Visit the Cellar!

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: bright folks talking about everything. The Cellar is the original coffeeshop with no coffee and no shop. Founded in 1990, The Cellar is one of the oldest communities on the net. Join us at the table if you like!

 
What's IotD?

The interesting, amazing, or mind-boggling images of our days.

IotD Stuff

ARCHIVES - over 13 years of IotD!
About IotD
RSS2
XML

Permalink Latest Image

July 28th, 2017: Hi(gh) Honey

Recent Images

July 27th, 2017: Wedding
July 26th, 2017: Spillway
July 25th, 2017, Steam Clock
July 24th, 2017: Horse Door
July 23rd, 2017: Columbia
July 20th, 2017: Lotsa Bikes
July 18th, 2017: Jap Eatery (may not be safe)

The CELLAR Tip Mug
Some folks who have noticed IotD

Neatorama
Worth1000
Mental Floss
Boing Boing
Switched
W3streams
GruntDoc's Blog
No Quarters
Making Light
darrenbarefoot.com
GromBlog
b3ta
Church of the Whale Penis
UniqueDaily.com
Sailor Coruscant
Projectionist

Link to us and we will try to find you after many months!

Common image haunts

Astro Pic of the Day
Earth Sci Pic of the Day
We Make Money Not Art
Spluch
ochevidec.net
Strange New Products
Geisha Asobi Blog
Cute animals blog (in Russian)
20minutos.es
Yahoo Most Emailed

Please avoid copyrighted images (or get permission) when posting!

Advertising

Philadelphia Pawn Shop
The best real estate agent in Montgomery County
The best T.38 Fax provider
Epps Beverages and Beer, Limerick, PA
Sal's Pizza, Elkins Park
Burholme Auto Body, Philadelphia
Coles Tobacco, Pottstown
ERM Auto Service, Glenside
Glenside Collision
Moorehead Catering, Trappe
Salon 153, Bala
Dominicks Auto Body, Phoenixville

   Undertoad  Sunday Mar 30 12:19 PM

3/30/2003: US soldier carries injured Iraqi soldier



MSNBC Week in Pics had this one.

Sometimes you look at a photograph and it brings up more questions than answers. The caption answers some of those questions, but then makes you ask a hundred more questions.

"U.S. Marine Lance Cpl. Marcco Ware of Los Angeles carries an Iraqi soldier who was shot three times during an attempted ambush of the 3rd Battalion, Fifth Regiment convoy on March 25, in central Iraq. One Marine was killed and one injured during the attack, which left about 40 Iraqi soldiers dead and 30 others in prison compounds."

It sure sounds like, in a day of severe inhumanity, this was a moment of humanity. How can someone go from trying to kill you, to trying to save you, in a matter of minutes? What's going through both their heads right now? Does the Marine think of it as an act of kindness, or just a part of his job? What will they both think if they look back on this moment in a few years?



Elspode  Sunday Mar 30 12:26 PM

One thing is for certain, here...the Iraqi who has been wounded, captured and subsequently carried on the back of the American Imperialist Dog (tm) has not yet been strapped to a bed frame and electrocuted nor yet had a gun placed to his forehead and the trigger pulled.



Nothing But Net  Sunday Mar 30 12:28 PM

That is gonna hurt tomorrow.

And they're executing our guys.



xoxoxoBruce  Sunday Mar 30 12:47 PM

I heard our frontline troops were short of food. Is he taking him to the cook? Naw, he's the typical soft hearted american schmuck taking pity on everyone. If the tables were turned, I'd bet he'd be dragged by the heels or just shot. Also, if he had a weapon on his belt near where the prisoners hand is he'd be in trouble.



Nothing But Net  Sunday Mar 30 01:16 PM

Who pissed in your popcorn?

Don't call our soldiers schmucks.



xoxoxoBruce  Sunday Mar 30 02:16 PM

Who pissed on my popcorn? The Iraqis, the Somalies, the Serbs, the Croations, the Vietnamise the Koreans, The Japanese, the Germans and every other bastard that's murdered an American GI that tried to show some compassion. This is not "Cops". This
is not entertainment or a cockfight. My friends are dying and I don't think that's smething to be flip about.



Kojedub  Sunday Mar 30 02:23 PM

Um, I bet saving the wounded is part of his orders. One of the main points of this war is to make a good impression on the locals, right?



Elspode  Sunday Mar 30 02:27 PM

I think Bruce was being sarcastic, and him calling our soldiers shmucks was an affectionate statement, NBN. I think we're all pissed off that despite being a conquering force, we're attempting to minimize the inhumanity (if that is possible in war) and we are being kidnapped and executed for our trouble.



Nothing But Net  Sunday Mar 30 02:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
My friends are dying and I don't think that's smething to be flip about.
Well then there's obviously some miscommunication here.

Let's call it 'friendly fire'.


xoxoxoBruce  Sunday Mar 30 05:59 PM

Sorry.
Must be that time of the month.



wolf  Sunday Mar 30 11:32 PM

I find that some motrin, and an hour or so on the range sorts me out.



arcterex  Monday Mar 31 12:57 AM

The only problem with the "they are executing our guys" thing is that this "news" is coming from places like fox and cnn, which aren't the most crediable IMO. Now that's the only place I've heard things like that though, if there is a source that doesn't come off like a reality tv show, I will stand corrected, but lets not take anything seen on TV (especially from "The War Room") as fact



juju  Monday Mar 31 01:50 AM

I heard a reporter on CNN say that he personally saw footage of the American POWs, and that some of them were most certainly dead (shot in the head). But of course, they aren't showing the footage of the POWs out of concern for the families. Anyway, his word is good enough for me. He's wasn't just passing on something that some official told him -- he saw it himself.

(Please, no CNN jokes. )



Uryoces  Monday Mar 31 02:22 AM

Sometimes, it just feels good to save someone, anyone, even if they may have been just trying to kill you.



smoothmoniker  Monday Mar 31 02:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by arcterex
The only problem with the "they are executing our guys" thing is that this "news" is coming from places like fox and cnn, which aren't the most crediable IMO. Now that's the only place I've heard things like that though, if there is a source that doesn't come off like a reality tv show, I will stand corrected, but lets not take anything seen on TV (especially from "The War Room") as fact
I find it kind of hard to tenuate the undertext that's been floating around the threads concerning media coverage of the war.

I'm fine with the idea that central command is being intentional and purposeful in what they say and show, and that the intent is to bolster PR for the war.

I'm fine with the idea that the White House, the Pentagon, the Cabinet, and their "invisible hands" among the pundits and analysts are spinning the data to suit their own ends.

I may not agree, but I can grant the defensibility of the premise.

What I find very difficult to believe is the the Media (capital M) is somehow complicit in an attempt to spin the war in favor of the United States, to the extent that they would alter numbers of casualties, misreport troop movements, grant a false pretext regarding the disposition of POWs, etc.

The idea that hundreds of reporters, dozens of US media outlets, and the ubiquitous editors, copy writers, anchors and hosts would all be willing to misrepresent the actual events transpiring is highly implausible. The impartiality and objectivity of the media is a standard held very dearly among these institutions, and politiking aside for the moment, I think it is an ideal that is largely upheld. At the very least we ought to grant that the imperfect instantiation of the ideal found in the american media is the best instantiation yet available. Witness Pravda, Al-Jezeera, and The Sun (page3 aside) as the counter-evidence of the claim.

-sm


Elspode  Monday Mar 31 09:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by arcterex
The only problem with the "they are executing our guys" thing is that this "news" is coming from places like fox and cnn (snip!)
I saw the first pictures of dead American soldiers on Al Jazeera (before it became inaccessible to us in the US). At least two had clearly been shot in the forehead, dead center, complete with powder burns.

I think that is pretty reasonable evidence, don't you?


russotto  Monday Mar 31 01:20 PM

"War crimes"

The sad thing is that they're depending on the USs relative decency in order to commit these acts. The ideas of certain actions as war crimes didn't come about for any noble purpose -- it started as pure tit-for-tat self-interest.

You don't execute POWs because you don't want the other side to execute YOUR POWs; after all, you want those people back after the war, to fight the next one or perhaps to do heavy lifting in civilian fields.

You don't disguise your troops as civilians because you don't want to give the other side reason to slaughter your real civilians.

You don't fake surrenders because in doing so you invite the enemy not to accept your surrender, should the war go badly.

The Iraqi leaders know the US won't respond to POW executions by executing Iraqi POWs. They know the US won't start slaughtering their civilians (and they probably wouldn't care much if we did). And they'd probably love it if the US stopped accepting surrenders, because it would force their own regulars to fight to the last man.



hscohen  Monday Mar 31 04:08 PM

The Chinese-Russian Coalition invades your part of the USA, with bombers, tanks, cruise missiles,... the whole conventional shebang,... in overwhelming numbers.
Your neighbor, who owns a gun and knows how to use it, sees an enemy soldier sneaking across his back yard and shoots him in the leg.
Now, honestly, what do you think your neighbor is going to do next?
a) leave the soldier alone, and risk calling unpleasant attention to the area?
b) stash the soldier in the basement, and give him scarce food and medicine?
c) stash the soldier in the basement, but don't give him scarce food and medicine?
d) shoot the soldier in the forehead at close range?

And by the way, is your neighbor wearing a regulation military uniform and name tag, per the Geneva Conventions?

Lots of Iraqi soldiers are scum who oppress their own people. Maybe these guys even cheered when a bunch of Saudis took down the WTC. But it's worth remembering that our soldiers are FOREIGN INVADERS. Why should we expect the Iraqi's to be any nicer than your neighbor?



slang  Monday Mar 31 05:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by hscohen
Why should we expect the Iraqi's to be any nicer than your neighbor?
Because we come bearing gifts of candy bars, MREs and cool stuff that amazes their children.

We should also remember that even our soldiers treat the Iraqis better than their "leaders" in most cases.

But seriously, point taken. I can only imagine what a fustercluck it is over there.


warch  Monday Mar 31 06:19 PM

Its the hearts and minds campaign. Looks like a tough sell, but for everyone's sake, I hope it works.



Torrere  Saturday Apr 5 11:41 PM

I am amazed at the differences between the equipment of the American soldier and the Iraqi soldier. I really hope that they stripped the Iraqi soldier down before the picture, and that wasn't how we was supposed to be all the time.

No shoe!



xoxoxoBruce  Sunday Apr 6 12:54 AM

You don't need shoes when you live on a beach.



Bitmap  Sunday Apr 6 04:39 AM

Photoshoped

Note the Healthy glow around the Soldiers, I don't mind that this was edited though, because its Content is the same It looks like all the Photoshoping did was change the back ground. Wich could be understandable considering what could be back there. There could be a bunch of dead and bloody soldiers, or a city sky line that will give away the location of those troops, lots of things.
In the end it is still just a photo of a Soldier carring a wounded enemy soldier. Wich i think is proof positive that we are not there with compleatly melificent intentions.



Torrere  Sunday Apr 6 09:53 PM

Some of our soldiers are good kind folk. That's what the picture displays.

It says nothing about the possibly maleficient intentions of the Administration.

(edit: grammatical error)



quzah  Sunday Apr 6 10:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by hscohen
But it's worth remembering that our soldiers are FOREIGN INVADERS. Why should we expect the Iraqi's to be any nicer than your neighbor?
This is exactly what runs through my head when seeing the absurdity called news. Can you picture the scenario being reversed?
[scenario]
The rest of the world has bigger guns than us. The rest of the world decides they don't like us to have big guns. The rest of the world tells the US to get rid of their government, disarm, and allow the rest of the world to decide what our new form of governemnt is. (Subsequently, the rest of the world will then plunder our natural resources, and call it 'revitalizing the economy' or some shit. But that's a seperate topic for a seperate thread.)
[/scenario]
Now what the hell do you think the US is going to do? Do you really believe the US would just willingly punt the Pres, the Congress, the Senate just because the rest of the world told us to? Hell no.

How about the "good old boys" up in the hills? You think they're going to sit by while troops drive up and down the roads in trucks and tanks? Hell no.

No one* is just going to sit there and watch their country be taken over just because some one else decides we're bad for no apparent reason.**

It's absurd for us and "our media" to pose stupid questions like: "Why would they disguise themselves as civillians?" "Why would they attack under guise of surrender?" "How on earth..."

It's just stupid. As to the other poster who stated the reason you don't do this and that is because you hope to get your army back...

Get rea! Do you really think we're going to give them their army back? Do you really think that after the war we're just going to let them do whatever they want?

