Thousands of Iraqi artifacts found

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » May 7, 2003, 8:22 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/ ... index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Customs agents, working with military and museum experts at the National Museum in Baghdad, have recovered nearly 40,000 manuscripts and about 700 artifacts, government officials announced in Washington Wednesday, leaving perhaps only a few dozen key pieces missing.

When we find the WMDs I really have no idea what people will have left to whine about. There's always Vietnam though...always Vietnam!

Acies · Post by **Acies** » May 7, 2003, 8:46 pm

Cool, at least they are being recovered.

Now, about the WoMD, if those are found and PROVEN to be Saddam's and not some bullshit placement by our government to set up the deposed dictator, I will have no bitch.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » May 7, 2003, 9:01 pm

and you fuckers wanted the coalition to risk there lives for this shit.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 7, 2003, 10:18 pm

they can't find nuclear missile silos and underground bunkers over filled with anthrax but 1000yo pottery is dug up in a matter of days.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » May 7, 2003, 10:21 pm

Hahahaha

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 7, 2003, 10:28 pm

and you fuckers wanted the coalition to risk there lives for this shit

No, just yours

However, this doesn't change a few facts whatsoever:
- They did a shitty job of preventing looting.
- The museum shouldn't have been looted in the first place.
- Other places, like hospitals etc, were also looted which is a huge disaster.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » May 7, 2003, 10:35 pm

Kelshara wrote:
and you fuckers wanted the coalition to risk there lives for this shit
No, just yours

However, this doesn't change a few facts whatsoever:
- They did a shitty job of preventing looting.
- The museum shouldn't have been looted in the first place.
- Other places, like hospitals etc, were also looted which is a huge disaster.

only your third fact is actually a fact, lol

it's not considered a shitty job of preventing looting if no one considered it there job to prevent it.

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » May 7, 2003, 10:39 pm

Spangaloid_PE wrote:
Kelshara wrote: However, this doesn't change a few facts whatsoever:
- They did a shitty job of preventing looting.
- The museum shouldn't have been looted in the first place.
- Other places, like hospitals etc, were also looted which is a huge disaster.
only your third fact is actually a fact, lol

Yes, the museum should have been looted. Of course.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » May 7, 2003, 10:41 pm

Kelshara wrote: - The museum shouldn't have been looted in the first place.

this is not a fact.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 7, 2003, 11:11 pm

A serious question:

How can you lift a spoon to your mouth every day to feed yourself? You're too fucking stupid to have any kind of sensory or motor skills.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » May 7, 2003, 11:13 pm

Vetiria wrote:A serious question:

How can you lift a spoon to your mouth every day to feed yourself? You're too fucking stupid to have any kind of sensory or motor skills.

what would you like me to rephrase so that you can understand it?

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 7, 2003, 11:15 pm

I understood what you wrote perfectly. I understand you're a complete fucking idiot with a brain the size of a chimp. Most of us came to that conclusion months ago. You should just stop fighting it.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » May 7, 2003, 11:25 pm

Vetiria wrote:I understood what you wrote perfectly. I understand you're a complete fucking idiot with a brain the size of a chimp. Most of us came to that conclusion months ago. You should just stop fighting it.

and you should lick my balls.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » May 8, 2003, 12:12 am

Vetiria wrote:I understood what you wrote perfectly. I understand you're a complete fucking idiot with a brain the size of a chimp. Most of us came to that conclusion months ago. You should just stop fighting it.

Hey now! Watch your fucking mouth! Chimps are very intelligent creatures and I will not have you disrespect their species by comparing them to Spangaloid. Geez fucking h8er...

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » May 8, 2003, 1:39 am

and you should lick my balls.

L33t comeback.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 8, 2003, 9:55 am

Lalanae wrote:
Vetiria wrote:I understood what you wrote perfectly. I understand you're a complete fucking idiot with a brain the size of a chimp. Most of us came to that conclusion months ago. You should just stop fighting it.
Hey now! Watch your fucking mouth! Chimps are very intelligent creatures and I will not have you disrespect their species by comparing them to Spangaloid. Geez fucking h8er...

I was thinking about that when I turned my computer off. I hereby apologize to chimps world-wide.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » May 8, 2003, 10:09 am

Usually don't find your comebacks funny Spang...but the lick my balls one was funnay this morning, for some reason...

