The W
Views: 100769592
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.11.14 1301
The W - Current Events & Politics - "Gee whiz, why can't they see that we're only trying to help?"
This thread has 8 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(2080 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (16 total)
IsaacYankem
Polska kielbasa








Since: 4.3.03
From: Cybertron

Since last post: 3970 days
Last activity: 3894 days
AIM:  
#1 Posted on
From the Hartford Advocate:

I also thought of that wretched 12-year-old boy whose home was destroyed, family killed and both arms removed at the shoulder by one of those awe-inspiring Allied bombs. He (Ali Abbas is the lad's name) was flown to Kuwait for medical care and to be used as a propaganda tool by the compassionate conservatives in Washington, D.C. Ali, however, is not suitably grateful to the Americans for his liberation from Saddam. He is, in fact, angry and he wants our media to leave him alone.

In the crassest display of media whoredom I've ever encountered, CNN's Kyra Phillips interviewed Ali's doctor. As Salon's Joan Walsh noted, "Phillips seemed shocked by Ali's apparent inability to understand we were only trying to help him. 'Doctor, does he understand why this war took place? Has he talked about Operation Iraqi Freedom and the meaning? Does he understand it?'"

Like Ali, a growing number of Baghdad's inhabitants are asking Americans to leave them alone. They may be relieved to have Saddam gone but they are not pleased with the prospect of an occupation that means confiscation of their oil fields and destruction of their history and culture, especially after 11 years of U.S. sanctions have already reduced this once-great capital to Third World squalor. Nor are they pleased that the nation's greatest treasure, the Iraq National Museum (not unlike our Smithsonian) has been looted with no resistance from the "coalition of the unwilling" and that some of the looting was so site- and object-specific that it's thought to be orchestrated by profiteers. Imagine the auction fees to come! More than 170,000 priceless items have been stolen, some dating back 9,000 years to the origins of Mesopotamia.
Iraq's Oil Ministry, of course, was ringed by American troops and not a single paper clip was disturbed there.

here's the link;

http://hartfordadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:13392





"50 camera shots to the head cannot compare to one heart to heart talk with Steve Blackman expounding the virtues of Quik Lime in the use of disposing of human remains!!" - Al Snow, Raw, July 17, 2000
Promote this thread!
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2861 days
Last activity: 2704 days
AIM:  
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
Eh, same old story. At least now no one else has to suffer, whereas if we didn't bomb, this child and thousands like him could be imprisoned or tortured in front of their parents. To pretend that Iraqis on the whole are not better off without Saddam, as Howard Dean flirted with saying, is silly.



"May God bless our country and all who defend her."

George W. Bush, 3/19/03
IsaacYankem
Polska kielbasa








Since: 4.3.03
From: Cybertron

Since last post: 3970 days
Last activity: 3894 days
AIM:  
#3 Posted on
Well it sure would've been nice if we could have tried to prevent the National Museum of Iraq from being looted, it being one of the top 5 museums in the world, as far as historical and cultural artifacts go. What if the Smithsonian was looted and Fort Knox was plundered? I suspect you might be bothered..



"50 camera shots to the head cannot compare to one heart to heart talk with Steve Blackman expounding the virtues of Quik Lime in the use of disposing of human remains!!" - Al Snow, Raw, July 17, 2000
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 33 days
Last activity: 22 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
Lots of bad stuff happened during this war. We absolutely could have done some stuff better.

But I've got to agree with Pool-Boy. The alternative is definitely worse than what we've got now. This isn't to say that it excuses the stuff we screwed up, but please people, keep it in context.

It IS possible for the wrong person, doing things the wrong way, for the wrong reasons, to still end up with the right result. Well, maybe not the "right" result, but at least something better than doing nothing.



I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.


Associated Press interview with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), 04-07-2003.
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 230 days
Last activity: 31 days
#5 Posted on
So much like three lefts, three wrongs do make a right?

Creepy

-Jag



From the mouth of my uncle Jim, the Republican banker:
"I regret voting for Bush."
"We need to vote him out of office."

I am in Shock. I am in Awe.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2861 days
Last activity: 2704 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44

    Originally posted by IsaacYankem
    Well it sure would've been nice if we could have tried to prevent the National Museum of Iraq from being looted, it being one of the top 5 museums in the world, as far as historical and cultural artifacts go. What if the Smithsonian was looted and Fort Knox was plundered? I suspect you might be bothered..


Top five? So what are the rankings? You've got the Louvre, the Smithsonian, uh... Europe's gotta have a few more. Iraq has one of the top five museums in the world?

I mean, come on. Looting, gang violence... Baghdad is no worse than LA.



"May God bless our country and all who defend her."

George W. Bush, 3/19/03
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
#7 Posted on
Well, Iraq *was* Mesopotamia and, therefore, has one of the oldest cultures on the planet.



