased view of the facts.

    The US (as a nation and a people) give more to charitable causes, inside our own country and outside, than any other nations combined. We do put our money where our mouths are. Can you say the same about the countries you admire? I don't think so. You need to have money to give it to others in need.
    Just because we don't spend that money the way you think we should, or act the way you think we should doesn't negate the truth.

    Get off your high horse and start thinking for yourself instead of parroting that same old spew.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
Page 1 of 7 123456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions