Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Iraqi Children Killed

Iraqi Children Killed (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:02 PM
 
When they say "Occupation" they mean Israel existing at all. These people are blowing themselves up because they THINK Israel shouldn't exist. NOT because Israel took a a small amount of land because of the terrorist attacks. That is just a smokescreen.
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:10 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
...
Repeat this over and over. Guns aren't bad. Bad people using guns are.
Come on Zimp, I hope you can think a little bit more!? Many laws are there to protect the innocent!
I prefer to meet 10 bad guys with their bare fists for a fight than just one with a gun!
At least that's the way it mostly happens in Germany.

Repeat this over and over. A bad person without a gun CAN NOT shoot me!
***
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:11 PM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
But no condemnation?

Does that mean you would just tell the Palestinians they are wrong to teach their children that?
Well, it depends on what the children then do with that knowledge, if they hurt people then their parents are responsible.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:12 PM
 
Originally posted by badidea:
Come on Zimp, I hope you can think a little bit more!? Many laws are there to protect the innocent!
I prefer to meet 10 bad guys with their bare fists for a fight than just one with a gun!
At least that's the way it mostly happens in Germany.

Repeat this over and over. A bad person without a gun CAN NOT shoot me!
And if you outlaw guns, only the BAD PEOPLE will have them. Understand?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:13 PM
 
Originally posted by badidea:
Come on Zimp, I hope you can think a little bit more!? Many laws are there to protect the innocent!
I prefer to meet 10 bad guys with their bare fists for a fight than just one with a gun!
At least that's the way it mostly happens in Germany.

Repeat this over and over. A bad person without a gun CAN NOT shoot me!
See, that's why I have a CC permit... Gee, 10 guys, 10 bullets. Glok and I have just evened the odds.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:13 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
And if you outlaw guns, only the BAD PEOPLE will have them. Understand?
Did you ever hear of an organisation called police??????????????????????????????
***
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:15 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
See, that's why I have a CC permit... Gee, 10 guys, 10 bullets. Glok and I have just evened the odds.
...and I live in a country where I don't need such a permit!
Whoo, I love my freedom!
***
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:15 PM
 
Originally posted by netgear:
On the contrary, he could be showing the child how to respect the weapon. I know that if I had children they would be taught how to respect the weapons I have since they would see me with them very frequently.

It's not like the settler has a photo of a masked Palestinian there and telling the kid how to aim.
That kid looks to be about 5-6... if he's going to use a weapon for target practice or recreation it should be an air rifle or a bolt action .22, like I had.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:17 PM
 
Originally posted by badidea:
Did you ever hear of an organisation called police??????????????????????????????
Yes, and what does that have to do with anything? The Police aren't Super heros. They can't do it all.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:17 PM
 
Originally posted by badidea:
...and I live in a country where I don't need such a permit!
Whoo, I love my freedom!
You don't need a permit to concealed carry a handgun? Then you must live in Switzerland, because that's the only country in Europe where you don't.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:18 PM
 
Originally posted by badidea:
Did you ever hear of an organisation called police??????????????????????????????
Oh, you mean those guys who come around too late to help anyone?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:18 PM
 
Originally posted by netgear:
On the contrary, he could be showing the child how to respect the weapon. I know that if I had children they would be taught how to respect the weapons I have since they would see me with them very frequently.

It's not like the settler has a photo of a masked Palestinian there and telling the kid how to aim.
You don't actually believe that...do you?
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:19 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
You don't need a permit to concealed carry a handgun? Then you must live in Switzerland, because that's the only country in Europe where you don't.
No, I meant that I don't need such a permit because I don't need a gun to protect myself!!!!!
***
     
netgear
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:19 PM
 
Originally posted by badidea:
Did you ever hear of an organisation called police??????????????????????????????
There was no magical cop around the night a few years back when some criminal attempted to kill me. So I pulled my gun out and we have one less criminal now.
     
netgear
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:20 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
You don't actually believe that...do you?
Why not? You have proof the kid is being told how to kill Arabs?
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:21 PM
 
Originally posted by netgear:
Why not? You have proof the kid is being told how to kill Arabs?
I thought you were talking about the arab kids.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:22 PM
 
Originally posted by badidea:
No, I meant that I don't need such a permit because I don't need a gun to protect myself!!!!!
Good on ya! I wish I were that deluded.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
netgear
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:22 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
That kid looks to be about 5-6... if he's going to use a weapon for target practice or recreation it should be an air rifle or a bolt action .22, like I had.
How many farm kids have been taught to shoot a shotgun in case the old man isn't around to do it himself?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:24 PM
 
Originally posted by netgear:
How many farm kids have been taught to shoot a shotgun in case the old man isn't around to do it himself?
I was. A shotgun, usually filled with bird shot, is a far cry from an automatic weapon.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Logic
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:24 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Well, it depends on what the children then do with that knowledge, if they hurt people then their parents are responsible.
You mean when they grow up to be this?






and I'm gonna warn people of the next image. Blood and other disgusting stuff:
Execution

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:27 PM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
You mean when they grow up to be this?






and I'm gonna warn people of the next image. Blood and other disgusting stuff:
Execution
Uh no, I'm talking about before they reach their majority. Parents aren't responsible for their grown children's actions.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:28 PM
 
Logic you like to spin the propaganda machine don't you?
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:30 PM
 
Originally posted by netgear:
There was no magical cop around the night a few years back when some criminal attempted to kill me. So I pulled my gun out and we have one less criminal now.
What have you done that this guy wanted to kill you??
Or did you actually meet someone who likes killing for fun??
Did you like shooting this guy??
Are you proud now??

In Germany you don't get shot if someone wants to steal your money because the bad guys know that you can't shoot them because of the lack of a gun....all that happens is that you lose your money and you don't have to kill anyone if you want to keep it - it is just not worth it you know, even if the guy is an asshole!
***
     
Logic
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:38 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Uh no, I'm talking about before they reach their majority. Parents aren't responsible for their grown children's actions.
Majority? Did you mean maturity?

Anyway. So you think there are a lot of small kids running around shooting Jews in Palestine and Israel?

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
netgear
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:40 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
I was. A shotgun, usually filled with bird shot, is a far cry from an automatic weapon.
I just think given the situation that the settlers are better equipped with autos than shotguns. Easier to handle and easier to conceal. He's probably just showing the kid how to protect the homestead against possible intruders.
     
swrate
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:46 PM
 
Originally posted by netgear:
I just think given the situation that the settlers are better equipped with autos than shotguns. Easier to handle and easier to conceal. He's probably just showing the kid how to protect the homestead against possible intruders.
he is Israeli so he is allowed, its legal, on the other hand:

"we dont allow Palestinians to protect homestead against possible intruders."
     
netgear
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:46 PM
 
Originally posted by badidea:
What have you done that this guy wanted to kill you??
Next time I'm walking down a street and minding my own business and a guy wants my money and I refuse, thus, leading him to pulling out a gun I'll be sure to ask him.


Did you like shooting this guy??
No, but I'm alive now and he's not.

Are you proud now??
Sure, one less vermin is removed permanently from this earth who could have preyed on another innocent individual. This isn't the first criminal I've killed and if I have to do it again I will not hesitate.

In Germany you don't get shot if someone wants to steal your money because the bad guys know that you can't shoot them because of the lack of a gun....
So every criminal by definition is kind and sensative and totally in control of the situation? Why make yourself a victim when you don't need to?

all that happens is that you lose your money and you don't have to kill anyone if you want to keep it - it is just not worth it you know, even if the guy is an asshole!
Well, this guy will never ever have the chance to commit another crime. Problem solved.
     
swrate
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:47 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
You don't need a permit to concealed carry a handgun? Then you must live in Switzerland, because that's the only country in Europe where you don't.
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:47 PM
 
Originally posted by swrate:
he is Israeli so he is allowed, its legal, on the other hand:

"we dont allow Palestinians to protect homestead against possible intruders."
Because palestinians think everyone is an intruder and have proven again and again to be killers.
     
netgear
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 04:48 PM
 
Originally posted by swrate:
he is Israeli so he is allowed, its legal, on the other hand:

"we dont allow Palestinians to protect homestead against possible intruders."
That's the benefit of having your own sovereign state.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 05:06 PM
 
Originally posted by swrate:
Am I incorrect in that statement?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Logic
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 05:10 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Am I incorrect in that statement?
I think it is forbidden to have a concealed weapon in most of Europe. No licence can allow you to have one.


But I might have completely misunderstood the question.

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 05:24 PM
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ebuddy:[quote]
We should engage our personal views in a spirit of positive banter and healthy debate. We should not be enticed into fascinating subject matter only to see; "you're ducking again." , "ahh, but you said", "no I didn't" , "yes you did", "you're misquoting me", "no I'm not", "yes you are". Seriously folks. Let's approach these forums and discussions as if they were an opportunity to present opposing ideals. This is life college and we are all given an opportunity to speak. Do not get personal. Do not be sensitive. Just debate facts and opinions as they are. Angoq had some good points below, but I'd like to take issue w/ a couple of them

I think this is great. I salute your attitude. We can agree we disagree, yet use this opportunity to learn from one another.

Originally posted by angaq0k: First of all Saddam Hussein had to be removed. But not in 2003. He should have been removed when Rumsfeld first shook hands with him, when he was a commodity against Iran and was already guilty of several crimes against humanity. How an American could shake hands with such a slime of a caricature of a human being I still cannot understand...

Simple really. The enemy of my enemy at that time is my friend. BTW, shaking one's hand is a way of telling them; "see, I'm not so bad." It can also be strategic in luring one to believe all is well when truly all is not. Many are betrayed daily with kisses, hugs, handshakes, promises, UN resolutions, etc... As for removing Saddam back during Bush senior's administration, there was much international scrutiny over our actions in Iraq at that time as well. You see the International scrutiny involving our actions there now and we had pretty damning evidence of cover-up via violated UN resolutions. We did not have as strong a case for his removal then and we would have done much more harm to the PR game. i.e. you think our PR is bad now, removing him then would've been very bad for us.

And this is the issue I can understand from a political point of view, but I find it difficult to accept from an ethical point of view. Maybe it is only me who just can't accept that darker side of politics (not a monopoly of the U.S., of course!)

Originally posted by angaq0k: I believe there should be a presence there now for sure, to avoid people being hurt. But it should be the U.N.

The UN has proven completely inept at peace-keeping and it's corrupt member-states will serve to hinder our progress there. Toppling and replacing dictatorial regimes is an extremely difficult and time-consuming task. No one in the current administration claimed it would come quickly and be without cost. It is bad, but it is not mayhem. I say, stay the course.

Well, we disagree a bit here. the U.N. has had some tremendous success; let's 50%. Granted, that is not very good, but I really wonder what type of interventions really lead to total success. Actually, any previous attempts were judged colonialists (I certainly see them as such), and we see the result today throughout the world. We have more than 500 years of colonialism that lead, for most of them, into genocide. The advantage of using U.N . is to share the accountability among all countries. But this definitely is a challenge, and I am not sure we will see something unless some leadership is applied. I do not have a perfect solution, and there may not be one either. But democratic countries are plagued with corruptions as well, to various degrees. I have grown to be a skeptic, and I do not trust easily anymore. I want accountability and I want facts.


Originally posted by angaq0k:1) ALL analysts agreed that there were not enough troops sent over there to do the job;

It is very politically correct for "analysts" to say that now. Unfortunately, it would've been extremely politically damaging to have said it more clearly prior. I agree that we are too much in the "hearts and minds" mentality of fighting this war and need to focus on "success." To the analysts who critique as an occupation...suit up.

My feeling was that they did say that before the intervention.

Originally posted by angaq0k: 2) dissolving the Iraqi Army from the beginning was a sure recipe of losing control on the "tough" elements in Iraq;

Thing is, they never had control, nor sufficient training. We're working on building that aspect from the ground, up. Also not an easy undertaking to be sure. Good thing those "tough" elements are sparce and certainly do not constitute the majority viewpoint in Iraq. I'd urge all to remember that several isolated areas reappear in the news. Areas like Falujah. This is where tragedy is. Successes are not newsworthy therefore, we are led to believe there is a state of mayhem in Iraq and that is just not so.

I partly agree with that, but I agree that the good stuff is not newsworthy (unless the President says so, which is the case for all politicians anyway).

Originally posted by angaq0k: 3) using mercenaries is showing a lot of disrespect for Iraqis and U.S. soldiers since mercenaries do not abide to the same moral codes as the military;
4) puting all the efforts in protecting the oil rather than the population first gave plenty of reasons to have the Coalition antagonized by the population.


