Forums > Social Discussion > THEY CAUGHT SADDAM!!!!! YESS!!!!!!!!
Login/Join to Participatemember
47 posts
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
47 posts
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Posted:
THEY CAUGHT HIM! GOD WHAT A GREAT XMAS PRESENT FOR THE WORLD!
THEY CAUGHT HIM! GOD WHAT A GREAT XMAS PRESENT FOR THE WORLD!
I kinda ran over his dog, well replace the word kinda with repeatedly, and the word dog with son.
mULti-torTOISe
310 posts
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon, New Zealand eventua...
310 posts
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon, New Zealand eventua...
Posted:
Quite what they thought they were doing is a good question. I would be very interested to know. The program on BBC, and John Pilger's investigation, managed to clear a lot of excuses, but never really got to the bottom of why the shot was fired. The long delay before the firing leads me to believe that either:
1) the tank crew were aiming at a very particular floor, or
2) they were in communication with somewhere else receiving authorisation to fire
The hotel was full of foreign journalists, and had been since the start of the war - the building was scrupulously avoided during the air strikes. The frightening thing is that the Al Jazeera camera crew were elsewhere on that floor... I hate to say it, but I would be prepared to believe that they were the target... though of course that is pure speculation.
The thing is, this incident has been painstakingly examined. USHC have had every opportunity to justify it - if it really was a communication error, or an accidental attack, then it could have been easily explained. The 'receiving fire' argument was made before the footage of the attack was released.
I agree with you though, worrying too much about whether they meant to kill the Al Jazeera crew, whether someone had given them a false tip off... whatever... is not too important. I, also, get sick of these email debates where one incident (about which no-one really knows the truth) gets talked over and over... I only brought up those exapmles because, of all the ones I know about, they're the easiest to verify.
Quite what they thought they were doing is a good question. I would be very interested to know. The program on BBC, and John Pilger's investigation, managed to clear a lot of excuses, but never really got to the bottom of why the shot was fired. The long delay before the firing leads me to believe that either:
1) the tank crew were aiming at a very particular floor, or
2) they were in communication with somewhere else receiving authorisation to fire
The hotel was full of foreign journalists, and had been since the start of the war - the building was scrupulously avoided during the air strikes. The frightening thing is that the Al Jazeera camera crew were elsewhere on that floor... I hate to say it, but I would be prepared to believe that they were the target... though of course that is pure speculation.
The thing is, this incident has been painstakingly examined. USHC have had every opportunity to justify it - if it really was a communication error, or an accidental attack, then it could have been easily explained. The 'receiving fire' argument was made before the footage of the attack was released.
I agree with you though, worrying too much about whether they meant to kill the Al Jazeera crew, whether someone had given them a false tip off... whatever... is not too important. I, also, get sick of these email debates where one incident (about which no-one really knows the truth) gets talked over and over... I only brought up those exapmles because, of all the ones I know about, they're the easiest to verify.
The Confusion Squid has many tentacles
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
If they are receiving fire from a building they know is heavily occupied by innocents they should send in soldiers specially trained in close quarters combat. Fireing high explosive rounds in a situation like that is just cowardly and unacceptable. The fact is we value our soldiers lives more then their civilians lives. or else there would be more outcry over incidents like this.
If they are receiving fire from a building they know is heavily occupied by innocents they should send in soldiers specially trained in close quarters combat. Fireing high explosive rounds in a situation like that is just cowardly and unacceptable. The fact is we value our soldiers lives more then their civilians lives. or else there would be more outcry over incidents like this.
member
111 posts
Location: bottom left of the US
111 posts
Location: bottom left of the US
Posted:
How can you, the person sitting at home, or anyone not THERE know what is or was deliberate?
I agree that the 'why' is one of the most important things. Now, not everything can be proven unless the people involved give their accounts. Motive without whitness or suspect doesnt exist.
Astar, tell me bud, how do you shut down a wide range of radar sites, radio stations and other tools an enimy force can use? You kill the power. You are right, it was no accident, it is a tactic, one leagle and widly used in almost every war since airal bombardment was invented!
Frankly Astar, do you want to see a bunch of your countrymen killed? If you answer 'no' you are not a cowerd. How is a long drawn out fight bravery? I call it stupidity. A short war is not cowerdace it is desireable to a military force. For someone who says they are "Chief of staff and military" frankly you dont know what you are talking about.
Another thing, your comment about the hotel filled with journalists...
Were there special forces at the ready at that particuler time?