Consider: You are a 'good old boy', you're doing your 'patriotic duity', you join the military. No, not every single soldier is some wacked out extremest. I really really doubt that. Anyway, as such, you're ordered to go hold this, go take that, go do whatever.

You know you're going to get slaughtered. You're vastly outgunned. Still, you're not about to hand your country over to a bunch of invaders. What do you do? Play nice? Fuck no.


*There is an exception to every rule.

**Iraq has done what exactly over the last decade? Oh that's right, not a fucking thing. Some threat. Side note, see North Korea. Some how they aren't worthy of invasion because why... Oh yeah, they have no OIL. They openly proclaim they have nuke potential. But then, who wants rice fields, right? Where's the money in that? IIRC, I believe I saw an estimated 120 trillion in oil sitting in Iraq.

No, no motivation there. It's because they're so evil that we're 'saving the world from them'.

Quzah.


Uryoces  Monday Apr 7 04:19 AM

The reason why the rest of the world doesn't invade us is partly due to you, quzah [and partly due to the hillbillies and aircraft carriers]. I myself am not sure what I can add to a conversation that would not make the rest of the world hate us, other than "Could I please have some more hummus and pita, and another cup of Turkish coffee". Any viewpoint has it's supporters here in the good old US of A. That's the part I'm proud of, that's the part I don't really see elsewhere in the world.

Any one single leader can fuck up only so far in secret. We have people like Noam Chomsky -- whom I'm not it agreement with in every point he makes. Amnesty International believes, and rightly so, that casting light on wrong doings makes leaders very nervous, and not likely to repeat. You're no Chomsky; that last post was very emotional, a bit simplistic, and revealed nothing really new, but you add to the voice.

That being said, I really, really do like the idea of dropping concrete on Iraqi tanks from 10,000 feet! YEE-HAW! *Blam, blam, blam*



Torrere  Monday Apr 7 11:23 PM

Maybe we will develop 'smart blocks' of concrete that have computer guided accuracy, so that our concrete blocks aren't wasted on splashing sand.



Uryoces  Tuesday Apr 8 04:12 AM

Quote:
Maybe we will develop 'smart blocks' of concrete that have computer guided accuracy, so that our concrete blocks aren't wasted on splashing sand.
They are msart blocks! From what I understand, the only thing different between the concrete bombs and a smart bomb is the concrete. It's a streamlined, bomb-shaped concrete tube with guidance fins fore and aft, and the electronics in the nose.


arz  Tuesday Apr 8 02:01 PM

Yes, they are essentially the BDU (bomb dummy unit) version of a bomb body with a guidance kit on it. The result a steerable concrete bomb. By the way, there are quite a few of these guidance kits nowadays - I saw some for 500 pound Mk 82s the other day.

The problem is that even smart weapons have a miss distance (a CEP - circular error probable) and with a non-blast/non-frag/non-penetration version of the weapon if it missed even by an inch it misses completely. Not to say that this is an ineffective method but it harkens back to multiple bomb runs to attack a target a la WWII.

I read at another discussion board about a mission late last week wherein one of these weapons was deployed against a MiG parked in a schoolyard. It seemed very unlikely to me given the "facts" that were included in the story (nevermind how a Mig was in a schoolyard to begin with), but others were quick to say that these bombs were there and were being used.



BrianR  Tuesday Apr 8 08:52 PM

The MiG was obviously there as a training aid to the ttech school...teaching aspiring airplane mechanics to work on aircraft!

They must start em young over there tho.

:p

Brian



wolf  Tuesday Apr 8 09:48 PM

I'll bet the kid who spent ALL YEAR picking up parts from the desert and reassembling that thing was PISSED when his final project got creamed.



slang  Tuesday Apr 8 10:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah
This is exactly what runs through my head when seeing the absurdity called news.
I'm very sorry you are so emotional about the current events and the news.

Your rantings may prove correct in the future but for right now it seems as though you are from another planet.

There was an 8 year period I went through not too long ago that I felt the same passion and anger for national and world events. It was the Clinton administration.

Hang tight, limber up your voting finger and get your ass to the polls come next election (provided you are an American and count in the big picture).


quzah  Wednesday Apr 9 05:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by slang
I'm very sorry you are so emotional about the current events and the news.
God forbid anyone give a shit, right? Actually, I'm hardly emotional at all. I just think it's both annoying and amusing that the media/government has to spin everything all to hell to get it past the American public.