Protecting the primary assett to Iraq was critical in it's reconstruction. Burning oil fields will not help them back on their feet. They have to have something to rekindle their economy. Actually, the more I read on the first stages of this action, the more impressed I became with how it was strategized. This peice worked much more precisely than was thought. Also, remember, our efforts could not have "all" been on protecting oil fields. There were actually several things going on at once. Still are. I do have problems with the post-war stategy, but I don't know of many "post" strategies that were viewed as successful. This requires future-telling and unfortunately there's a shortage on credible prophets these days. I'm not being a smart-aleck, it's just the truth. "post" strategies are always full of difficult ambiguities. Hard to plan around.

I honestly cannot comment on that part. Although I am aware of the positive aspects to hire privateers to do the work, I also know that there is room for abuse of power. I suspect that mercenaries may have been at the root of some of the actual situations of violence in Iraq. But I have no proof.

Originally posted by angaq0k: 5) providing contracts to foreign powers and inadequate wages for the population in the reconstruction gives more reasons to hate the Coalition

Again, most do not "hate" the coalition. With a population of over 23 million people, there would be a mass implosion upon the coalition forces the likes of which we could not endure. Those that want to hate the coalition will do it while eating from a bag of rice on which USA is printed in large, black, bold print. There is absolutely nothing that can be done about this. It is inefficient to concern ourselves with trying.

I did not say they all hate the Coalition; I am saying they can develop more reasons to do so. I have seen the faces of First Nations in front of the White people coming to help and work themselves out of a job in First Nations communities. With time, the jobless are numerous in the First Nations ranks and the wages are higher amongst mid-management whom are all White...and a First Nation political Elite fatly paid but dependant of its White mid-management to manage. I fear this will happen in Iraq. I believe it is already happening; Time magazine did publish, last year a report about the inaqualities developped in Iraq with the arrival of the "Liberating Corporations" involved in the reconstruction. There is also the issue of the actual corruption, which is also documented.

Originally posted by angaq0k: 6) Puting a provisional government to create another powerless government for the future of Iraq is not goping to make the population friendly, since they will be as powerless as they were under Saddam Hussein (minus the torture? I think not: we will see more of it!)

Again, the population is not "unfriendly" now. A fringe and criminal element exists to be sure, but cannot be confused with the population. The murder at Columbine is not indicative of an entirely murderous culture here. One can argue that the current state of our belief structure facilitates the behaviors of our children, but that's not this discussion. In reply to your statement regarding the interim and long-term governing body of Iraq; a free society carries with it much more clout and power than a "fear" society. This will take time, but if successful, many more will be willingly working for progress, as opposed to operating from fear of it's authority.

Well, I have my doubts on that, as much as I wish Iraq to be better than they were under Saddam Hussein. Time will tell I guess.

Originally posted by angaq0k: 7) Indebting the Iraqis for the next few decades to repay for their liberation from Saddam Hussein would be acceptable if it were not for the previous 6 points I have made...

True. This remains to be seen.

I could no have said it better.
( Last edited by angaq0k; Apr 26, 2004 at 05:37 PM. )
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
swrate
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 06:36 PM
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by angaq0k:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ebuddy:
We should engage our personal views in a spirit of positive banter and healthy debate. We should not be enticed into fascinating subject matter only to see; "you're ducking again." , "ahh, but you said", "no I didn't" , "yes you did", "you're misquoting me", "no I'm not", "yes you are". Seriously folks. Let's approach these forums and discussions as if they were an opportunity to present opposing ideals. This is life college and we are all given an opportunity to speak. Do not get personal. Do not be sensitive. Just debate facts and opinions as they are. Angoq had some good points below, but I'd like to take issue w/ a couple of them

I think this is great. I salute your attitude. We can agree we disagree, yet use this opportunity to learn from one another.

Originally posted by angaq0k: First of all Saddam Hussein had to be removed. But not in 2003. He should have been removed when Rumsfeld first shook hands with him, when he was a commodity against Iran and was already guilty of several crimes against humanity. How an American could shake hands with such a slime of a caricature of a human being I still cannot understand...

Simple really. The enemy of my enemy at that time is my friend. BTW, shaking one's hand is a way of telling them; "see, I'm not so bad." It can also be strategic in luring one to believe all is well when truly all is not. Many are betrayed daily with kisses, hugs, handshakes, promises, UN resolutions, etc... As for removing Saddam back during Bush senior's administration, there was much international scrutiny over our actions in Iraq at that time as well. You see the International scrutiny involving our actions there now and we had pretty damning evidence of cover-up via violated UN resolutions. We did not have as strong a case for his removal then and we would have done much more harm to the PR game. i.e. you think our PR is bad now, removing him then would've been very bad for us.