Was there a valid plan of the building so that any SO can come up with a good "safe" plan?
What if the size of the occupying force was larger than SO could handle?
Joe, you cant verify anything, nor can I. Nor can alot of the people that were actually there. Have you ever read a police report of an accident that happend in a busy area? It usually has 4 or 5 differnt stories of what actually happend. BBC is notorious for only showing 2 at most! Even then it is usually two from similer ideals. Very rarly will they go into depth of opposing sides, especailly when the US military is involved.
As far as recieiving fire, how hard is it for a small group of people to take a pop shot at a few tanks and then run out the other side? The video may never have shown that.
The media is filled with speculations and people like yourself (Joe) and Astar, take these speculations as if they were cold hard fact. Some do a little bit more research, but the majority do not and are ignorant to any of the possible reasons any one thing can happen.
Astar, are you saying that it is wrong to calue the life of a soldier? I imagine you would say yes.
How can you, the person sitting at home, or anyone not THERE know what is or was deliberate?
I agree that the 'why' is one of the most important things. Now, not everything can be proven unless the people involved give their accounts. Motive without whitness or suspect doesnt exist.
Astar, tell me bud, how do you shut down a wide range of radar sites, radio stations and other tools an enimy force can use? You kill the power. You are right, it was no accident, it is a tactic, one leagle and widly used in almost every war since airal bombardment was invented!
Frankly Astar, do you want to see a bunch of your countrymen killed? If you answer 'no' you are not a cowerd. How is a long drawn out fight bravery? I call it stupidity. A short war is not cowerdace it is desireable to a military force. For someone who says they are "Chief of staff and military" frankly you dont know what you are talking about.
Another thing, your comment about the hotel filled with journalists...
Were there special forces at the ready at that particuler time?
Was there a valid plan of the building so that any SO can come up with a good "safe" plan?
What if the size of the occupying force was larger than SO could handle?
Joe, you cant verify anything, nor can I. Nor can alot of the people that were actually there. Have you ever read a police report of an accident that happend in a busy area? It usually has 4 or 5 differnt stories of what actually happend. BBC is notorious for only showing 2 at most! Even then it is usually two from similer ideals. Very rarly will they go into depth of opposing sides, especailly when the US military is involved.
As far as recieiving fire, how hard is it for a small group of people to take a pop shot at a few tanks and then run out the other side? The video may never have shown that.
The media is filled with speculations and people like yourself (Joe) and Astar, take these speculations as if they were cold hard fact. Some do a little bit more research, but the majority do not and are ignorant to any of the possible reasons any one thing can happen.
Astar, are you saying that it is wrong to calue the life of a soldier? I imagine you would say yes.
Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
but equally you appear to take the opposite view that what USHC says is cold hard fact.
a tricky situation where niether debater has any faith in the others objectivity....
R
Quote:
The media is filled with speculations and people like yourself (Joe) and Astar, take these speculations as if they were cold hard fact.
but equally you appear to take the opposite view that what USHC says is cold hard fact.
a tricky situation where niether debater has any faith in the others objectivity....
R
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
mULti-torTOISe
310 posts
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon, New Zealand eventua...
310 posts
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon, New Zealand eventua...
Posted:
Aye, this is why I was suggesting you look into it yourself. It wasn't just the BBC (who, incidentally, are being slated for the degree to which their reporting is pro-US/UK biased). Neither of us will ever prove anything, and if this was a single, isolated incident, I would be fully ready to chalk it down to a fluke, unfortunate accident. But it's not. I keep saying this, but let's forget about this single incident.
My position is that the US military does not always try to minimise civilian casualties, is fully prepared to use HK weapons on civilian populations, and really isn't motivated by what is best for the world. I can site a plethora of examples, and you can say that I will never really know the truth of any of them. However, I guarantee that, for some of them at least, if you look into the evidence with a clear mind, you will draw the same conclusions. Accepting points of view that are diametrically opposed to your own is always difficult. I tell you what - you find me some examples of the US military genuinely trying to do what is best for the Iraqi people, (not what is best for them, and happens to benefit the Iraqis as well) and I will look into those examples and try to believe in them. What do you say?
Quote:
Joe, you cant verify anything, nor can I. Nor can alot of the people that were actually there. Have you ever read a police report of an accident that happend in a busy area? It usually has 4 or 5 differnt stories of what actually happend. BBC is notorious for only showing 2 at most! Even then it is usually two from similer ideals. Very rarly will they go into depth of opposing sides, especailly when the US military is involved.