Anyhoo, I'm relieved that they are finding the looted items...atleast what would appear to be the majority. I'm sorry you think that once everything is proven that I will "find something else to whine about." All I ever asked was for proof. And seriously...so far...lies, truth stretching, and illusions are all I have recieved from this Bush Regime. Once they find a nuclear warhead (read: not nuclear waste, not spent plutonium that "could" be used) and chemical weapons (read: factories and storehouses with the material actually there)...then yes, I'm sure you will say I jumped the bandwagon...but to me it will just be an, "OK...I'm sorry I doubted Dubya the Conquerer." But until that day comes, I will continue my generations natural behavior of distrust for bullshit politics. Thank you, goodnight.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » May 8, 2003, 10:27 am

Oh come on they wont find any nukes. If they find WoMD I will be the first to say I was wrong about it. You can't be right 100% of the time with your opinions. You don't have to be "sorry" because you dont share an opinion.

Trek · Post by **Trek** » May 8, 2003, 11:04 am

Of course we wont find any WoMD, they where all shipped to Syria! Lets get over there before they are moved again.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 8, 2003, 11:58 am

They won't find any nuclear weapons because Dubya told them to look for Nuke-you-ler wepaons.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 8, 2003, 12:13 pm

it's not considered a shitty job of preventing looting if no one considered it there job to prevent it.

Geneva convention, smartass. You know the one you keep ranting about other people breaking?

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » May 8, 2003, 2:41 pm

Kelshara wrote:- They did a shitty job of preventing looting.
- The museum shouldn't have been looted in the first place.

This is a perfect example of when the true motives in your argument shine through.

You could careless about the Museum artifacts themselves- all you care about is that the US failed at something and that it gives you a chance to bash their efforts.

You could careless if Iraqi's are killed, tortured, or raped by other Iraqi's- but when the US intervenes, and a relatively small amount of innocents are killed in an effort to put a stop to it all, you make a big fuss about it.

You could careless if other muslim countries are being brutally oppressed- but when Israel does it you're quick to call them on it. If you want free elections in Palestine, why not in the rest of the Arab world?

I'm not trying to justify any of these things, I just wanted to point out the transparency in your arguments. It's clear to see that your motivations for arguing these issues aren't for things such as justice or human rights but for US-hating, Bush bashing, or whatever other purposes. I've been taking a long hard look at OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of my views to see how many are truly based on reason and which ones are part of me blindly wanting to justify everything my country does, and so should you.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 8, 2003, 2:59 pm

Wow Brotha... I'm speechless... totally speechless...

well almost speechless.

You could careless if Iraqi's are killed, tortured, or raped by other Iraqi's- but when the US intervenes, and a relatively small amount of innocents are killed in an effort to put a stop to it all, you make a big fuss about it.

So would another country be justified flying planes into American buildings because Americans are torturing, raping and killing other Americans?

Maybe these radical muslim terrorists feel that thier actions might help the infidels see the corruption in their leadership and stop the pointless slaughter of innocents.

Your justifications and defnse of American actions in Iraq are really starting to wear thin. It's way too easy to take your logic and methodologies and apply them to radical groups and how they attempt justify their actions.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » May 8, 2003, 3:26 pm

miir wrote:So would another country be justified flying planes into American buildings because Americans are torturing, raping and killing other Americans?

How you got that out of what I said I have absolutely no idea. *Try* to get out of your little shell of narrow mindedness and look at the whole picture objectively, and quit trying to make analogies between everything we do and terrorists do.

miir wrote:Your justifications and defnse of American actions in Iraq are really starting to wear thin.

This is an honest question that I'd like you to answer: Do you think we shouldn't have intervened in Iraq? If so, why not? That's not a question of whether you think there are WMDs, terrorist connections, or whether America is hypocritical or not in it's foreign policy. Take the higher route and please answer me that question.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 8, 2003, 3:43 pm

This is an honest question that I'd like you to answer: Do you think we shouldn't have intervened in Iraq? If so, why not? That's not a question of whether you think there are WMDs, terrorist connections, or whether America is hypocritical or not in it's foreign policy. Take the higher route and please answer me that question.

Why should I even bother?
You know my stance on the whole situation.

The whole reasoning behind the invasion of Iraq reeks.

They started off by stating that Iraq was in gross violation of the agreements signed after the first guld war. The UN didn't feel that was justification enough for military action.