And this is the issue I can understand from a political point of view, but I find it difficult to accept from an ethical point of view. Maybe it is only me who just can't accept that darker side of politics (not a monopoly of the U.S., of course!)

Originally posted by angaq0k: I believe there should be a presence there now for sure, to avoid people being hurt. But it should be the U.N.

The UN has proven completely inept at peace-keeping and it's corrupt member-states will serve to hinder our progress there. Toppling and replacing dictatorial regimes is an extremely difficult and time-consuming task. No one in the current administration claimed it would come quickly and be without cost. It is bad, but it is not mayhem. I say, stay the course.

Well, we disagree a bit here. the U.N. has had some tremendous success; let's 50%. Granted, that is not very good, but I really wonder what type of interventions really lead to total success. Actually, any previous attempts were judged colonialists (I certainly see them as such), and we see the result today throughout the world. We have more than 500 years of colonialism that lead, for most of them, into genocide. The advantage of using U.N . is to share the accountability among all countries. But this definitely is a challenge, and I am not sure we will see something unless some leadership is applied. I do not have a perfect solution, and there may not be one either. But democratic countries are plagued with corruptions as well, to various degrees. I have grown to be a skeptic, and I do not trust easily anymore. I want accountability and I want facts.


Originally posted by angaq0k:1) ALL analysts agreed that there were not enough troops sent over there to do the job;

It is very politically correct for "analysts" to say that now. Unfortunately, it would've been extremely politically damaging to have said it more clearly prior. I agree that we are too much in the "hearts and minds" mentality of fighting this war and need to focus on "success." To the analysts who critique as an occupation...suit up.

My feeling was that they did say that before the intervention.

Originally posted by angaq0k: 2) dissolving the Iraqi Army from the beginning was a sure recipe of losing control on the "tough" elements in Iraq;

Thing is, they never had control, nor sufficient training. We're working on building that aspect from the ground, up. Also not an easy undertaking to be sure. Good thing those "tough" elements are sparce and certainly do not constitute the majority viewpoint in Iraq. I'd urge all to remember that several isolated areas reappear in the news. Areas like Falujah. This is where tragedy is. Successes are not newsworthy therefore, we are led to believe there is a state of mayhem in Iraq and that is just not so.

I partly agree with that, but I agree that the good stuff is not newsworthy (unless the President says so, which is the case for all politicians anyway).

Originally posted by angaq0k: 3) using mercenaries is showing a lot of disrespect for Iraqis and U.S. soldiers since mercenaries do not abide to the same moral codes as the military;
4) puting all the efforts in protecting the oil rather than the population first gave plenty of reasons to have the Coalition antagonized by the population.


Protecting the primary assett to Iraq was critical in it's reconstruction. Burning oil fields will not help them back on their feet. They have to have something to rekindle their economy. Actually, the more I read on the first stages of this action, the more impressed I became with how it was strategized. This peice worked much more precisely than was thought. Also, remember, our efforts could not have "all" been on protecting oil fields. There were actually several things going on at once. Still are. I do have problems with the post-war stategy, but I don't know of many "post" strategies that were viewed as successful. This requires future-telling and unfortunately there's a shortage on credible prophets these days. I'm not being a smart-aleck, it's just the truth. "post" strategies are always full of difficult ambiguities. Hard to plan around.

I honestly cannot comment on that part. Although I am aware of the positive aspects to hire privateers to do the work, I also know that there is room for abuse of power. I suspect that mercenaries may have been at the root of some of the actual situations of violence in Iraq. But I have no proof.

Originally posted by angaq0k: 5) providing contracts to foreign powers and inadequate wages for the population in the reconstruction gives more reasons to hate the Coalition

Again, most do not "hate" the coalition. With a population of over 23 million people, there would be a mass implosion upon the coalition forces the likes of which we could not endure. Those that want to hate the coalition will do it while eating from a bag of rice on which USA is printed in large, black, bold print. There is absolutely nothing that can be done about this. It is inefficient to concern ourselves with trying.