Aye, this is why I was suggesting you look into it yourself. It wasn't just the BBC (who, incidentally, are being slated for the degree to which their reporting is pro-US/UK biased). Neither of us will ever prove anything, and if this was a single, isolated incident, I would be fully ready to chalk it down to a fluke, unfortunate accident. But it's not. I keep saying this, but let's forget about this single incident.
My position is that the US military does not always try to minimise civilian casualties, is fully prepared to use HK weapons on civilian populations, and really isn't motivated by what is best for the world. I can site a plethora of examples, and you can say that I will never really know the truth of any of them. However, I guarantee that, for some of them at least, if you look into the evidence with a clear mind, you will draw the same conclusions. Accepting points of view that are diametrically opposed to your own is always difficult. I tell you what - you find me some examples of the US military genuinely trying to do what is best for the Iraqi people, (not what is best for them, and happens to benefit the Iraqis as well) and I will look into those examples and try to believe in them. What do you say?
The Confusion Squid has many tentacles
mULti-torTOISe
310 posts
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon, New Zealand eventua...
310 posts
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon, New Zealand eventua...
Posted:
P.S:
I would say that, of the two of us Laytin, I am the one who makes a real effort to read around the subject and form objective viewpoints. Just because they disagree with your own does not mean they are unsubstantiated. For example, in the case of the FAEs, I have read the transcripts of the authorisation to deploy the weapons, seen printed testimony on the part of the aid workers who advised the USHC that the convoy consisted mainly of civilians, read John Pilger's fearful examination of possible reasons for the weapons to be deployed, seen photographic evidence of the aftermath (a series of the most horrifying photos I've ever seen), read the reports written by two of the survivors and read the US defense of its reasons for using such horrific weapons. Oh, and I read about it in the news.
I try and be as aware as possible of the issues which we are debating. If we were talking about the war on drugs in Colombia, a subject on which I know next to nothing, I would keep quite and try and learn. If I disagreed with someone else's opinion, I would research the subject in order to have grounds on which to frame my reply. Forgive me if I'm being presumptious, but I get the impression that this is something which you have not bothered to do before replying to either of my previous posts.
In this instance, I think I know enough to have an opinion. If you wish, as stated previously, I can PM you links to as much of the supporting evidence as I can retrieve. I offered this before, and you haven't replied. Could it be you, Laytin, who's not bothering to read up on the subject?
P.S:
Quote:
The media is filled with speculations and people like yourself (Joe) and Astar, take these speculations as if they were cold hard fact. Some do a little bit more research, but the majority do not and are ignorant to any of the possible reasons any one thing can happen
I would say that, of the two of us Laytin, I am the one who makes a real effort to read around the subject and form objective viewpoints. Just because they disagree with your own does not mean they are unsubstantiated. For example, in the case of the FAEs, I have read the transcripts of the authorisation to deploy the weapons, seen printed testimony on the part of the aid workers who advised the USHC that the convoy consisted mainly of civilians, read John Pilger's fearful examination of possible reasons for the weapons to be deployed, seen photographic evidence of the aftermath (a series of the most horrifying photos I've ever seen), read the reports written by two of the survivors and read the US defense of its reasons for using such horrific weapons. Oh, and I read about it in the news.
I try and be as aware as possible of the issues which we are debating. If we were talking about the war on drugs in Colombia, a subject on which I know next to nothing, I would keep quite and try and learn. If I disagreed with someone else's opinion, I would research the subject in order to have grounds on which to frame my reply. Forgive me if I'm being presumptious, but I get the impression that this is something which you have not bothered to do before replying to either of my previous posts.
In this instance, I think I know enough to have an opinion. If you wish, as stated previously, I can PM you links to as much of the supporting evidence as I can retrieve. I offered this before, and you haven't replied. Could it be you, Laytin, who's not bothering to read up on the subject?
The Confusion Squid has many tentacles
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
Id say the life of a soldier equals the life of a civilian.
Id say the life of a soldier equals the life of a civilian.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,617 posts
Location: Berlin, Ireland
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,617 posts
Location: Berlin, Ireland
Posted:
Depending on the situation, the civilian may not have decided to put their life on the line whereas that's a soldiers job and decision to risk it.
A foreign journalist knows they are entering a conflict zone. Putting that aside, comparing an Iraqi civilian, who's in his own country minding his own business with a foreign soldiar who's invaded their country illegally is a misnomer if you ask me.