THEN they got on to the accusations of weapons of mass distruction. The weapons inspectors had not found anything but minor violations since the gulf war and the UN didn't think it was necessary to take military action to disarm Iraq of these alleged weapons of mass distruction.

THEN they started on the accusations of ties to terrorist organisations including al Qaeda. Colin Powell even went so far as the say the US had irrefutable 'proof' that Saddam has ties with bin Laden. No proff was ever provided and no verifiable ties to international terrorism were ever produced.

THEN they got on the kick of saying that Iraq needed a regieme change.

This angle was wildly popular with the American people and the US govenrment and media did their best wash job on Saddam, portraying him as more evil than Hitler.... there was overwhelming homeland support for this angle so Bush put his war machine in high gear and invaded Iraq. It was a ratings smash! The people jumped right onto the Operation Iraqi Freedom bandwagon.

A few thousand Iraqis dead, a few hundred american dead.... no huge loss.

A few million Iraqis without electricity and running water but they have their american saviours coming in to rebuild their infrastructure and their economy... while warring factions (sunni, kurd, shiite) are killing each other off in the fight for power of one of the richest countries in the middle east.

Now tell me, how are the Iraqi people better off now that they are liberated?
Was it worth spending billions of dollars to liberate these people?

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » May 8, 2003, 4:56 pm

miir wrote:Now tell me, how are the Iraqi people better off now that they are liberated?
Was it worth spending billions of dollars to liberate these people?

First off, just weeks after the conflict has ended it's very impractical to suddenly expect everything to be better.

Secondly, an Iraqi now has freedom. There are Iraqi's protesting the US occupation, there are Iraqi's praising us, Iraqi's ridiculing Saddam, and Iraqi's celebrating his birthday. This freedom is something that has already been granted in a short amount of time. IMO, freedom is something that you cannot put a price tag on. The billions we spent was well worth it.

Thirdly, many of the things you use as evidence were that way or worse off under Saddam's rule and are now improving because of the US involvment. I'll quote Bush from a speech he made to Iraqi exiles in Michigan:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 428-3.html

The work of building a new Iraq will take time. That nation is recovering not just from weeks of conflict, but from decades of totalitarian rule.

In a nation where the dictator treated himself to palaces with gold faucets and grand fountains, four out of ten citizens did not even have clean water to drink. While a former regime exported milk, and dates, and corn, and grain for its own profit, more than half a million Iraqi children were malnourished. As Saddam Hussein let more than $200 million worth of medicine and medical supplies sit in warehouses, one in eight Iraqi children were dying before the age of five. And while the dictator spent billions on weapons, including gold-covered AK-47s, nearly a quarter of Iraqi children were born underweight. Saddam Hussein's regime impoverished the Iraqi people in every way.

Today, Iraq has only about half as many hospitals as it had in 1990. Seventy percent of its schools are run-down and over-crowded. A quarter of the Iraqi children are not in a school at all. Under Saddam's regime, the Iraqi people did not have a power system they could depend on. These problems plagued Iraq long before the recent conflict. We're helping the Iraqi people to address these challenges, and we will stand with them as they defeat the dictator's legacy. (Applause.)

Right now, engineers are on the ground working with Iraqi experts to restore power, and fix broken water pipes in Baghdad and other cities. We're working with the International Red Cross, the Red Crescent Societies, the International Medical Corps and other aid agencies to help Iraqi hospitals get safe water and medical supplies and reliable electricity. Our coalition is cooperating with the United Nations to help restart the ration distribution system that provides food at thousands of sites in Iraq. And coalition medical facilities have treated Iraqis from everything from fractures and burns to symptoms of stroke.

One Iraqi man who was given medical help with his wife and sister aboard the U.S. Navy ship Comfort, said: They treat us like family. There are babies in Iraq who are not cared for by their mothers as well as the nurses have cared for us.

Already, we are seeing important progress in Iraq. It wasn't all that long ago that the statue fell, and now we're seeing progress. (Applause.)

Rail lines are reopening, and fire stations are responding to calls. Oil -- Iraqi oil, owned by the Iraqi people -- is flowing again to fuel Iraq's power plants. In Hillah, more than 80 percent of the city has now running water. City residents can buy meats and grains and fruits and vegetables at local shops. The mayor's office, the city council have been reestablished.