Cerebus
Scrapple








Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 1 hour
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.74

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    Well, Iraq *was* Mesopotamia and, therefore, has one of the oldest cultures on the planet.


You mean 'had' right... we did just finish bomb the fuck out of them, remember. I've been laughing about how they changed the name or this whole operation fron 'Operation Iraqi Liberation' to 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' and IsaacYankem hit it on the head with his statement "Iraq's Oil Ministry, of course, was ringed by American troops and not a single paper clip was disturbed there."; 'Operation Iraqi Liberation' stands for 'OIL'... pretty good joke there, huh, but ofcourse, that's not REALLY why we were there, NOPE, no siree bob!



Cerebus: Barbarian, Prime Minister, Pope, Perfect House Guest.

"Graft is as necessary as throwing up when you drink too much."
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1347 days
Last activity: 113 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#9 Posted on
I will gladly proclaim you right- I will yell from the rooftops that "WE WERE IN IRAQ FOR OIL!" When the US government takes complete control of the oilfields, and starts pumping, barrelling, and shipping the oil directly back to the US.

Of course, this has NEVER happened, never once since that accusasion has been uttered in our history. We have never gone to war to get oil.

Those on the left (I am not saying ALL, so dont hit me with that) who claim we are there for oil, are often the same people who call themselves environmentalists. Let me ask you this- has we NOT rushed right in and taken control of the oil fields, what would have happened? Think back 12 years- oh yeah, Saddaam would have lit them on fire. Come on, I know you know the answer to this- what kind of damage does a lit oil-well do to the environment? How about thousands of them?

So had we NOT gone in and secured the oil wells, we would have had an environmental crisis of epic proportions on our hands. And who would have been blamed for that? Bush.

Can't win for trying with some people.

(edited by Pool-Boy on 26.4.03 1339)




Still on the Shelf #5
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
#10 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I will gladly proclaim you right- I will yell from the rooftops that "WE WERE IN IRAQ FOR OIL!" When the US government takes complete control of the oilfields, and starts pumping, barrelling, and shipping the oil directly back to the US.


Is that a promise?

And while I have no problem with them gaurding the oil fields, it would've been nice for them to exert a little bit of effort towards much less important matters like the ancient historic artifacts or, just maybe, the hospitals.



Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 230 days
Last activity: 31 days
#11 Posted on
Okay, I think this has probably gone far enough. We obviously aren't in Iraq just for the oil. We also wanted to send a Goldberg like, "Who's Next?" to the rest of the world. And there were probably some other motives as well. So this whole thing about protecting the Oil Fields and not the hospitals, or the museum or whatever else in Iraq does not make George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, or anyone else involved in this evil.

It just means that they are merely incompetent.

-Jag

Which isn't all the surprising.



From the mouth of my uncle Jim, the Republican banker:
"I regret voting for Bush."
"We need to vote him out of office."

I am in Shock. I am in Awe.
Cerebus
Scrapple








Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 1 hour
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.74
    Originally posted by Jaguar
    We also wanted to send a Goldberg like, "Who's Next?" to the rest of the world.

My guess is Syria the way our government's been boosting them as the next dire world threat. Bush is already saying that he 'believes' they have chemical weapons which while it is true that they do, they've openly admitted to it, they also say they are for defensive purposes only in that they've been working on them since the 70's to counter Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal. Rumsfeld's also said that Syria's gonna have to be 'held accountable' for selling night vision goggles to Iraq.
Then again, the Bush administration is saying that they have no plans to invade Syria at this time, which just like last year when they were saying the same thing about Iraq, this means they are probably going to be invading Syria by next March. We've also got proof that Syria has Scud missles that they got from North Korea, but for some reason our government doesn't want to get into THAT mess. The way I see it, we're already having to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, why should we go and occupy a third country needlessly, especially one without oil. (Sorry, had to add that dig in...)

EDIT: That sure looked funny...

(edited by Cerebus on 27.4.03 0925)


Cerebus: Barbarian, Prime Minister, Pope, Perfect House Guest.

"Graft is as necessary as throwing up when you drink too much."
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2861 days
Last activity: 2704 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    Okay, I think this has probably gone far enough. We obviously aren't in Iraq just for the oil. We also wanted to send a Goldberg like, "Who's Next?" to the rest of the world. And there were probably some other motives as well. So this whole thing about protecting the Oil Fields and not the hospitals, or the museum or whatever else in Iraq does not make George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, or anyone else involved in this evil.

    It just means that they are merely incompetent.

    -Jag

    Which isn't all the surprising.



Brilliant, Jag, brilliant. Because we should be able, in the span of three weeks, to conquer an entire country and then immediately afterwards restore order. Anything less is sheer incompetence!



"May God bless our country and all who defend her."