It's a problem if innocents die so as not to risk the possibility of a soldier getting hurt just because the occupying army has the power to do that...
Depending on the situation, the civilian may not have decided to put their life on the line whereas that's a soldiers job and decision to risk it.
A foreign journalist knows they are entering a conflict zone. Putting that aside, comparing an Iraqi civilian, who's in his own country minding his own business with a foreign soldiar who's invaded their country illegally is a misnomer if you ask me.
It's a problem if innocents die so as not to risk the possibility of a soldier getting hurt just because the occupying army has the power to do that...
I live in a world of infinite possibilities.
member
111 posts
Location: bottom left of the US
111 posts
Location: bottom left of the US
Posted:
Joe, anything you wish to send me I will read. However, for someone like myself who does not only study history but as a hobby study military history. However I have not heard of this incident except by you. So, please feel free to post or PM any link that you wish. I offer a deal, you send me any and all information you have about questionable acts of the US military, and I will send you as much information about how the US military really acts and operates in a day to day and combat situations.
Spanner, I am not trying to insult you, I just dont think it is productive to argue/debate what the definition of terrorisim is. I am sorry you did not like the way I said it, I will keep that in mind and try not to be so offending.
Deep Soul Sheep, it is a problem if innocents die period. I'll tell you why, in the Military Code of Conduct, you will find an article (I forget what one and dont have the book infront of me) that talks about the treatment of civiliains. How if you kill a civilian it will actually give your enimy something to fight for. Instead of demoralising it will have the opposite effect.
However, keep this in mind, if there are civilians in the way, either by choice of their own or being forced against their will, a soldier's life is still worth the same as a civilians. Soldiers dont normally get hurt, the get dead! Especially when they are trying to prevent the death of people A while kill people B and especially when peoples A and B are in rather close quarters. Bad things will happen when there are civilians in a combat zone. Some will unfortunatly die.
Are you saying that just because a military has a few million people in it that they should take a knife to a gun fight just to try to prevent civilian lives?
Just because an army has superior numbers it doesnt mean that they will use that recklessly.
Joe, anything you wish to send me I will read. However, for someone like myself who does not only study history but as a hobby study military history. However I have not heard of this incident except by you. So, please feel free to post or PM any link that you wish. I offer a deal, you send me any and all information you have about questionable acts of the US military, and I will send you as much information about how the US military really acts and operates in a day to day and combat situations.
Spanner, I am not trying to insult you, I just dont think it is productive to argue/debate what the definition of terrorisim is. I am sorry you did not like the way I said it, I will keep that in mind and try not to be so offending.
Deep Soul Sheep, it is a problem if innocents die period. I'll tell you why, in the Military Code of Conduct, you will find an article (I forget what one and dont have the book infront of me) that talks about the treatment of civiliains. How if you kill a civilian it will actually give your enimy something to fight for. Instead of demoralising it will have the opposite effect.
However, keep this in mind, if there are civilians in the way, either by choice of their own or being forced against their will, a soldier's life is still worth the same as a civilians. Soldiers dont normally get hurt, the get dead! Especially when they are trying to prevent the death of people A while kill people B and especially when peoples A and B are in rather close quarters. Bad things will happen when there are civilians in a combat zone. Some will unfortunatly die.
Are you saying that just because a military has a few million people in it that they should take a knife to a gun fight just to try to prevent civilian lives?
Just because an army has superior numbers it doesnt mean that they will use that recklessly.
Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
I think it's more like takeing a 120MM cannon fireing high explosive rounds to a infantry engagement.
Im not really to riled up about a lot of the civilian casulties because I understand the nature of the problem with saddam hussein routinely puts civilians near targets for the very purpose of tarnishing the image of the americans. There are a few incidents which are unacceptable and I see no formal investigation into them. Another one that gets me is the incident where 2 convoys were ambushed simoultaneously by men with assault rifles, The American forces responded by laying down saturation fire with Heavy machineguns (which concidentally are technicaly illegal to use on civilians) and light machineguns, while shelling 3 buildings.
I think it's more like takeing a 120MM cannon fireing high explosive rounds to a infantry engagement.
Im not really to riled up about a lot of the civilian casulties because I understand the nature of the problem with saddam hussein routinely puts civilians near targets for the very purpose of tarnishing the image of the americans. There are a few incidents which are unacceptable and I see no formal investigation into them. Another one that gets me is the incident where 2 convoys were ambushed simoultaneously by men with assault rifles, The American forces responded by laying down saturation fire with Heavy machineguns (which concidentally are technicaly illegal to use on civilians) and light machineguns, while shelling 3 buildings.
member
86 posts
Location: I'm not sure
86 posts
Location: I'm not sure
Posted:
Well I should hope so!