In Basra, where more than half of the water treatment facilities were not working before the conflict -- more than half weren't functioning -- water supplies are now reaching 90 percent of the city. The opulent presidential palace in Basra will now serve a new and noble purpose. We've established a water purification unit there, to make hundreds of thousands of liters of clean water available to the residents of the city of Basra. (Applause.)

Day by day, hour by hour, life in Iraq is getting better for the citizens. (Applause.) Yet, much work remains to be done. I have directed Jay Garner and his team to help Iraq achieve specific long-term goals. And they're doing a superb job. Congress recently allocated $2.5 -- nearly $2.5 billion for Iraq's relief and reconstruction. With that money, we are renewing Iraq with the help of experts from inside our government, from private industry, from the international community and, most importantly, from within Iraq. (Applause.)

We are dispatching teams across Iraq to assess the critical needs of the Iraqi people. We're clearing land mines. We're working with Iraqis to recover artifacts, to find the hoodlums who ravished the National Museum of Antiquities in Baghdad. (Applause.) Like many of you here, we deplore the actions of the citizens who ravished that museum. And we will work with the Iraqi citizens to find out who they were and to bring them to justice. (Applause.)

We're working toward an Iraq where, for the first time ever, electrical power is reliable and widely available. One of our goals is to make sure everybody in Iraq has electricity. Already, 17 major power plants in Iraq are functioning. Our engineers are meeting with Iraqi engineers. We're visiting power plants throughout the country, and determining which ones need repair, which ones need to be modernized, and which ones are obsolete, power plant by power plant. More Iraqis are getting the electricity they need.

We're working to make Iraq's drinking water clean and dependable. American and Iraqi water sanitation engineers are inspecting treatment plants across the country to make sure they have enough purification chemicals and power to produce safe water.

We're working to give every Iraqi access to immunizations and emergency treatment, and to give sick children and pregnant women the health care they need. Iraqi doctors and nurses and other medical personnel are now going back to work. Throughout the country, medical specialists from many countries are identifying the needs of Iraqis hospitals, for everything from equipment and repairs to water, to medicines.

We're working to improve Iraqi schools by funding a back to school campaign that will help train and recruit Iraqi teachers, provide supplies and equipment, and bring children across Iraq back into clean and safe schools. (Applause.)

And as we do that, we will make sure that the schools are no longer used as military arsenals and bunkers, and that teachers promote reading, rather than regime propaganda. (Applause.) And because Iraq is now free, economic sanctions are pointless. (Applause.) It is time for the United Nations to lift the sanctions so the Iraqis could use some resources to build their own prosperity. (Applause.)

miir · Post by **miir** » May 8, 2003, 5:13 pm

I'm glad you quoted that totally unbaised and completely accurate speech by Mr Bush about the conditions in Iraq. It really opened my eyes to how wonderful the situation in Iraq will be now that they have been liberated by the americans.

I'm happy that he mentioned one Iraqi citizen that was happy for the medical assistance he received... I'm sure the millions of Iraqis without electricity and running water are comforted by the fact that he was treated well by the americans.

And I'm comforted in the fact that the water treatments plants were infact not working before the invasion and that the missles and cluster bombs the americans dropped on them had nothing to do with it.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » May 8, 2003, 5:21 pm

Yeah, since we know our main targets were water treatment plants. Those are truly essential to winning a military victory!

You got owned by that speech miir. You're completely speaking out of your ass now. You were wrong- face that fact and STFU or keep whining like a little boy who just dropped his fudge sickle on the ground. Either way, I win and you lose.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 8, 2003, 5:22 pm

haha, you're directly quoting political propaganda as a source to validate your opinion.

hoo boy.

that's pretty sad.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » May 8, 2003, 5:31 pm

Seriously, quoting a speech by a politician is like posting a link from geocities...in other words, people are laughing because it is a joke, not anything that is considered valid back up.

I think you should find an article in say, the NY Times, that says that exact same message as a factual report, not a speech to appease the 'mob'.

Oh, and pls don't label me anti-american like you have others...just label me anti-bullshit-president's-regime. Maybe Mexico will liberate Washington D.C. from our overbearing ruling Bush Party Regime....then I'll have more freedom to say what I want, and not be labled anti-US.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 8, 2003, 5:32 pm

This is a perfect example of when the true motives in your argument shine through.

My motives are clear, have been clear and will remain clear. If you bothered taking a break from staring at the picture of Bush and Rumsfeld long enough to read the posts you would know what they are.

You could careless about the Museum artifacts themselves- all you care about is that the US failed at something and that it gives you a chance to bash their efforts.