Let's get real here. This is not a fight about "liberation". It's a fight about oil. If it was simply billed as such, I'd have much less a problem with it. Sure, I'd still be against it, but at lest I wouldn't have to be fed my daily dose of bullshit by the media.

Again, let's face some facts. Iraq has done exactly what evil in the last decade? Oh, that's right, nothing. They're starving over there why? Well, that's a nice little thing called sanctions. Ask North Korea about it if you get the chance.

Sure, they could abandon their entire military structures and try and feed their country, but again, the only reason anyone at all ever starves in the world is because of bickering goverments. It's definately not for lack of food being produced world wide.
Quote:
Originally posted by slang
Your rantings may prove correct in the future but for right now it seems as though you are from another planet.
Why? Because I'm not in agreement with your take on how the world should be run? Because I don't eagerly applaud our goverment invading another country? Well I guess it's just too bad that I'm not kissing Uncle Sam's ass.
Quote:
Originally posted by slang
Hang tight, limber up your voting finger and get your ass to the polls come next election (provided you are an American and count in the big picture).
Your vote only counts in Florida, if you're not a minority, and if they recount you enough times.

Ah well, they say ignorance is bliss. Is it really? Let me know.

For the record, nothing I write is "emotional". I'm always just a cranky fucker. Life is far to short to worry about keeping up personal appearances and if person X likes me or not. It's an opinion, it may invoke thought, it may not. Either way, I just don't care.

Quzah.


Elspode  Wednesday Apr 9 09:26 AM

Quzah said: "Iraq has done exactly what evil in the last decade? Oh, that's right, nothing."

I was watching MSNBC yesterday. They did ten minutes at an Iraqi jail where people claim to have been tortured. The guys were demonstrating how they were bound by their wrists with hands behind their backs, and hoisted off the floor before being beaten. I've read interviews with tortured Iraqi athletes who were flailed and forced to swim through raw sewage afterward because they lost a soccer game. I've heard worse tales.

<sarcasm>But since they are only torturing their own citizens, we really don't have anything to say about it, I guess. They haven't done anything really bad like allow terrorists to train in their country, and even if they did, it doesn't mean anything to the US.</sarcasm>



elSicomoro  Wednesday Apr 9 12:03 PM

From here on out, if I hear any mouthbreather mention anything about the 2000 election in tandem with this war, I will only be able to assume that they truly are unintelligent.



Undertoad  Wednesday Apr 9 01:22 PM

Spode, I saw that MSNBC bit.. here's the accompanying story.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/897497.asp?0cv=CA01



juju  Wednesday Apr 9 01:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore
From here on out, if I hear any mouthbreather mention anything about the 2000 election in tandem with this war, I will only be able to assume that they truly are unintelligent.
Why? They do have a point. The Florida votes were done so incompetently that it's quite possible that we will never never know who really got more votes. In the end, the courts decided. How anyone could twist this into meaning that Bush won "fair and square" is beyond me. Now, I certainly don't blame Bush. It was a fluke. The people who created the voting system are to blame.

Now, if you're saying that this shouldn't be connected to the war, then I don't disagree. But if you're saying that it has no merit at all, then please tell me how I'm wrong.


dave  Wednesday Apr 9 01:55 PM

Our very own russotto has described, in detail, how the votes would have had to have been counted for Gore to win. And none of them make sense. It's been examined, and Bush won Florida. I'm not going to re-post it, because I don't feel like digging it up, but if you're truly interested, pull up russotto's posts and look for comments on the topic. Shouldn't take too long.



juju  Wednesday Apr 9 01:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah
Let's get real here. This is not a fight about "liberation". It's a fight about oil. If it was simply billed as such, I'd have much less a problem with it. Sure, I'd still be against it, but at lest I wouldn't have to be fed my daily dose of bullshit by the media.
Let's examine coorelational logic for a moment. 'A' happens, and at the same time that 'A' happens, 'B' is present. Therefore, 'B' is the cause of 'A'.

I think this is what you're doing here. Because if we use your logic, then we would never be able to attack any country that exports oil, for any reason. Because even if if the reason were justified, people would still conclude that it was just for oil.

It's true that it <i>could</i> be just for oil. But it's also true that it could be for liberation, or to prevent a future threat. You need evidence before you can start discarding potential causes. Real evidence, not speculation.