Quote:
....with Heavy machineguns (which concidentally are technicaly illegal to use on civilians)
Well I should hope so!
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
I meant to type use on people.
Anything bigger then .50 cal is techically in violation of the geneva conventions if it's fired at anything but vehicles or equipment.
I meant to type use on people.
Anything bigger then .50 cal is techically in violation of the geneva conventions if it's fired at anything but vehicles or equipment.
member
111 posts
Location: bottom left of the US
111 posts
Location: bottom left of the US
Posted:
Okay, 120mm? A howitzer maybe, but that isnt a heavy machine gun nor is it outlawed by the Geniva Convention! It is an artiliery piece. There is nothing wrong (leagly) with th at.
Okay, a heavy machine gun... define heavy machine gun. Actually it is not the size or rate of fire of a gun, but the caliber of the round. Grenades and other area effecting rounds are not illeagle to use on point targets (aka people). Large caliber weapons are restricted in use to military equipment. Now there is a huge loop hole in the laws here because those assault rifles... are military equpiment.
Well have a nice day, this concludes your military law and Geniva Convention class
Have a good weekend, I'll see you on monday
Okay, 120mm? A howitzer maybe, but that isnt a heavy machine gun nor is it outlawed by the Geniva Convention! It is an artiliery piece. There is nothing wrong (leagly) with th at.
Okay, a heavy machine gun... define heavy machine gun. Actually it is not the size or rate of fire of a gun, but the caliber of the round. Grenades and other area effecting rounds are not illeagle to use on point targets (aka people). Large caliber weapons are restricted in use to military equipment. Now there is a huge loop hole in the laws here because those assault rifles... are military equpiment.
Well have a nice day, this concludes your military law and Geniva Convention class
Have a good weekend, I'll see you on monday
Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
Im not saying the 120MM (m1 abram) cannons are violating the geneva convention. I am saying it's grossley reckless to be discharging them in a city at buildings when your under ambush from an inferior force. BTW a interesting thing about that ambush is the americans claimed they killed 18 and wounded 4 others (or something close to that) The Iraqi police say it was only 8 soldiers they killed and the rest were unarmed civilians.
This only happened a month ago.
Im not saying the 120MM (m1 abram) cannons are violating the geneva convention. I am saying it's grossley reckless to be discharging them in a city at buildings when your under ambush from an inferior force. BTW a interesting thing about that ambush is the americans claimed they killed 18 and wounded 4 others (or something close to that) The Iraqi police say it was only 8 soldiers they killed and the rest were unarmed civilians.
This only happened a month ago.
member
111 posts
Location: bottom left of the US
111 posts
Location: bottom left of the US
Posted:
Sounds like fun, though when the media, especially forgine, likes to look for only the bad, I think I will have to do a little digging.
Sounds like fun, though when the media, especially forgine, likes to look for only the bad, I think I will have to do a little digging.
Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:
member
111 posts
Location: bottom left of the US
111 posts
Location: bottom left of the US
Posted:
Not what I was sent to look for, but interesting none the less.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_pro-con.htm
https://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/03/21/editorial_wwwedit1c21.html
Take a gander
Not what I was sent to look for, but interesting none the less.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_pro-con.htm
https://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/03/21/editorial_wwwedit1c21.html
Take a gander
Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
Funny where your digging lead you, global security arms and the enquirerer. *cough* source *cough*
Funny where your digging lead you, global security arms and the enquirerer. *cough* source *cough*
member
111 posts
Location: bottom left of the US
111 posts
Location: bottom left of the US
Posted:
Umm The Enquierer, is the Cincinati (a largish city in Ohio) Paper, not the Super Market Tabloid. Open thine eyes and you will see
Ohh and the first little site I sent you to, I didnt even know where it was untill I posted it because I was using Ask Jeves, and if you notice with AJ.com they put up this lovly frame and you cant see the address unless you get rid of the frame. But it still shows an interesting view point.
That is what you are interested in right? Others view points?
Umm The Enquierer, is the Cincinati (a largish city in Ohio) Paper, not the Super Market Tabloid. Open thine eyes and you will see
Ohh and the first little site I sent you to, I didnt even know where it was untill I posted it because I was using Ask Jeves, and if you notice with AJ.com they put up this lovly frame and you cant see the address unless you get rid of the frame. But it still shows an interesting view point.
