|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/28/2003 05:43:41 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
My dad's description of "conservatives": My mind's made up -- don't confuse me with the facts
and the counter-point: Changed your mind -- good, it proves you have one |
How about "I've made up my mind based on things that other people have told me are facts but can't be bothered to make any effort towards educating myself." |
|
|
|
03/28/2003 06:05:37 PM · #77 |
| That sounds like the vast majority of people... |
|
|
|
03/28/2003 06:19:07 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
By the way, what do you think of my signature? |
Do you know where it comes from? |
Actually I don't know where it came from. My husband is a safety manager where he works. The workers complain about this isn't safe and that isn't safe instead of writing it down on a safety sheet. Why? I don't know. It is frustrating for him, so he told them again if they have any safety issues to write it on the sheet and some of them said "ya right like things will change" A fellow worker came to him and used this quote. He either made it up or got it from someone.
If you have any idea I would love to know who quoted it. I kind of like it. Not just because of the discussion or to some an arguement, but because relates to everyday life.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2003 06:21:18 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by welcher:
I made a mistake earlier (and am making another one now by diving back into this.)
My earlier mistake was taking Sonifo's "apology" as genuine. Since then, she's invoked the same offensive parent/child analogy, told us that we're ALL wrong and deep down we know it, that we'd have to be dummies to actually believe what we say, and told us that we're "standing on platforms of poop spreading the stink around"(?). Widespread fear of confronting or tolerating differing opinions is one big reason I'm so scared of the direction this country is taking. |
lol....you make me sound like a bad person. I really don't bite. lol I love you, man! Really I do.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2003 06:21:33 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by paganini:
There are two choices:
1. Win the war -- may cause others to hate us. But they hate us anyway.
2. Don't win the war -- makes us look weak, will cause others to rise up to attack us.
There isn't a third.
|
The third option "was" to kill Saddam silently and efficiently. Kill Saddam, his family, his staff, his cabinet, etc. Paratroopers at the facilities at which the coalition thinks there are illegal things going on (could also be done with Saddam alive). Rapid inspection, rapid fly-out with or without proof. Show the facts and see what is going to happen.
When nothing is found, deny everything and say it is an inside job, even if someone has your helicopter on film.
This war has to be won even if 100,000 Iraqi civilians are killed in the process in order to save our lives.
It is easy to kill them, impossible to explain and impossible to prevent serious counter attacks by all kind of people.
No serious government can accept those kind of casualties. They will either be voted down or be thrown over or have to take drastic measures.
100,000 civilian casualties is not to be underestimated, given that Bagdad is a city with 5 million inhabitants. 100,000 is 'only' 2% of the population......... Experts and all plots point out that a city war will end in 25 to 30% deaths, excluding wounded, on the coalition's side. 2% on the civilian side is nothing compared to that, so the estimate may well be on the low side.
The other option is to surround the city and take it hostage. That could take 6 months to 2 years, but it might be the most humane option.
Arab trade with the US is not that important. THey will sell us oil, otherwise, they'll go broke.
When the regimes change, they won't care.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2003 06:34:45 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by welcher:
I made a mistake earlier (and am making another one now by diving back into this.)
My earlier mistake was taking Sonifo's "apology" as genuine. Since then, she's invoked the same offensive parent/child analogy, told us that we're ALL wrong and deep down we know it, that we'd have to be dummies to actually believe what we say, and told us that we're "standing on platforms of poop spreading the stink around"(?). Widespread fear of confronting or tolerating differing opinions is one big reason I'm so scared of the direction this country is taking. |
lol....you make me sound like a bad person. I really don't bite. lol I love you, man! Really I do. |
he's just too bitter to not have the last word |
|
|
|
03/28/2003 06:39:16 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by welcher:
I made a mistake earlier (and am making another one now by diving back into this.)
My earlier mistake was taking Sonifo's "apology" as genuine. Since then, she's invoked the same offensive parent/child analogy, told us that we're ALL wrong and deep down we know it, that we'd have to be dummies to actually believe what we say, and told us that we're "standing on platforms of poop spreading the stink around"(?). Widespread fear of confronting or tolerating differing opinions is one big reason I'm so scared of the direction this country is taking. |
lol....you make me sound like a bad person. I really don't bite. lol I love you, man! Really I do. |
I'm still laughing at this. lol
|
|
|
|
03/28/2003 06:42:23 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
By the way, what do you think of my signature? |
Do you know where it comes from? |
Actually I don't know where it came from. |
*mini-poof*
NUMBER: 12614
QUOTATION: What we�re saying today is that you�re either part of the solution or you�re part of the problem.