Quote:
Originally posted by quzah
Again, let's face some facts. Iraq has done exactly what evil in the last decade? Oh, that's right, nothing.
This statement is false. Did you do any research on Iraq at all before you reached this conclusion?

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah
the only reason anyone at all ever starves in the world is because of bickering goverments
This statement is also false. For example, what about the potato famine in Ireland?


Elspode  Wednesday Apr 9 01:56 PM

Yup...that's the one. Un-fucking-believable. But clearly true. No one can train people to act that well in a short time. This shit happened to them, and for my money, stopping the SOB Hussein and his sadistic cronies from inflicting this sort of treatment on his fellow beings is why we are there. I'm sure there's oil, power and politics entangled in all of this as well - I'm not Pollyanna - but at least the new regieme will have to look over their shoulders before they do the same shit.

And, because *someone* is going to say "Yeah, but we're blowing up innocent women and children while we're stopping him", I hereby reply in advance with the following:

Peace is not the inherent state of humanity. People are animals; animals with opposable thumbs and intellects sufficient to envision ways to use them, but still, animals. As animals, we are violent by nature, predators and dominators clear down to the bone. That we seek peace and tranquility is testament to our spirit and our vision as a species. But vision and spirit do not stop those who are firmly in the grasp of their baser instincts. Therefore, strength and the willingness to do what must be done is the only way to create peace out of the chaos which comes naturally to us as animals. And that often means waging war, with all that goes with it, whether we like it or not.

We asked Saddam to stop being a dickhead and leave. He didn't, so we made him. I think it was necessary.

Hope I don't trip getting down off of my soapbox...someone might mistake me for a statue of Saddam!



Uryoces  Wednesday Apr 9 02:55 PM

Quote:
Peace is not the inherent state of humanity. People are animals; animals with opposable thumbs and intellects sufficient to envision ways to use them, but still, animals. As animals, we are violent by nature, predators and dominators clear down to the bone. That we seek peace and tranquility is testament to our spirit and our vision as a species. But vision and spirit do not stop those who are firmly in the grasp of their baser instincts. Therefore, strength and the willingness to do what must be done is the only way to create peace out of the chaos which comes naturally to us as animals. And that often means waging war, with all that goes with it, whether we like it or not.
Kirk: We can admit that we're killers...but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today!
A Taste of Armageddon - Star Trek - the original series

That was one of the truest speeches I have every heard anyone give.


Elspode  Wednesday Apr 9 03:01 PM

One Day at a Time...can Killaholics Anonymous borrow that from AA, you think?



Uryoces  Thursday Apr 10 02:02 AM

Hi my name's Mike.

Hi Mike!

I'm a Killaholic. It started about ten years ago; I started small with .22 LR, back of the head type stuff ...

later

... So now I've been kill-free for 3 years. By the way, who dinged my car door?



quzah  Thursday Apr 10 08:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju

This statement is also false. For example, what about the potato famine in Ireland?
The statement is not false. The world does produce enough food on a daily basis to feed its entire population, and have surpluss. I guess you've never heard of the US goverment buying huge crops of wheat and just warehousing them because to allow them to be sold would "ruin our wheat economy"? The fact remains, the world does produce ample food to distribute to everyone. They just choose not to.

Note, I did not say each country produces enough food. I said the world produces enough food to feed its population.

I've seen the above statement/topic quoted many times, though I cannot find the exact link I was looking for. According to here , and here there will be ample food.

Like I said, the only thing keeping people starving, is lack of actual distribution. I'm to believe sanctions have nothing at all to do with this?



Back to the topic at hand. By "evil" I mean exactly, what evil has Iraq done to the rest of the world? Seriously, the "reason" we invaded was because they had "weapons of mass destruction", right?

Go back to the beginning. The original intent was not to "liberate the people of Iraq". It was to kill Saddam because we didn't supposedly didn't like his big guns. It had nothing at all to do with liberating his country.

When the war started, it was not to help is people. This is just one of those "added bonuses" that we can now use as a banner to carry to get us support from the world and the American people. You're fooling yourself if you believe otherwise. Again, like I said, go back to the "original reason" for the war.

We invaded because we didn't like what the UN inspectors weren't finding.

