US Troops Destroy Babylon

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper


I read the article you linked to, and it simply added another dab of paint to the human mosaic I've been putting together since adulthood. The mosaic is mostly dark, evil, with maybe a few grays thrown in to break up the monotony. On the periphery, though, there are a few lighter colors; oranges, golds, blues ... that sort of stuff.

It's all that keeps my faith in humanity alive. And thank God for that because, right now, I have rather negative feelings toward most of the Western and Northern hemispheres of this world.

Gatekeeper

Well dont feel too despondant. In a totaly personal+selfish manner, i'm very happy i didn't have to live under a guy like Saddam Hussain, and had the luxery of living in my own evil country with its own spotted and stained history and dubious foreign policy.
At least Tony Blair isnt putting me in prison or killing my family(yet ).

But i would say that its good to feel depressed about the role that the western world, led principly by America these days, takes.
Politicians will harp on about our freedoms+democracy etc etc.
Its quite a realisation when you being to let it sink in that these freedoms we enjoy come at a very high price for many people in the world. It goes back hundreds of years, to the discovery of the New World etc.
Since then western governments+kings have been using their technolgy to steal from the rest of the world.
Its sad that hundreds of years later its basicaly the same driving force that we let our governments use.
Just so we can drive a nice car to work, just so we can say 'hay the rest of the world! look we are free!'.

To really live in a free+democratic world, we're going to have to change pretty much everything about the way we live.

Two thirds of the worlds wealth used by one third of the worlds population will mean we will never have a 'free' world.
You can be sure the people that run it this way dont want it either.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Did you miss all those wars, invasions, covert interventions, and assorted other nasty operations that was carried out by the US of A after WWII?

Sure, some interventions occured but, by and large, they have been good and have resulted in the defeat of communist (or pro-communist) forces. I'd compare the results of US interventions (South Korea, Taiwan, most of Latin America) to Communist China's interventions (North Korea, Vietnam, Tibet) any day. Even the non military interventions have gone well (Greece, Turkey, Indonesia). to compare how have the Soviet Union's foreign adventures gone (Eastern Europe, Mongolia, Laos, Cambodia, Tanzania, etc)?

[Spiffor]

What is wrong with Mongolia?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Evil Knevil
Surely you're not saying they had do destroy Babylon to save it?

Hard to say someone destroyed something which was destroyed 2500 years ago. More likely the American unintentionally damaged some archeolgical ruins while the vast majority remained unharmed. Hoever, pointing out things like that would require objectivity so I understand your difficulty in comprending it.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
That is unquestionably 'intentional' behaviour. I'm sure there are other examples, but suffice it to say this was a serious muck-up. Someone in the decision-making cirlces needs to be held accountable. Hell, the base commanders should have shown better judgement given they are commanding officers. They have some limited decision-making authority, don't they?

Please explain how the individual actions of a few law breakers is the fault of the entire US military. I am certain that, when ever found, they are punishede according to law.No, one condones looting or trophy taking and the military makes it extraordinarially dfficult for those people to get away with their thefts. They search mail before it is sent, they search every person before they return home, and they conduct periodic searchs to find people who are attempting to steal relics.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
That is unquestionably 'intentional' behaviour. I'm sure there are other examples, but suffice it to say this was a serious muck-up. Someone in the decision-making cirlces needs to be held accountable. Hell, the base commanders should have shown better judgement given they are commanding officers. They have some limited decision-making authority, don't they?

Please explain how the individual actions of a few law breakers is the fault of the entire US military. I am certain that, when ever found, they are punishede according to law.No, one condones looting or trophy taking and the military makes it extraordinarially dfficult for those people to get away with their thefts. They search mail before it is sent, they search every person before they return home, and they conduct periodic searchs to find people who are attempting to steal relics.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor
What is wrong with Mongolia?

Nothing, other then it was a poverty sticken Soviet puppet state which totally failed to meet the needs of its population.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Oerdin
No, one condones looting or trophy taking and the military makes it extraordinarially dfficult for those people to get away with their thefts. They search mail before it is sent, they search every person before they return home, and they conduct periodic searchs to find people who are attempting to steal relics.

First time I hear of this. You could and should really expect it, but all I see and hear in media reports, including your blog, SOP descriptions and live interviews with soldiers and officers, suggest between the lines that your military don't give a **** about colateral damage - including human life, private property and cultural heritage.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Nothing, other then it was a poverty sticken Soviet puppet state which totally failed to meet the needs of its population.

Considering that the heath system covers 95% of their population despite the nomadism, I'm not sure it "totally failed to meet the needs of its population".

As for being a puppet State, that's what happens to pretty much all weak countries the two superpowers went to, so that's not really a point of comparison where the US is superior to the USSR.

And finally, Mongolia had little prospects for becoming rich: having the lowest population density in the world, and a culture that strongly emphasizes respect of nature will prevent the rise of industry (and we know the Sovs were very keen of industry). It quite restricts the prospects of economic growth.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
They search mail before it is sent, they search every person before they return home, and they conduct periodic searchs to find people who are attempting to steal relics.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Sure, some interventions occured but, by and large, they have been good and have resulted in the defeat of communist (or pro-communist) forces. I'd compare the results of US interventions (South Korea, Taiwan, most of Latin America) to Communist China's interventions (North Korea, Vietnam, Tibet) any day. Even the non military interventions have gone well (Greece, Turkey, Indonesia). to compare how have the Soviet Union's foreign adventures gone (Eastern Europe, Mongolia, Laos, Cambodia, Tanzania, etc)?

Of course the question is if some of these states wouldn´t have been better off with a communist (or socialist) government.

Afghanistan for example took a turn for worse just a few years after the sowjets left (and the Taliban came to power)

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Could you tell me of any country whose intentions are NOT always suspect?

San Marino?

[Evil Knevil]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Hard to say someone destroyed something which was destroyed 2500 years ago. More likely the American unintentionally damaged some archeolgical ruins while the vast majority remained unharmed. Hoever, pointing out things like that would require objectivity so I understand your difficulty in comprending it.

Hmm. I was exaggerating to prove a point, and so show the logical flaw in the argument. "They unintentionally damaged Babylon to save it", doesn't quite roll off the tongue. I never said that the damage caused was deliberate, just that it's tragic it wasn't prevented, and that many people didn't care. Also I was drunk.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Could you tell me of any country whose intentions are NOT always suspect?

quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom

San Marino?

Wales? all we want is for you to sing along with us and play rugby against us and have a beer afterwards?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by child of Thor


Wales? all we want is for you to sing along with us and play rugby against us and have a beer afterwards?

Ha!

You also set covetous eyes on Shrewsbury, Gloucester and Chester.


Offa's D!ke is there for a reason, laverbread munchers!

[DaShi]

What are you up to, Thor?

[alva]

Originally posted by child of Thor
Did they show it again?? (looks at link in his sig)
Are they doing all three again as i missed out in videoing the second in the series.........i might have another go then

Yup, you're too late though as the third one was the one I was refering too.

[Straybow]

Yet another bunch of "9/11 isn't relavent" dupes. Compare:

Why invade Italy? After all, it was Japan that attacked us, not Germany and certainly not Italy. Strategy and logistics don't matter. We shouldn't be taking resources away from the fight against the Japs.

And if we invade Europe (smetime after dealing with Japan) it should be Germany. Why land in France where the fighting will just add to the suffering of the people? Why land in Italy, a minor ally? It must be because of some pecuniary interest on the part of the evil, greedy leaders in government.

[notyoueither]

Yes, greedy government! Damn FDR, knew I could never trust that bastard!

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Straybow
Yet another bunch of "9/11 isn't relavent" dupes.

Please explain why 9/11 is relevant to Iraq. WWII analogies don't help you at all (see below)

Compare:
Why invade Italy? After all, it was Japan that attacked us, not Germany and certainly not Italy. Strategy and logistics don't matter. We shouldn't be taking resources away from the fight against the Japs.

Because Italy was allied with Japan and Germany, which both had declared war on you. And German U-boats attacked you all the time, even before they had declared war.

And if we invade Europe (smetime after dealing with Japan) it should be Germany. Why land in France where the fighting will just add to the suffering of the people?

Because:
1) French exile government (DeGaulle) wanted it
2) You had to pass other countries to reach Germany, in any case. All countires on your way to Germany was occupied by them, so you would have to invade some.
3) France is the shortest way from England, where you had your forward bases.
4) (Most important, I would think) You didn't want to wait until Stalin had grabbed it all. Then you would had no one to trade with.

[Patroklos]

but all I see and hear in media reports

Your primary problem, you ignorance of reality is excused.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Your primary problem, you ignorance of reality is excused.

What other sources are there, short of going there yourself?

Apolyton had Oerdin on the ground, and there were many things he reported that supports the general view I got from mainstream media - the attitude of the US military to not give a **** about colateral damage, including both life and property.

[Straybow]

The terrorists "declared war" on the US. Saddam clearly expressed his solidarity with terrorists afflicting the US and openly celebrated the destruction of WTC.

We didn't say, "We're declaring war only on the terrorists who planned and implemented the 9/11 attack." We made it clear that rogue governments who support terrorism have no impunity. We have a decade of cause to kick Saddam's arse.

Wake up and smell the coffee. It is fait accompli, and the Iraqis are making the best of it. Try doing the same.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Straybow
The terrorists "declared war" on the US. Saddam clearly expressed his solidarity with terrorists afflicting the US and openly celebrated the destruction of WTC.

Evidence?

We didn't say, "We're declaring war only on the terrorists who planned and implemented the 9/11 attack." We made it clear that rogue governments who support terrorism have no impunity. We have a decade of cause to kick Saddam's arse.

Such as?

Wake up and smell the coffee. It is fait accompli, and the Iraqis are making the best of it. Try doing the same.

They're making the best of it, eh? They're kicking your ass. Wake up and smell the coffee.