ATTRIBUTION: Eldridge Cleaver (b. 1935), U.S. African�American leader, writer. Speech, 1968, San Francisco. Eldridge Cleaver, Post Prison Writings and Speeches, ed. R. Scheer (1969).
The Columbia World of Quotations. Copyright © 1996 Columbia University Press.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2003 06:57:10 PM · #84 |
Looks like Iraq just shot a missle into a crowded Kuwait mall or something. :( I think they (Iraqi military) are getting ready to fire off some chemical weapons as well. We may need to use a few MOABs on them to keep them in line if this keeps up. This war is getting kinda nasty I think.
There wouldn't have been these problems and delays if the coalition countries had some support from the rest of the UN. |
|
|
|
03/28/2003 06:59:14 PM · #85 |
|
|
|
03/28/2003 07:13:22 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Thanks General!! |
Glad to oblige, and to verify I'd remembered the source at least approximately!
No comments on my recent experience? I assure you, I was shocked and it was awful...(see below) |
|
|
|
03/29/2003 12:16:23 PM · #87 |
Quoted by GeneralE
The black uniforms, the helmets, the guns, are all meant to intimidate the innocent populace, while inflating the ego and emphasizing the separateness and superior power possessed by the police. The police now consider themselves above (or at least outside) the law instead of enforcers of it, dictators and not servants to the citizenry.
wow General I wasn't able to read your post until now. And you have a good point. I think they do take their job to the extreme. What's up with that? They are peace makers not peace fighters. I am sorry you had to go throught that. That must have been scarey.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2003 12:37:14 PM · #88 |
Even if Saddam is killed, the war will continue because the Baath party is the political force in Baghdad. Killing him wont' necessarily stop the war. The only way to beat them is to hit them hard and not worrya bout civilian casualties, which as you said, will have severe diplomatic and world view opinions on the U.S. but it will be unavoidable when the Republican guards move themselves into the city and start to do street fighting tactics.
I am not sure if we will see 20-30% deaths on 300,000 US troops, but i'd guess-estimate at least a few thousand casualties. It's always bloody to have to siege a city, it should be the LAST thing to do for a invading force.
We could surround the city but then do you really want 5 million people to STARVE to death? Remember, these guys are under the knife of the Republican guard who will obviously not give them any food at all.
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by paganini:
There are two choices:
1. Win the war -- may cause others to hate us. But they hate us anyway.
2. Don't win the war -- makes us look weak, will cause others to rise up to attack us.
There isn't a third.
|
The third option "was" to kill Saddam silently and efficiently. Kill Saddam, his family, his staff, his cabinet, etc. Paratroopers at the facilities at which the coalition thinks there are illegal things going on (could also be done with Saddam alive). Rapid inspection, rapid fly-out with or without proof. Show the facts and see what is going to happen.
When nothing is found, deny everything and say it is an inside job, even if someone has your helicopter on film.
This war has to be won even if 100,000 Iraqi civilians are killed in the process in order to save our lives.
It is easy to kill them, impossible to explain and impossible to prevent serious counter attacks by all kind of people.
No serious government can accept those kind of casualties. They will either be voted down or be thrown over or have to take drastic measures.
100,000 civilian casualties is not to be underestimated, given that Bagdad is a city with 5 million inhabitants. 100,000 is 'only' 2% of the population......... Experts and all plots point out that a city war will end in 25 to 30% deaths, excluding wounded, on the coalition's side. 2% on the civilian side is nothing compared to that, so the estimate may well be on the low side.
The other option is to surround the city and take it hostage. That could take 6 months to 2 years, but it might be the most humane option.
Arab trade with the US is not that important. THey will sell us oil, otherwise, they'll go broke.