Actually I care about the artifacts, and I am very glad that (most) of them are found. However, that doesn't change the fact that US was completely unprepared for the situation and handled it horribly. If a guy shoots a woman right infront of the cop and the cop is too busy eating a doughnut to react fast enough, arresting the guy doesn't make up for it.

You could careless if Iraqi's are killed, tortured, or raped by other Iraqi's- but when the US intervenes, and a relatively small amount of innocents are killed in an effort to put a stop to it all, you make a big fuss about it.

Care? Yes, I also care about the millions of other people who are tortured and raped all over the world, yet get no attention whatsoever because they are not Bush' pet badguy. I also care enough about the world overall to believe that the way it was handled was wrong.

You could careless if other muslim countries are being brutally oppressed- but when Israel does it you're quick to call them on it. If you want free elections in Palestine, why not in the rest of the Arab world?

You are ignorant if you don't see that Palestine is the key to the entire middle east. Once that is settled thoroughly there will be way less reason for hatred East vs West. If you want to help people you have to prove yourself to them first, and Palestine is the way to do it.

I've been taking a long hard look at OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of my views to see how many are truly based on reason and which ones are part of me blindly wanting to justify everything my country does, and so should you.

You should look again, and this time take off your blindfold.

*Try* to get out of your little shell of narrow mindedness and look at the whole picture objectively, and quit trying to make analogies between everything we do and terrorists do.

There are quite a few analogies between them. However, it can also easily be argued that you are the narrowminded person who doesn't see the whole picture objectively, but rather see what Bush wants you to see. Just like the good little American you are.

Do you think we shouldn't have intervened in Iraq? If so, why not?

Both Miir, myself and others have answered those questions about a gazillion times, yet you haven't bothered to read the answers.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » May 8, 2003, 5:47 pm

Brotha,
Between the absence of evidence of WoMD, which was if you rememeber, Bush's original reason that held any semiblance of credibility for wanting Saddam out (well, not original, he wanted him out so the oil company his family has large stock in can be granted an exclusive uncontested contract to oil rights in Iraq), then the piss poor job we did protecting artifacts that belong to the world (not just Iraq), yeah, I think you would need to be an idiot to support Bush now.
I have never liked Presidents who used war to facilitate personal gain. Linden B. Johnson comes to mind as a primary example of the man who used the conflict in Vietnam to provide his wallet with a lot of padding.

It is obvious, between Bush publicly switching from "He shot at mah Daddy!!1" to "Osama and Saddam are bed buddies!" to "WoMD must be purged from this threat" and finally "We do this wholy to liberate Iraq", I would hope that somewhere in that head of yours you can understand he manipulated the government and abused his power of office.

Frankly, Bush makes me ashamed to be an American, and I hope he dies of some auspicious virus which causes his hypothalimus (sp?) gland to work overtime, thus making him melt into a steaming pile a bullshit.

Kaelye · Post by **Kaelye** » May 8, 2003, 5:48 pm

I think liberating Iraq was a good thing, my concern is with the soldiers and civilians first with museum artifacts much farther down the priority list.

The comment about the cop shooting someone while eatting a donut was a really poor analogy. Soldiers, at that time, were not there in a policing role, just as police officers here are not in an enemy seek and destroy role. Heavy combat was still going on, you don't stop people running off with office chairs desks and 3 thousand year old broken pots when there is a high probability that there is a fanatic pointing an assult rifle or RPG at you and your fellow soldiers.

I think that what President Bush did a great job and is still doing a great job. Heavy fighting in Iraq is over. What's done is done. I and a majority of Americans do feel safer after removing Saddam from power.

Kaelye · Post by **Kaelye** » May 8, 2003, 5:52 pm

Acies wrote:Frankly, Bush makes me ashamed to be an American, and I hope he dies of some auspicious virus which causes his hypothalimus (sp?) gland to work overtime, thus making him melt into a steaming pile a bullshit.

France is accepting immigrants. Move there if you are so ashamed.

FYI, and independent reporter searching through Iraqi documents translated and found that Iraq and Al'Queda were in contact with each other as well as a formal invitation from Saddam to use Iraq has an Al'Queda base. And that's an independent reporter, not a CIA agent or an American serviceman.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » May 8, 2003, 6:04 pm

Kelshara wrote:
it's not considered a shitty job of preventing looting if no one considered it there job to prevent it.
Geneva convention, smartass. You know the one you keep ranting about other people breaking?

quote me on it

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » May 8, 2003, 6:05 pm

Kelshara wrote:If a guy shoots a woman right infront of the cop and the cop is too busy eating a doughnut to react fast enough, arresting the guy doesn't make up for it.