I did not say they all hate the Coalition; I am saying they can develop more reasons to do so. I have seen the faces of First Nations in front of the White people coming to help and work themselves out of a job in First Nations communities. With time, the jobless are numerous in the First Nations ranks and the wages are higher amongst mid-management whom are all White...and a First Nation political Elite fatly paid but dependant of its White mid-management to manage. I fear this will happen in Iraq. I believe it is already happening; Time magazine did publish, last year a report about the inaqualities developped in Iraq with the arrival of the "Liberating Corporations" involved in the reconstruction. There is also the issue of the actual corruption, which is also documented.

Originally posted by angaq0k: 6) Puting a provisional government to create another powerless government for the future of Iraq is not goping to make the population friendly, since they will be as powerless as they were under Saddam Hussein (minus the torture? I think not: we will see more of it!)

Again, the population is not "unfriendly" now. A fringe and criminal element exists to be sure, but cannot be confused with the population. The murder at Columbine is not indicative of an entirely murderous culture here. One can argue that the current state of our belief structure facilitates the behaviors of our children, but that's not this discussion. In reply to your statement regarding the interim and long-term governing body of Iraq; a free society carries with it much more clout and power than a "fear" society. This will take time, but if successful, many more will be willingly working for progress, as opposed to operating from fear of it's authority.

Well, I have my doubts on that, as much as I wish Iraq to be better than they were under Saddam Hussein. Time will tell I guess.

Originally posted by angaq0k: 7) Indebting the Iraqis for the next few decades to repay for their liberation from Saddam Hussein would be acceptable if it were not for the previous 6 points I have made...

True. This remains to be seen.

I could no have said it better.

you know
one of these posts,


who made me forget to reply
long meditation here thanks angaok and ebuddy


it's all about "knee-jerk", I am not talking about the UN, no,
if powers had respected UN maybe they could have worked better together.

The "powers" message, economic, religious, social....program. Will we as a specy be one day intelligent and tolerant enough not to resort to violence? sanctions.......

thanks for those debates
     
swrate
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 06:58 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Am I incorrect in that statement?
now to dcolt, no, the stone,
to tell you the truth I dont like weapons much, because I was victim of people using weapons.

yes, here------- the law....

one needs a licence.,
unless you are in the army, two or three years ago, mentioned having to give the weapon back between services. Here service is sprayed a few weeks over 20 years. Then they gave up on the idea as accidents rarely happen with that sort of weapon.

theolein probably knows more on this topic,
i have a phobia against guns, sorry.

i love swords though.

BTW
to whoever
whatever
Jackin the box
said only US citizens are proud to be located in whatever paradise many are dreaming in,
it's great here merci beaucoup, fantastique,i can appreciate the luxury having seen not so well organized countries....
I am happy not proud, happy to be living here, near the lake Geneva, with lovely mountains, trains on time, the well oiled clock. le lac l�man. just sometimes one doesn't like to expose one's life on the net. since I consider not everyone reads posts like mine, only people acutally going through my lines will absorb the information.

I am proud to be human, yes, and also happy not to be living in the States, even though I love New-York, the Big-Apple brought experience.
I am proud being from planet earth, happy to live here,

................................................






and i hope we are not making to much of a mess for the future generations.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2004, 07:38 PM
 
Originally posted by swrate:
now to dcolt, no, the stone,
to tell you the truth I dont like weapons much, because I was victim of people using weapons.

yes, here------- the law....

one needs a licence.,
unless you are in the army, two or three years ago, mentioned having to give the weapon back between services. Here service is sprayed a few weeks over 20 years. Then they gave up on the idea as accidents rarely happen with that sort of weapon.

theolein probably knows more on this topic,
i have a phobia against guns, sorry.

i love swords though.

BTW
to whoever
whatever
Jackin the box
said only US citizens are proud to be located in whatever paradise many are dreaming in,
it's great here merci beaucoup, fantastique,i can appreciate the luxury having seen not so well organized countries....
I am happy not proud, happy to be living here, near the lake Geneva, with lovely mountains, trains on time, the well oiled clock. le lac l�man. just sometimes one doesn't like to expose one's life on the net. since I consider not everyone reads posts like mine, only people acutally going through my lines will absorb the information.

I am proud to be human, yes, and also happy not to be living in the States, even though I love New-York, the Big-Apple brought experience.
I am proud being from planet earth, happy to live here,

................................................






and i hope we are not making to much of a mess for the future generations.
That's understandable, I know several people with such phobias, my girlfriend doesn't fear guns but is phobic of knives. That's nothing at all to be ashamed of.

