Operation Iraqi liberation - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Simple_Min · 05-07-2003, 06:53 PM

We've all heard that this war is not for oil or a war of the rich to remain rich but rather this war is to get a terrible person and to free iraq and its people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3003393.stm

Stark reporting differences on the land of free speech. Embedded reporting or in bed reporting?

The_Dude · 05-07-2003, 07:35 PM

Operation Iraqi Liberation

maximusveritas · 05-07-2003, 07:40 PM

I don't blame the soldiers. They're correct when they say they weren't there to police. The question is whether they should have been. So much planning went into paving the path to war, hardly any planning went into what we would do after Saddam and his goons were gone.

Sun Tzu · 05-07-2003, 10:26 PM

I wasn’t there so I can only state what I believe. IMO it’s possible that amount and aggressiveness of looting may have been an unexpected element. Rules of engagement took on new territory it would seem in this politically complex skirmish.

Soldiers / Marines egging on looters . . . no way, that’s of course IMO

Dragonlich · 05-07-2003, 11:25 PM

Just a question: is this an either-or thing? If the US isn't protecting some important sites, that is proof they're only interested in oil???

I think some of you guys need to take a few lessons in elementary logic, because it just doesn't work that way.

FYI, the marines weren't trained, equipped or ordered to stop looting. They could easily have stopped all the looting in Iraq, but at what price? How many dead looters are you willing to accept to maintain order? How many angry protests are you willing to accept after that?

Looting is a good way to vent anger, and in some cases the looting was justified: houses of former officials, hospitals that only treated former officials, etc. In other cases, the looting should have prevented, but by whom, and again: at what price...

SLM3 · 05-07-2003, 11:37 PM

How many looters were killed trying to storm the ministry of oil?

SLM3

Simple_Min · 05-08-2003, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
Just a question: is this an either-or thing? If the US isn't protecting some important sites, that is proof they're only interested in oil???

No ofcourse not. Why would the US be interested in oil, it's not like we consume much anyway.

We just chose to attack Iraq because we think it has WMD (the technology and capibility ofcourse was supplied by the Americans and the Soviets) and the iraqi government's record of inhumane treatment of people. It just so happened the oil was a consequence of Afgani and Iraqi invasions.

About the looting, i agree with what maximusveritas said. Also you say looting is a good thing, as if looting and anarchy is what we meant when we declared our intent to make iraq democratic.

Dragonlich · 05-08-2003, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Simple_Min
No ofcourse not. Why would the US be interested in oil, it's not like we consume much anyway.

We just chose to attack Iraq because we think it has WMD (the technology and capibility ofcourse was supplied by the Americans and the Soviets) and the iraqi government's record of inhumane treatment of people. It just so happened the oil was a consequence of Afgani and Iraqi invasions.

About the looting, i agree with what maximusveritas said. Also you say looting is a good thing, as if looting and anarchy is what we meant when we declared our intent to make iraq democratic.

1) Oil is certainly part of the equation, but it's not the main reason for this war in my opinion. You seem to imply that any attack on a country which has oil is automatically about that oil, because we all consume oil... similar logic: the US population consumes a lot of heroin, which Afghanistan produces, so that war must have been about heroin, then.

2) We *know* Iraq had WMDs, and still has the capability to build them. Most of the knowledge and materials were supplied by the Germans, French and Russians. The US mainly made the mistake of providing samples of biological agents. Under Saddam, even after full disarmament, the potential to build WMDs was a constant threat. With him gone, the WMDs should be gone too.

Drawing Afghanistan in is actually quite silly: that war was about Osama and friends; as you say, oil was merely a consequence, and not even directly...

3) I said some looting is good, <b>to vent anger</b>, especially if that looting is aimed at the thugs that have exploited the Iraqis for 30 years, taking their wealth for themselves, instead of sharing it. That looting is "good", in that it has positive effects on the Iraqi people. Besides that, the anarchy was to be expected, and is already being replaced by law and order.

Liquor Dealer · 05-08-2003, 07:36 AM

I should have enough intelligence to leave this alone but something about it really pisses me off. Did some of you even take the time to read the article the whole rant stems from? It is about looting at the Nasiriyas Technical Institute. It had absolutely positively nothing what-so-ever to do with where you are attempting to take it! Surely there is enough going on that you don't have to refabricate an article so you can add your two cents to it! Nasiriya was an area that caused more difficulty than was expected - that shopuld be obvious from the loss of life and the number of prisoners taken. The troops were there to take the geography and for nothing else. We did not have enough human assets to even protect our own troops - if you don't believe me ask Jessica Lynch and the others who were take prisoner at Nasiriya.

oane · 05-08-2003, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
if you don't believe me ask Jessica Lynch and the others who were take prisoner at Nasiriya.

Just one thing - Lynch and Co. were ambushed because of their own towering incompetence.

Liquor Dealer · 05-08-2003, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oane
Just one thing - Lynch and Co. were ambushed because of their own towering incompetence.