Not a good analogy at all. So now you're saying the real tragedy was a building being looted and had abolustely nothing to do with the artifacts? To make your analogy workable it would go something like this (assuming the soldiers/our leaders sat around and willingly let it happen):

A guy shoots a woman right infront of the cop and cop is too busy eating a doughnut to react fast enough, but then cop is able to bring the woman back to life/magically undo the wound. It would suck that it happened in the first place but the main damage (the woman getting shot) would have been repaired. Instead, you choose to focus your attention on the cop who was eating the doughnut.

Care? Yes, I also care about the millions of other people who are tortured and raped all over the world, yet get no attention whatsoever because they are not Bush' pet badguy.

This is what I'm talking about. I keep trying to make you all understand what I'm saying, but I really suck at explaining myself or something. If you really did care about people being tortured/raped you would be glad we were doing this in Iraq, even though in the past we have made hypocrital deicions and Maybe another analogy would help (this isn't necessarily how I think but it might be something you can relate to better b/c it agrees with your views on this subject):

There are two psychotic killers. One has killed one thousand people, the other only ten. The police go after the guy who has killed ten, because he keeps killing rich people and brings attention to himself. Now, if you hated innocents being killed you would be ALL for them going after the lesser murderer, while at the same time criticizing them for not going after the other. You are only criticizing, while giving no credit. Get the picture?

Kelshara wrote:You are ignorant if you don't see that Palestine is the key to the entire middle east. Once that is settled thoroughly there will be way less reason for hatred East vs West. If you want to help people you have to prove yourself to them first, and Palestine is the way to do it.

I agree completely (with all but the ignorant part

), however, if you're going to call out Israel why not other middle eastern nations? Do you hold Israel to a higher standard? If so, can you acknowledge that?

Kelshara wrote:There are quite a few analogies between them. However, it can also easily be argued that you are the narrowminded person who doesn't see the whole picture objectively, but rather see what Bush wants you to see. Just like the good little American you are.

Please show me some REALISTIC analogies. I don't think of myself as being as close minded as you seem to think I am, if you can make some reasonable parallels between the two I'll be the first to recognize them.

Acies wrote:Between the absence of evidence of WoMD

Acies, I'm telling ya man, saying this is way premature. I guarantee you that we will either find hard evidence that Iraq was building WMDs through all this time or we will find stores of them.

Acies wrote:Frankly, Bush makes me ashamed to be an American

He makes me proud to be an American. To me, living in a place where we uphold and fight for our ideals is a paradise compared to a place like France.

Allow me to rephrase my question. It wasn't about "was the case for war there" or "was Iraq a threat." It's simply this: A mass murdering, oppresive dictator in Iraq has been removed. The conditions for his people are improving and they've been given freedoms they would have been killed for for even discussing. Are you glad that we took this action, based soley on those things?

EDIT: To clarify something I said in an earlier post. I wasn't at all implying that certain conditions weren't worsened during the conflict, I was only saying that people exaggerate the effects inflicted upon them by us during the conflict and aren't willing to acknowledge the improvements for them that have already been made, and that we're working on making.

Kaelye · Post by **Kaelye** » May 8, 2003, 6:09 pm

The WMD issue is still in deliberation. I'll make my final judgement then but as of right now there has been WMD in Iraq, and I believe there will be WMD found in Iraq (Saddam's WMD).

Saddam just didn't seem like the kind of prankster who would go through a lot of trouble keeping UN Inspectors out of his country for years at a time when he doesn't actually have any WMD. Let's not forget that he has had years to bury that nasty stuff in the desert and has used it on a few occassions. To my knowledge that stuff just doesn't evaporate so it's somewhere in Iraq.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 8, 2003, 7:24 pm

Yeah, since we know our main targets were water treatment plants. Those are truly essential to winning a military victory!

Please stop owning yourself and save some of the fun for us.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » May 8, 2003, 7:52 pm

Brotha wrote:Allow me to rephrase my question. It wasn't about "was the case for war there" or "was Iraq a threat." It's simply this: A mass murdering, oppresive dictator in Iraq has been removed. The conditions for his people are improving and they've been given freedoms they would have been killed for for even discussing. Are you glad that we took this action, based soley on those things?