I've collected quite a few swords myself. I'm quite partial to Toledo blades, specifically of masonic and occult significance. Hmmm... I also collect some movie swords; LoTR, Blade, etc..
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 03:31 AM
 
Originally posted by netgear:
Next time I'm walking down a street and minding my own business and a guy wants my money and I refuse, thus, leading him to pulling out a gun I'll be sure to ask him.

...

Well, this guy will never ever have the chance to commit another crime. Problem solved.
He wanted money and you gave him death??????????

Seems like you are a very "good" person and I should be very thankful that you removed this human being from this earth?!

WOW....JUST WOW!!!!!!


Oh, one more question: How much money do you usually carry with you - how much was his life worth?
( Last edited by badidea; Apr 27, 2004 at 03:50 AM. )
***
     
netgear
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 05:17 AM
 
Originally posted by badidea:
He wanted money and you gave him death??????????

Seems like you are a very "good" person and I should be very thankful that you removed this human being from this earth?!

WOW....JUST WOW!!!!!!


Oh, one more question: How much money do you usually carry with you - how much was his life worth?
You missed the point about him drawing a weapon.

His life was worth about 50 cents I'd say (cost of bullet). Of course he'd still be alive were it not for him violating my rights in the first place. The relevant point is not how much money I may or may not carry but the fact that he wanted what wasn't his to begin with. I will defend my property to the death no matter what that property is. Of course being from socialist Europe you wouldn't understand that concept.
     
Powerbook
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 08:08 AM
 
Originally posted by netgear:
You missed the point about him drawing a weapon.

His life was worth about 50 cents I'd say (cost of bullet). Of course he'd still be alive were it not for him violating my rights in the first place. The relevant point is not how much money I may or may not carry but the fact that he wanted what wasn't his to begin with. I will defend my property to the death no matter what that property is. Of course being from socialist Europe you wouldn't understand that concept.
"Soucerlist Yurrp" again - I knew it!
Are you to stupid to tell the difference??? Hint: A life is obviously more worth in Europe...

PB.
Aut Caesar aut nihil.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 08:49 AM
 
Angoq, good points made as usual my friend. Someone popped in with something I completely failed to understand though and hard to tell if they agreed, disagreed with one, or disagreed with both.

That said; I actually fear guns. Sure I've used a shotgun while out hunting with my father and I've shot a .22, but other than that I've never owned a gun. I support, whole-heartedly, the rights of American people (without serious history of criminal behavior) to carry a gun. I agree with waiting periods and background checks. (anyone in this big a hurry to get a gun needs to just chill a bit.) Statistics show that a criminal is less likely to strike those with dogs and guns. Why? Because the criminal does not (in most cases) want a confrontation. They want to simply come in, take your stuff, and bail out before anyone knows they are there. Problem is, how do I know why the criminal has broken into my home? Perhaps the criminal thought I was gone and had intended to rape my wife. Well, he would get shot. To take my kids? Shot. I'd be more or less likely to kill someone if I knew what their intentions were. Unfortunately, their problem is they don't ask for help nor announce their intent. I will not lose sleep over their demise. Let's look at the Columbine kids for example, they broke 12 gun laws going into the school. 3 more laws would not have stopped them. Perhaps an armed teacher or security officer could've stopped this. Although, as humiliating as my kids think it is, detection at the door works well also.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 08:51 AM
 
See what happens;

Call someone a name.

get called stupid.

No one has gotten anywhere with the discussion.
ebuddy
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 09:40 AM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
Angoq, good points made as usual my friend. Someone popped in with something I completely failed to understand though and hard to tell if they agreed, disagreed with one, or disagreed with both.

That said; I actually fear guns. Sure I've used a shotgun while out hunting with my father and I've shot a .22, but other than that I've never owned a gun. I support, whole-heartedly, the rights of American people (without serious history of criminal behavior) to carry a gun. I agree with waiting periods and background checks. (anyone in this big a hurry to get a gun needs to just chill a bit.) Statistics show that a criminal is less likely to strike those with dogs and guns. Why? Because the criminal does not (in most cases) want a confrontation. They want to simply come in, take your stuff, and bail out before anyone knows they are there. Problem is, how do I know why the criminal has broken into my home? Perhaps the criminal thought I was gone and had intended to rape my wife. Well, he would get shot. To take my kids? Shot. I'd be more or less likely to kill someone if I knew what their intentions were. Unfortunately, their problem is they don't ask for help nor announce their intent. I will not lose sleep over their demise. Let's look at the Columbine kids for example, they broke 12 gun laws going into the school. 3 more laws would not have stopped them. Perhaps an armed teacher or security officer could've stopped this. Although, as humiliating as my kids think it is, detection at the door works well also.
Well, there's nothing I could say against your words...this is pretty much true I think but with a very important difference to countries with stricter gun laws (like Germany) I think...