That is what you are interested in right? Others view points?
Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:
SILVER Member
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
Posted:
you know laytin, i was reading a few of your posts and i admit that i didn't read through the whole thread cause i honestly didn't have the time and started to get annoyed. but i see that you are a history major or at least seem to study it a lot. and you have quoted from a number of your history books as your sources. and i just wanted to post this to challenge you to think beyond your books. move past the history of the rich folk and the white men and get the history of the working class, of the people who built the world. not everything you read is fact.
quoted from utah phillips.....
"when i went to high school i got the history of the ruling class; the generals and the industrialists and the presidents who didn't get caught. i got the history of the people who owned the wealth of the country, but none of the history of the people who created it. if i wanted a true history of where i came from, i had to go to my elders. many of them gave their whole lives to the mines, to the wheat harvest, to the logging camps, to the railroad, and got nothing for it...just fetched up on the skids livin' on short money. but they led those extraordinary lives that can never be lived again, and in the living of them, they gave me a history that is more profound, more beautiful, more powerful, more passionate, and ultimately more useful, that the best damn history book i ever read."
you know laytin, i was reading a few of your posts and i admit that i didn't read through the whole thread cause i honestly didn't have the time and started to get annoyed. but i see that you are a history major or at least seem to study it a lot. and you have quoted from a number of your history books as your sources. and i just wanted to post this to challenge you to think beyond your books. move past the history of the rich folk and the white men and get the history of the working class, of the people who built the world. not everything you read is fact.
quoted from utah phillips.....
"when i went to high school i got the history of the ruling class; the generals and the industrialists and the presidents who didn't get caught. i got the history of the people who owned the wealth of the country, but none of the history of the people who created it. if i wanted a true history of where i came from, i had to go to my elders. many of them gave their whole lives to the mines, to the wheat harvest, to the logging camps, to the railroad, and got nothing for it...just fetched up on the skids livin' on short money. but they led those extraordinary lives that can never be lived again, and in the living of them, they gave me a history that is more profound, more beautiful, more powerful, more passionate, and ultimately more useful, that the best damn history book i ever read."
I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
**giggles**
member
111 posts
Location: bottom left of the US
111 posts
Location: bottom left of the US
Posted:
Okay I am doing a dangerous thing by assuming, but I am assuming that you want me to find history outside of the normal textbook. If I am wrong please redirect me but I didn’t read what you really wanted me to do, perhaps I missed it? In keeping with the traditions of your quote, I went (or rather know something) to my own past. Here is a link to something my Great Grand Uncle did. That would be my Grandmothers Uncle.
https://www.ysu.edu/sports/traditions/penaltyflag.htm
Does that start to satisfy your thirst for knowledge of the past, though I must admit he is white, perhaps you were looking for something else.
Have you ever read Neil Gaiman's American Gods? I just started it and it is a good'un. Anyhow, the first chapter mentions the monsters that come from the "old world". You know how each country or region believes in some sort of evil vile creature, or maybe a god of some sort. These never seem to come into America. Anyhow to stop boring you, there are some great histories out there that never get written, that are so worth diving head first into.
Okay I am doing a dangerous thing by assuming, but I am assuming that you want me to find history outside of the normal textbook. If I am wrong please redirect me but I didn’t read what you really wanted me to do, perhaps I missed it? In keeping with the traditions of your quote, I went (or rather know something) to my own past. Here is a link to something my Great Grand Uncle did. That would be my Grandmothers Uncle.
https://www.ysu.edu/sports/traditions/penaltyflag.htm
Does that start to satisfy your thirst for knowledge of the past, though I must admit he is white, perhaps you were looking for something else.
Have you ever read Neil Gaiman's American Gods? I just started it and it is a good'un. Anyhow, the first chapter mentions the monsters that come from the "old world". You know how each country or region believes in some sort of evil vile creature, or maybe a god of some sort. These never seem to come into America. Anyhow to stop boring you, there are some great histories out there that never get written, that are so worth diving head first into.
Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:
member
34 posts
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
34 posts
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posted:
Running the risk here of opening up an old wound, but when i read this thread i couldnt help but throw in this little bit of information to realllllly get things going. All of what i'm about to say comes from all the media sources listed here
The US military did not locate and capture Saddam Hussein. The Kurds caught him first and decided that instead of holding him to trial in their own court (which would inevitably ended up with him being shot) they claimed the reward that was going for him.