In actuallity bro, while I do feel vehemenent (sp Lali?) towards Bush Jr, I am glad that we can debate without the flames for a second. This is a valid question, one I am happy to answer.
Yes, Saddam was a tyrrant and a dictator. Yes, I am "Glad" he was removed.
However in my mind that is not the issue.
What I am upset about is the way we approched removing him. We broke our own policy of "Innocent until proven guilty", and we contend ourselves with the fact that this hypocracy might be allowable for any reason.
It is a poor example to set for others inside and out of our nation. Frankly, I feel that if Bush wants America to police the world these "suspicion before proof" attacks should be punished in full before we become not more than dictators and criminals ourselves.

Am I glad Saddam is out of power? Yes.
Am I glad about our own hypocracy in it? No.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 8, 2003, 10:12 pm

I and a majority of Americans do feel safer after removing Saddam from power.

Then you and a majority of Americans are ignorant and naive. Thankfully, the people I surround myself with aren't as blind to Bush's BS.

quote me on it

With "you" I meant USA, US Administration etc. Bush and Rumsfeld have several times bitched at other countries for breaking the Geneva convention.

A guy shoots a woman right infront of the cop and cop is too busy eating a doughnut to react fast enough, but then cop is able to bring the woman back to life/magically undo the wound.

The hospitals were looted. Patients were thrown out of their beds so they could steal the beds. Medications were stolen. People have died by the douzens because doctors decided to stay home and protect their homes from looters.

My analogy sucked, I admit it. But yours was no better.

You are only criticizing, while giving no credit. Get the picture?

As I have said several times before, I am not even 100% against the use of force. I am strongly against how it was handled leading up to it, and I believe that if Bush had handled it differently he would have had a LOT more world support. And yes, imho that would have been a hell of a lot better.

So I am criticizing the timing and how it was handled.

I agree completely (with all but the ignorant part ), however, if you're going to call out Israel why not other middle eastern nations? Do you hold Israel to a higher standard? If so, can you acknowledge that?

I disagree with how both sides have handled it, but the problem is that Israel has had USA's support (and has survived thanks to USA) and that means that Israel IS indeed in a different position. Israel has the military power and the economical backing that no other country in the region has. With great power comes great responsibility.

He makes me proud to be an American. To me, living in a place where we uphold and fight for our ideals is a paradise compared to a place like France.

Is a country worth less for standing up for what they feel is right, if it does not agree with what you think is right? My country, Norway, strongly argued for a different approach leading up to the use of force. Due to the way it was handled, Norway refused to back the military action. Personally I am proud that they stood for what they believed in, even though it went against what the country I currently live in believe.

I worry about the presedence set of use of pre-emptive strikes. That will make coutnries, both friends and foes, view USA in a different light. USA will find some doors in the area of "peaceful help" in some countries now closed. Not my words, read an article where several experts on African/Middle Eastern areas debated it. Can't for the life of me remember the names of them but I believe they were from both Scandinavian and English/American/French universities. I'll see if I can dig it up from my web history since it was a very interesting read.

I do dislike the discarding of "innocent until proven guilty" not just for Iraq/Saddam, but also in other areas. The Cuba prisoners disturb me, as do the use of the clause for holding "material witnesses" here in the US. I read too much about the Patriot Acts I and II plus the Homeland Security Act not to worry about them.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » May 8, 2003, 10:17 pm

Kelshara wrote:
quote me on it
With "you" I meant USA, US Administration etc.

ofcourse

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » May 8, 2003, 10:37 pm

Kelshara wrote:Then you and a majority of Americans are ignorant and naive.

Terrorist chatter has actually decreased since we invaded Iraq (I posted a link to that NY times article on some other thread, if you wanna see it go ahead and dig it up). I believe Saddam Hussein had dealings with Al Qaeda and I know that we captured some Al Qaeda members/affiliates in Iraq and were able to rid the world of more than one terrorist training camp in Iraq. Saddam Hussein had the largest and most powerful army in the Arab world, had been building chem/bio weapons, had shown his willingness to use them, and wanted to get his hands on the deadliest of weapons in the world- a nuclear bomb. Add to that his hatred of the US and yeah...I feel a little safer now than I did a month ago. Also, ask a Jew in Israel if he feels safer knowing a major sponsor of Hammas is gone.