And like I said, Iraq has done what evil with their WOMD in the last decade? Oh, that's right, nothing.

I never said there weren't evil people in Iraq. I never said they treated their people nicely. I was using the original context of the invasion of Iraq. We invaded because we didn't like their allaged big guns.

Back to my original post: How would you like it if the world (or any given country) invaded us because they didn't like our guns? That is the whole cause of the war. That is the stated cause or reason for invading. We didn't like that they said they had none. We decided they did. We went in to find them. Now we're supposedly liberating their people.

I'm wrong here how?


My original hypothetical also stands. What we're doing to Iraq is the same as if some one else had bigger guns, and decided to tell us what to do. It's that simple.

As per someone mentioning that "people like you Quzah are why the US doesn't get invaded" ... What?

The reason we don't get invaded is because we do have the biggest WOMD. It has nothing to do with me sitting around voicing my opinion on the war. People don't not invade because they don't like my opinion. That's absurd.

Understand the context of my post and you'll understand the post.

Quzah.


quzah  Thursday Apr 10 08:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Elspode
We asked Saddam to stop being a dickhead and leave. He didn't, so we made him. I think it was necessary.

Hope I don't trip getting down off of my soapbox...someone might mistake me for a statue of Saddam!
No we didn't. We told Saddam he has big guns. He said he didn't. We said he did, and invaded to prove it. As a side note, I'm told that 120 trillion dollars in oil has nothing to do with it...

Quzah.


juju  Friday Apr 11 05:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah
Back to the topic at hand. By "evil" I mean exactly, what evil has Iraq done to the rest of the world?
[...]
And like I said, Iraq has done what evil with their WOMD in the last decade? Oh, that's right, nothing.
Here you are attempting to change your original statement. You're adding the qualifiers "to the rest of the world" and "with their WOMD". But I'm going to assume you only mean to clarify your original intent. (I'm a trusting kind of guy)

Let's see, how about when Saddam's forces invaded Iran, or the time they invaded Kuwait? What about the time they started lobbing scud missles into Saudia Arabia and Israel?

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah
Go back to the beginning. The original intent was not to "liberate the people of Iraq". It was to kill Saddam because we didn't supposedly didn't like his big guns. It had nothing at all to do with liberating his country.
I agree that this was the stated purpose of the administration. But you were trying to say that it was only about oil, and I was simply saying that you can't prove that.

In the end, their intent doesn't matter. Only the consequences matter. And in this case, I think that the good far, far outweights the bad in this scenario. Sure, I'd rather they not go around invading countries willy-nilly. But have no control over that. And I see no reason to rage against the war after the fact when so much good is coming out of it.


Quote:
Originally posted by quzah
When the war started, it was not to help is people. This is just one of those "added bonuses" that we can now use as a banner to carry to get us support from the world and the American people. You're fooling yourself if you believe otherwise. Again, like I said, go back to the "original reason" for the war.

We invaded because we didn't like what the UN inspectors weren't finding.
I didn't invade anybody. I'm just a guy with a computer. Don't ascribe to me likes, intents, and actions that aren't my own.

I agree that the U.S. administration started the war because of the purposes you stated. I agree that their arguments don't make much sense. However, the liberation of an opressed people is not only useful as a propaganda and coercion tool. It is a wonderful thing in it's own right. In my opinion, it's a good thing perpetrated for the wrong reasons. I think it justifies the war even if it was started for the wrong reasons.

Quote:
Originally posted by quzah
I never said there weren't evil people in Iraq. I never said they treated their people nicely.
Yes, you did. You said:
<blockquote>
Quote:
<b>Again, let's face some facts. Iraq has done exactly what evil in the last decade? Oh, that's right, nothing.</b>
</blockquote>
It seems clear that even you don't believe what you really said.


Quote:
Originally posted by quzah
Like I said, the only thing keeping people starving, is lack of actual distribution. I'm to believe sanctions have nothing at all to do with this?
Well, you said, "the only reason anyone at all <b>ever</b> starves in the world is because of bickering goverments".

The statement is false, because you can't blame the government in every single case of starvation. What about people who get trapped in mines or caves, can't get out, and starve to death? Is that the fault of bickering governments?


quzah  Friday Apr 11 09:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
But I'm going to assume you only mean to clarify your original intent. (I'm a trusting kind of guy)
Yes. I was trying to clarify the context or to what my original post was refering. Iraq in the last decade has done nothing with their WOMD. They didn't invade Kuait in the last decade, technicly it's 12 years. Iran was before that.