Yes, like you are thinking right now, i at first said "yeh, right".... but a friend of mine just got back from Iran - he heard on the saturday night that the kurds caught him, the Sydney Herald reported that the Kurds caught him, the arabic news channels all reported the capture before the now infamous "we got 'im" speech.
Now, personally i dont care how he was got so long as he's out of power and i'm really not going to get into debates on US and UK foreign policy ( i have my views, you have your views so lets leave it at that)... but does nobody find it a little unsettling the varying degrees of reporting that we are getting back from this? Even between UK and US there's huge differences, such as the US hardly knows at all that the Dossier that was used as "evidence" to go to war has been almost completely discredited in the UK.
What strange times we live in
Running the risk here of opening up an old wound, but when i read this thread i couldnt help but throw in this little bit of information to realllllly get things going. All of what i'm about to say comes from all the media sources listed here
The US military did not locate and capture Saddam Hussein. The Kurds caught him first and decided that instead of holding him to trial in their own court (which would inevitably ended up with him being shot) they claimed the reward that was going for him.
Yes, like you are thinking right now, i at first said "yeh, right".... but a friend of mine just got back from Iran - he heard on the saturday night that the kurds caught him, the Sydney Herald reported that the Kurds caught him, the arabic news channels all reported the capture before the now infamous "we got 'im" speech.
Now, personally i dont care how he was got so long as he's out of power and i'm really not going to get into debates on US and UK foreign policy ( i have my views, you have your views so lets leave it at that)... but does nobody find it a little unsettling the varying degrees of reporting that we are getting back from this? Even between UK and US there's huge differences, such as the US hardly knows at all that the Dossier that was used as "evidence" to go to war has been almost completely discredited in the UK.
What strange times we live in
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
My questions to this are, why then did Sadam have a pistol and what was it $70,000 US dollars on him during his (re-)capture? Why did he not use the pistol to either kill himself or defend himself? Why in the world did he have the money?
I also question your source. I dont know it and have never heard of it, are you sure it is reliable?
Sorry, I know that no body here can really answer them, but man just too many questions.
My questions to this are, why then did Sadam have a pistol and what was it $70,000 US dollars on him during his (re-)capture? Why did he not use the pistol to either kill himself or defend himself? Why in the world did he have the money?
I also question your source. I dont know it and have never heard of it, are you sure it is reliable?
Sorry, I know that no body here can really answer them, but man just too many questions.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
He had two AK-47's also.
He had two AK-47's also.
member
34 posts
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
34 posts
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posted:
Kurds dont like the US either so gave him the guns
put yourself in his shoes for a second... you have many guns, you know you are locked in a hole and soldiers are coming to get you. Shoot them, they shoot back, you die and the Kurds get one up on you as you die anyway and they still get their money. Dont shoot and they wont kill you as you are far too valuable alive and rely on the international courts condeming death sentence.
They money part is less clear however... .perhaps the US paid too much and they gave em the change back ^_^
Sources though are Reuters (trusted source internationally), Al Jazeerah (biggest arabic news network), and Aussie who reported and 3 british journalists who werent allowed to report in their newspapers. I get daily bulletins from middle east news networks and i still have the e-mail that said saddam had been caught and it's dated the sunday morning.
Kurds dont like the US either so gave him the guns
put yourself in his shoes for a second... you have many guns, you know you are locked in a hole and soldiers are coming to get you. Shoot them, they shoot back, you die and the Kurds get one up on you as you die anyway and they still get their money. Dont shoot and they wont kill you as you are far too valuable alive and rely on the international courts condeming death sentence.
They money part is less clear however... .perhaps the US paid too much and they gave em the change back ^_^
Sources though are Reuters (trusted source internationally), Al Jazeerah (biggest arabic news network), and Aussie who reported and 3 british journalists who werent allowed to report in their newspapers. I get daily bulletins from middle east news networks and i still have the e-mail that said saddam had been caught and it's dated the sunday morning.
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
I was refering to the website and the news agency that it was posted by. I had never heard of them that is why I questioned them.
Trust me... the US Gov. are a bunch of cheep basterds who will never over pay
I was refering to the website and the news agency that it was posted by. I had never heard of them that is why I questioned them.
Trust me... the US Gov. are a bunch of cheep basterds who will never over pay
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
SILVER Member
Intrepid Penguin
5,635 posts
Location: Australia
Intrepid Penguin
5,635 posts
Location: Australia
Posted:
Osama who??
(sorry, been watching bowling for columbine again...)