Kelshara wrote:The hospitals were looted. Patients were thrown out of their beds so they could steal the beds. Medications were stolen. People have died by the douzens because doctors decided to stay home and protect their homes from looters.

My analogy sucked, I admit it. But yours was no better.

Weren't we talking about the museum being looted? In that regard I'm not sure how that analogy was flawed, although I'm open to suggestions.

Kelshara wrote:So I am criticizing the timing and how it was handled.

So you're for our intervention in Iraq, but against the way it was handled? Not trying to put words in your mouth but it sounds like that's the case.

Really nice post Kelshara, I share some of your concerns. Debating US foreign policy and debating the rightness of removing Saddam Hussein are two very different things- which is something I've been trying to say all along but you all were just not picking up on it or I was doing a really shitty job of explaining myself.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 8, 2003, 10:59 pm

Weren't we talking about the museum being looted? In that regard I'm not sure how that analogy was flawed, although I'm open to suggestions.

In my original post about looting (Titled "Looting must stop" or something similar.. was a thread I started) I talked about looting in general. The museum, the national library that was looted and put on fire, the hospitals etc were all mentioned in the post. Other people started attacking the museum part and pretty much ignored the rest. From an immediate humanitarian standpoint the hospitals etc are the worse cases, it is something the Iraqi people feel the immediate impact from. However, as a lover of history and art (I still remember walking around on Knossos on Crete at the age of 7 or so being totally awed), in the long run the artifacts would have been a huge loss for humanity.

So you're for our intervention in Iraq, but against the way it was handled? Not trying to put words in your mouth but it sounds like that's the case.

In theory yes. Hussein was a very bad person and he was not exactly a good leader. But I do strongly believe that if you are to go into a foreign country and change the regime, you not only need good hard proof.. you also need general world support. Especially when you touch a highly sensitive and volatile area like the middle east. I am iffy about the proof, and even more iffy about the world support part. The Bush Administration's rougshood way may come back and bite them in the ass.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » May 8, 2003, 11:22 pm

I'm sure the millions of Iraqis without electricity and running water are comforted by the fact that he was treated well by the americans.

At least be honest and mention the millions of Iraqis who have had to live with those same conditions for years under Husseins rule.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » May 9, 2003, 10:49 am

Brotha wrote:Saddam Hussein had the largest and most powerful army in the Arab world, had been building chem/bio weapons, had shown his willingness to use them, and wanted to get his hands on the deadliest of weapons in the world- a nuclear bomb.

Please post proof of him trying to buy a nuclear bomb, thanks! Not that I doubt you too much...but all I remember hearing was that the "Proof" Collin presented was deamed as FORGED documents about Saddam's dealings for nuclear weapons. While I don't wholy doubt he might have pursued them...its just not right to say something as fact, if it has not been proven. But hey...if there is proof and I missed it, pls post it

*edit: Engrish class fun was

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 9, 2003, 10:55 am

"In theory yes. Hussein was a very bad person and he was not exactly a good leader."

Not exactly a good leader? My God im sure you thought Stalan was a father figure.

"But I do strongly believe that if you are to go into a foreign country and change the regime, you not only need good hard proof.. you also need general world support. Especially when you touch a highly sensitive and volatile area like the middle east."

I guess you dont

"I am iffy about the proof, and even more iffy about the world support part. The Bush Administration's rougshood way may come back and bite them in the ass."

I highly doubt it.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 9, 2003, 10:56 am

Kluden, if anyone in the Bush administration makes an accusation against Iraq or Saddam Hussein, they are not required to prove it. The Bush administration is 100% truthful and accurate in their accusations against Iraq and any attempt to discredit thier accusations will be labeled as anti-american.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » May 9, 2003, 11:34 am

I am republican, I was not for invading Iraq without proof of WoMD being there, I don't think we'll find WoMD there, but I support my troops. I've never been called anti-American.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » May 9, 2003, 12:43 pm

I am republican, I was not for invading Iraq without proof of WoMD being there, I don't think we'll find WoMD there, but I support my troops. I've never been called anti-American

I am not republican, I was not for invading Iraq without proof of WoMD being there, I don't think we'll find WoMD there, but I support my troops. I've been called anti-American.

Only 2 words difference!

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » May 9, 2003, 1:34 pm

Maybe it's because I'm bigger than you.