I don't know if it was incompetence or lack of leadership - irregardless - the point being that Nasiriya at the time was a very dangerous place that was not under our control.

smooth · 05-08-2003, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
- irregardless -

Irregardless

Quote:

by Barbara Lewis & Steven Gray

In the Usage section of all four Webster's dictionaries we consulted for the period from 1979 to 1994, the word "irregardless" (first noted circa 1912) is highlighted as an example of "nonstandard" English.

In the dictionary proper, the 1979, 1981, and 1991 volumes simply label the word nonstandard and offer a one-word definition: "REGARDLESS."

The 1994 Webster's follows suit on the label and definition but adds the following squib: "'Irregardless' originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that 'there is no such word.' There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance."

Of course "irregardless" is a word. So is "pyrzqxgl" (coined in 1919 by L. Frank Baum and familiar to tens of thousands of people--at least briefly during their childhood). But unlike "pyrzqxgl," "irregardless" suffers from supersaturation with components signifying negation: The "ir-" prefix indicates "not" and the "-less" suffix indicates "destitute of."

Thus, logically, "irregardless" falls into the same category of multinegative words as "irreligionless" and "unambitionless" - words whose components are coherent and unassailable but run at cross purposes. We are not unmindful (though by no means not unmindless) that constructions involving the negation of a negative are not unacceptable in English, but it is perhaps not inapposite to point out that the stacked negatives produce unmeaningless results only if we allow all elements in the compounded expression to participate in the anti-unmaking of its sense. Regrettably, Webster's Tenth chooses to be irregardful of the logic issue. [emphasis added]

boatin · 05-08-2003, 12:06 PM

I don't know smooth, that's a little nitpicky for the politics board. Although one of my peeves is re-iterate. Iterate means repeat damnit.

)

But I digress...

smooth · 05-08-2003, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by boatin
I don't know smooth, that's a little nitpicky for the politics board. Although one of my peeves is re-iterate. Iterate means repeat damnit. )

But I digress...

Oops, meant to put a big

!

Mea culpa, LD, the devil made me do it

.

For those who didn't trudge through the whole thing (it certainly looks longer in a post) the last paragraph is humorous.

Liquor Dealer · 05-08-2003, 01:28 PM

Irregardless of all that what was it you were tyrying to say?

05-07-2003, 06:53 PM	#1 (permalink)
Simple_Min Insane Location: The Local Group	Operation Iraqi liberation We've all heard that this war is not for oil or a war of the rich to remain rich but rather this war is to get a terrible person and to free iraq and its people. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3003393.stm Stark reporting differences on the land of free speech. Embedded reporting or in bed reporting?

05-07-2003, 07:35 PM	#2 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	Operation Iraqi Liberation __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

05-07-2003, 10:26 PM	#4 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	I wasn’t there so I can only state what I believe. IMO it’s possible that amount and aggressiveness of looting may have been an unexpected element. Rules of engagement took on new territory it would seem in this politically complex skirmish. Soldiers / Marines egging on looters . . . no way, that’s of course IMO __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

05-08-2003, 07:36 AM	#9 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	I should have enough intelligence to leave this alone but something about it really pisses me off. Did some of you even take the time to read the article the whole rant stems from? It is about looting at the Nasiriyas Technical Institute. It had absolutely positively nothing what-so-ever to do with where you are attempting to take it! Surely there is enough going on that you don't have to refabricate an article so you can add your two cents to it! Nasiriya was an area that caused more difficulty than was expected - that shopuld be obvious from the loss of life and the number of prisoners taken. The troops were there to take the geography and for nothing else. We did not have enough human assets to even protect our own troops - if you don't believe me ask Jessica Lynch and the others who were take prisoner at Nasiriya. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

05-08-2003, 01:28 PM	#15 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	Irregardless of all that what was it you were tyrying to say? __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

05-07-2003, 07:40 PM	#3 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	I don't blame the soldiers. They're correct when they say they weren't there to police. The question is whether they should have been. So much planning went into paving the path to war, hardly any planning went into what we would do after Saddam and his goons were gone.

05-07-2003, 11:25 PM	#5 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Just a question: is this an either-or thing? If the US isn't protecting some important sites, that is proof they're only interested in oil??? I think some of you guys need to take a few lessons in elementary logic, because it just doesn't work that way. FYI, the marines weren't trained, equipped or ordered to stop looting. They could easily have stopped all the looting in Iraq, but at what price? How many dead looters are you willing to accept to maintain order? How many angry protests are you willing to accept after that? Looting is a good way to vent anger, and in some cases the looting was justified: houses of former officials, hospitals that only treated former officials, etc. In other cases, the looting should have prevented, but by whom, and again: at what price...

05-07-2003, 11:37 PM	#6 (permalink)
SLM3 Insane	How many looters were killed trying to storm the ministry of oil? SLM3

05-08-2003, 12:06 PM	#13 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	I don't know smooth, that's a little nitpicky for the politics board. Although one of my peeves is re-iterate. Iterate means repeat damnit. ) But I digress...