Osama who??
(sorry, been watching bowling for columbine again...)
Currently on the right side up of the world.
SILVER Member
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
Posted:
Good prediction there...
Well, how does everyone think Bush has handled it?
I personally havent heard anything about Saddam or the 'concentration camp' in Cuba... which annoys me somewhat.
Written by: Vanize
This is a huge chance at reconciliation in Iraq. How much you wanna bet Bush blows it?
Good prediction there...
Well, how does everyone think Bush has handled it?
I personally havent heard anything about Saddam or the 'concentration camp' in Cuba... which annoys me somewhat.
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
yesterday the US weapons inspectors finally gave up and went home, admitting there were none there to be found.
this was given two inches in the newspaper i was reading.
i am still incredulous at how TB and GWB have managed to get away with the war without being thrown out of their respective positions, either by their parties or their electorate.
yesterday the US weapons inspectors finally gave up and went home, admitting there were none there to be found.
this was given two inches in the newspaper i was reading.
i am still incredulous at how TB and GWB have managed to get away with the war without being thrown out of their respective positions, either by their parties or their electorate.
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
They got away with it because too many people are making alot of money out of it... human life is cheap
They got away with it because too many people are making alot of money out of it... human life is cheap
Getting to the other side 
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
Interesting article... Bush talking about his 'mistakes'...
Interesting article... Bush talking about his 'mistakes'...
Written by:
President Has Second Thoughts About 'Bring 'Em On'
WASHINGTON (Jan. 14) - President Bush says he now sees that tough talk can have an "unintended consequence."
During a round-table interview with reporters from 14 newspapers, the president, who not long ago declined to identify any mistakes he'd made during his first term, expressed misgivings for two of his most famous expressions: "Bring 'em on," in reference to Iraqis attacking U.S. troops, and his vow to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."
"Sometimes, words have consequences you don't intend them to mean," Bush said Thursday. "'Bring 'em on' is the classic example, when I was really trying to rally the troops and make it clear to them that I fully understood, you know, what a great job they were doing. And those words had an unintended consequence. It kind of, some interpreted it to be defiance in the face of danger. That certainly wasn't the case."
On other points, Bush said:
He wants Congress to approve major changes in the Social Security program before the end of May. Many Democrats and some Republicans in Congress oppose Bush's proposal, which may entail steep reductions in future benefits.
Baseball's new policy for steroids and other drugs is "a very strict policy and I want to congratulate both parties."
Four years as president have changed him. "They say my hair is grayer. But I come from a pretty white-haired gene pool. At least half of it."
"Sometimes, words have consequences you don't intend them to mean."
-President Bush
On July 2, 2003, two months after he had declared an end to major combat in Iraq, Bush promised U.S. forces would stay until the creation of a free government there. To those who would attack U.S. forces in an attempt to deter that mission, Bush said, "My answer is, Bring 'em on."
In the week after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush was asked if he wanted bin Laden, the terrorist leader blamed for the attacks, dead.
"I want justice," Bush said. "And there's an old poster out West, that I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive."'
Recalling that remark, Bush told the reporters: "I can remember getting back to the White House, and Laura said, 'Why did you do that for?' I said, 'Well, it was just an expression that came out. I didn't rehearse it.'
"I don't know if you'd call it a regret, but it certainly is a lesson that a president must be mindful of, that the words that you sometimes say. ... I speak plainly sometimes, but you've got to be mindful of the consequences of the words. So put that down. I don't know if you'd call that a confession, a regret, something."
Pose Your Questions About This and Other Political Issues
During his second debate last year with presidential challenger Sen. John Kerry, Bush was asked to name three instances in which he had made a wrong decision. At the time he declined to identify any specific mistakes.
Reporters at Thursday's round-table also asked Bush about the high price tag for his second inaugural celebration and suggestions the $40 million gala, which is being paid for by private donations - much of it coming from lobbyists and corporations - be scaled down.
"The inauguration is a great festival of democracy," he said. "People are going to come from all over the country who are celebrating democracy and celebrating my victory, and I'm glad to celebrate with them."
The newspapers participating in the round-table interview were the Detroit Free Press, the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, The (Portland) Oregonian, the (Little Rock) Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, The Miami Herald, The Kansas City (Mo.) Star, The (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, the Portland (Maine) Press Herald, The Hartford (Conn.) Courant, the Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel, The (Columbia, S.C.) State, The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and the St. Paul (Minn.) Pioneer-Press.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com