...sure you couldn't have stopped those Columbine kids with a law - Robert Steinh�user from Erfurt/Germany is holding the "world record" with his school masacre - but the difference is how often such cruel thinks happen! You don't stop the hardcore/longtime planning bastard but you can stop the one that's doing it because of some crazy idea that just popped into his mind!

...sure you can stop some criminals from robbing you because you carry a gun but all the others who don't care or think that you are not at home now bring a gun for their own protection if they accidentially run into the owner of the house - this is when this situation becomes really dangerous! If they wouldn't have to, I think most criminals wouldn't murder someone to get his money but if the victim draws his gun the shooting begins! (I am NOT saying the it is the victims fault!!!)


In single cases you surely would have been in a better position with a gun than without one but in most cases this is certainly NOT true!
Give the bad guy your money and then ask the police for help - your money may be gone but you also wouldn't have to become a killer!


How would you guys explain that the USA has about 3x as many inhabitants as Germany but (I didn't find any statistics) 50x (??) as many deaths because of guns??
***
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 10:59 PM
 
ebuddy, badidea, I think you both bring very good points.

Somehow, I can understand in some context the importance of self-defense.

But I also see the importance of prevention. A gun does not always prevent; it can also be a trigger for violence.

I believe in looking at causes, and concurring factors.

If we were to look at our peers, and lend a hand instead of letting people on their own all the time, maybe we could prevent most elements leading to crime.

I think the issue is about issuing too much medication, instead of enough education to help people help themselves. It's good for the pharmacological industry, but the harm is done already...
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
netgear
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 11:37 PM
 
Originally posted by Powerbook:
"Soucerlist Yurrp" again - I knew it!
Are you to stupid to tell the difference??? Hint: A life is obviously more worth in Europe...

PB.
Criminals have no value to society.
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2004, 11:52 PM
 
Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
...
But whatever, if everyone is OK with people celebrating the dead or hurt in the explosion then I am equally as chipper about these rugrats getting mowed down.
Well, when some stranger mows your rugrats down for making too much noise in the street, we'll all be chipper for that too.
weird wabbit
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2004, 03:47 AM
 
Originally posted by netgear:
Criminals have no value to society.
Hmmmm, reminds me of a time about 60 years ago when someone had the idea
that handicapped people wouldn't have a value to society...

...and I hope you have never ever downloaded some illegal MP3 you stonethrower?!
( Last edited by badidea; Apr 28, 2004 at 05:00 AM. )
***
     
saab95
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On my Mac, defending capitalists
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2004, 01:32 PM
 
Why would children "celebrate" the death of their liberators?
It's amazing what the brainwashed can do.

For example, they can hijack planes and crash them into buildings.

They can run out of school and celebrate the death of those who think that their lives would have been better under a system that values human life.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for those children.

Imagine a future where you are drafted to perform an act of suicide bombing?
Hello from the State of Independence

By the way, I defend capitalists, not gangsters ;)
     
saab95
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On my Mac, defending capitalists
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2004, 01:33 PM
 
Originally posted by badidea:
Hmmmm, reminds me of a time about 60 years ago when someone had the idea
that handicapped people wouldn't have a value to society...

...and I hope you have never ever downloaded some illegal MP3 you stonethrower?!
Absolute nonsense to make criminals and handicapped persons as moral equivalents.
Hello from the State of Independence

By the way, I defend capitalists, not gangsters ;)
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2004, 02:17 PM
 
Originally posted by saab95:
Absolute nonsense to make criminals and handicapped persons as moral equivalents.
Moral equivalents??? Where did I say that??? Both are human beings!! But I think you don't know what that means, do you, Mr. Superamerican �bermensch?
***
     
BoomStick
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2004, 02:27 PM
 
Originally posted by badidea:

(I am a big fan of our germans laws when it comes to guns and who is allowed to carry them)
We all saw how that turned out 60 years ago with the Jews being disarmed.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:59 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,