Incidently, we're the ones who aided them against Iran, no? Also, we're the ones who sold them the shit they used on their own people, correct?

So really, again, you're only the bad guy if we decide you are. Today Iraq is again the bad guy. For the past ten years, they weren't.

Or maybe they weren't important politicly at the time because there wasn't a Bush in the Whitehouse? One can only speculate...

I'm sure some day Korea will be worthy enough of us attacking them for an equally good reason. We'll all argue that we're liberating the North Koreans from their horrible goverment.

We'll wave banners and declare ourselves the champion of the day.

The fact will still remain: You're only a bad guy if today we decide you're worth attacking. Otherwise, we don't care about you.

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
I agree that this was the stated purpose of the administration. But you were trying to say that it was only about oil, and I was simply saying that you can't prove that.

In the end, their intent doesn't matter. Only the consequences matter. And in this case, I think that the good far, far outweights the bad in this scenario. Sure, I'd rather they not go around invading countries willy-nilly. But have no control over that. And I see no reason to rage against the war after the fact when so much good is coming out of it.
Well I still believe it's about oil. But that aside, I never intend to change anyone's mind or even have them agree with my opinion. It's against my philosophy. Politics, religion, etc, it's not my goal or wish to change anyone's view. Just to give pause for thought. I don't really care if anyone agrees or disagrees with me. I just provide food to chew on.

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
I didn't invade anybody. I'm just a guy with a computer. Don't ascribe to me likes, intents, and actions that aren't my own.
We in this context describes America. Obviously I didn't invade, but if you were to take 'we' literally, I'd be including myself. It is a common genralization. People use 'we' to reference their country, their company, etc.

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
Yes, you did. You said:
Quote:
Again, let's face some facts. Iraq has done exactly what evil in the last decade? Oh, that's right, nothing.

It seems clear that even you don't believe what you really said.
No. This is again a common generalization. Or maybe it's just my understanding of the English language. The generalization here was in the same line of thought as described previously in the same post. I stated that Iraq had done nothing with their WOMD, or hell, with any weapons, to the rest of the world (as I was trying to outline the context of the original post's intent). This thought was held over to this repeated text later in the post (the item you quoted). I figured it was a common understanding that when you've detailed context, you don't need to repeatedly do so throughout the rest of the pharagraph(s) on the same topic.

I'll be more specific next time.

TTFN.

Quzah.


juju  Friday Apr 11 11:01 AM

It's been pointed out to me repeatedly throughout my stay here at the Cellar that you cannot make generalizations without some debate-monger getting all up in a tizzy.

Just doing my part.



Leus  Friday Apr 11 02:25 PM

Amen.

(I'm the only one who finds semantic rebuttals boring?)



Bitmap  Friday Apr 11 03:07 PM

No you're not; sometimes I wish we had A section dedicated for the semantic rebuttal arguments.


*sigh* ---editing; Most of the time i don't care about this type of stuff cause i'm in too much of a hurry or my mind is too busy with the content to care about the gramatics. But your right Elspode
that was lazy and sloppy of me... I'm a sloppy, sloppy Bitch. --er Bastard.
See I prefer the Shut-up and agree, Because your not going to change any one's mind, method than to bother with the whiney, beligerant rehtoric.



Elspode  Friday Apr 11 03:41 PM

Sometimes is properly spelled as a single word, the appropriate contraction for 'you are' is you're, it would have been more proper to use a semicolon following 'your not', the personal pronoun 'I' should be capitalized, and a proper sentence is begun with a capital. {insert icon of someone ducking here}.

Kidding! I'm kidding!!!



xoxoxoBruce  Friday Apr 11 05:23 PM

Quote:
People are animals; animals with opposable thumbs and intellects sufficient to envision ways to use them, but still, animals. As animals, we are violent by nature, predators and dominators clear down to the bone.
You take that back or I'll kill you.


Leus  Friday Apr 11 06:57 PM

Glad to see we have recovered our composture



Your reply here?

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: a bunch of interesting folks talking about everything. Add your two cents to IotD by joining the Cellar.