George W. Bush, 3/19/03
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1347 days
Last activity: 113 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on
No kidding, damn- I mean, no one is saying that the missing artifacts, the looting or the chaos is a good thing, but dammit, this is not MTV. Things take longer than a 30 second commercial to get done. I notice the same people that are complaining that "order" is not coming fast enough are the same ones that were complaining that we did not achieve total victory one week in.

This is not a video game. We made the right choice in protecting the oilfields first. Iraq's oil is their ticket to the future. I am sorry, but in my opinion, that does outweigh ancient artifacts (relics of the PAST, many of which will likely be recovered), and whatever looting the Iraqis brought down on themselves.

If Iraq is going to succeed as a prosperous nation, it needs that oil. It does not need an ancient piece of pottery. Again, yes, all that stuff is bad. But you have to think about the GREATER good.

And on the side, I love how certain Liberals FORGET environmental issues when it would get in the way of attacking Bush :). In the lead up to war- all they could talk about was how bad the oil-fires would be. Now that we stopped it, all they can do it condemn Bush for prioritizing that!


(edited by Pool-Boy on 28.4.03 1038)



Still on the Shelf #5
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3780 days
Last activity: 3249 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on
There's an argument, at least, for putting the oil fields ahead of the museums (although I would argue that priceless cultural treasures would be a bit more important, overall, than the environmental damage)...

But over hospitals? The oil fields may be economically important to Iraq's future, but the IRAQI PEOPLE are ever-so-slightly more so, wouldn't you say?

Unless, of course, you're willing to admit that it's not about what's important to THEM, but what's important to US that really matters in this situation.



Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
-proletarian-
Chipolata








Since: 29.4.03

Since last post: 4087 days
Last activity: 4086 days
#16 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I will gladly proclaim you right- I will yell from the rooftops that "WE WERE IN IRAQ FOR OIL!" When the US government takes complete control of the oilfields, and starts pumping, barrelling, and shipping the oil directly back to the US.

    Of course, this has NEVER happened, never once since that accusasion has been uttered in our history. We have never gone to war to get oil.

    Those on the left (I am not saying ALL, so dont hit me with that) who claim we are there for oil, are often the same people who call themselves environmentalists. Let me ask you this- has we NOT rushed right in and taken control of the oil fields, what would have happened? Think back 12 years- oh yeah, Saddaam would have lit them on fire. Come on, I know you know the answer to this- what kind of damage does a lit oil-well do to the environment? How about thousands of them?

    So had we NOT gone in and secured the oil wells, we would have had an environmental crisis of epic proportions on our hands. And who would have been blamed for that? Bush.

    Can't win for trying with some people.


    (edited by Pool-Boy on 26.4.03 1339)




The U.S. has never gone to war for oil?! What kind of shit have you been smoking son, cuz I want some!

Ever heard of the first gulf war? The United States in that conflict went to war with Iraq in order to guarantee an undisturbed flow of oil from the gulf. If Iraq had been allowed to annex Kuwait, the U.S. oil supply would have been put in jeapordy.

Don't kid yourself, the states didn't go there to "liberate the Kuwaiti people" or "free them from tyrrany" or any other bullshit Orwellian-catchphrase reason. When George Bush said "this will not stand" he meant it; he was not going to allow Suddam Hussein to endanger the U.S. oil supply. Plain and simple. Once they booted his ass outta there, doing enough damage to his war machine to ensure that he couldn't try again, they left, having freed 2 million Kuwaitis from Saddam's jackboot, but seemingly unmoved by a further 20 million suffering a similar fate right next door. I guess that Iraqi's didn't deserve freedom as much as Kuwaitis did, huh?

Strangely enough, they suddenly became worthy of a better life in 2002 when George Jr. decided that in order to fight Al-Qaeda the U.S. needed to invade Iraq. Of course the oil never entered into the equation......the U.S. merely imports 80% of it's crude, and in another 10 years will be COMPLETELY dependant on foreign oil. But of course, that didn't even come into the discussion when the courageous liberator Bush first made rumbles about going into Iraq in 2002.

I could go on, but meh.....another time. And for the record, I support the war, if only because Iraqi's will be better off living under a U.S.-installed puppet regime than under that murderer Saddam. The only thing I wanted to get accross in this post was that the United States is just as full of shit as is France, or Russia, or Germany, or........Iraq. The only difference is that Washington has the requisite military might to enforce it's opinion, while the others do not. As they say, history is written by the victor........
Pages: 1Thread ahead: Shrug
Next thread: So far, so good
Previous thread: Heh, the Onion STILL rules.
(2080 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
So what the hell is up with 'Showing POWs' on TV or in the news.
The W - Current Events & Politics - "Gee whiz, why can't they see that we're only trying to help?" Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.159 seconds.