When the regimes change, they won't care. |
|
|
|
|
03/29/2003 01:07:25 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Quoted by GeneralE
The black uniforms, the helmets, the guns, are all meant to intimidate the innocent populace, while inflating the ego and emphasizing the separateness and superior power possessed by the police. The police now consider themselves above (or at least outside) the law instead of enforcers of it, dictators and not servants to the citizenry.
wow General I wasn't able to read your post until now. And you have a good point. I think they do take their job to the extreme. What's up with that? They are peace makers not peace fighters. I am sorry you had to go throught that. That must have been scarey. |
It was, although one of the advantages of being a long-time cynic is that I wasn't nearly so surprised at their actions as the staff upstairs -- apparently the officers there were actually pointing there guns at people. Our intake worker says she still cries in the car on her way to work...Actually, the people who handled it best were some of our clients -- one of them was the first to think to ask if these guys even had a warrant.
Our attorney is in charge of things now, but I don't know what our exact follow-up will be. In the larger context of world events, this was a minor screw-up, but as an indicator of changes in our society, and the fallibility of those "in charge," I find it extremely worrisome.
Message edited by author 2003-03-29 13:10:15. |
|
|
|
03/29/2003 02:03:37 PM · #90 |
General, this sort of thing annoys me to no end. The questioning of people photographing bridges angered me, and to hear what happened to you is not good at all.
It's no secret that tragic events and/or desperate situations give rise to ultra-conservative and even fascist tendencies amongst members of the country or society in question. The situation in Germany after WWI should be studied carefully and remembered. While there are certain and definite differences between the two, there are similarities in the placation of the American public by the Bush administration with regards to the Sept. 11th fallout, and Hitler's 'Liebensraum' (sp? lit. translation 'living room') policy which rose out of the public's total exhaustion from the severe depression and inflation which plagued Germany after the war. Fascism took the German public unawares, by which a well-meaning but frustrated populous was coerced into support for extreme policies to deal with the extreme situation. One of these was the degradation of civil liberties for the sake of the 'greater good', including the ill-treatment (mild at first) of the Jews.
While I am absolutely not suggesting that Bush or his administration is heading the way of the Nazis, it is vital that we as a public question our leaders and their policies at every step, to avoid history repeating itself. The loss of civil liberties for the sake of security is the first step towards a fascist society. The racial profiling of Iraqi Americans (the CIA is currently interviewing Iraqi Americans in their homes), though they say 'voluntarily', is too close for comfort.
Letting Bush (or any leader) do what he wants for the sake of the common good, and not questioning it, is NOT a good idea at all. Bad things can happen.
James.
Message edited by author 2003-03-29 14:07:06. |
|
|
|
03/29/2003 02:07:07 PM · #91 |
| "Lebensraum" is the correct spelling; "Lieben" is to love, not what he meant at all... |
|
|
|
03/29/2003 02:10:19 PM · #92 |
| indeed...thanks. took two years of german in high school, too. i should know that one... |
|
|
|
03/29/2003 02:12:39 PM · #93 |
| So did I, (Yikes!) over 30 years ago...amazing how much junk's in that mental attic. |
|
|
|
03/29/2003 06:43:57 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Even if Saddam is killed, the war will continue because the Baath party is the political force in Baghdad. Killing him wont' necessarily stop the war. The only way to beat them is to hit them hard and not worrya bout civilian casualties, which as you said, will have severe diplomatic and world view opinions on the U.S. but it will be unavoidable when the Republican guards move themselves into the city and start to do street fighting tactics. |
Is it worth it?
The argument for this war was resolution 1441. The weapons of mass destruction are the supposed reason for this war, it doesn't mention change of leadership as a reason. The primary goal now should be to prove the allegations about the weapons. I don't believe that they are all in Bagdad. The world would most certainly be a better place without Saddam and his party, but the coalition has to find weapons of mass destruction (womd) else resolution 1441 (the resolution provides the reason for the war imo) cannot be used as the reason. Gas masks are not enough evidence, almost every soldier on any side in that region has one.
What if Bagdad falls, Saddam is killed, the party broken down but still no womd are found. The whole war would be (UN) illegal, it would be seen as a Bush vs Saddam vendetta in the largest part of the world.
Up to now I am pretty sure Saddam has some womd's. As soon as he decides to use them the whole diplomatic issue will shift around, something that Saddam wants to avoid.
Remember that Bagdad is seen as the captital of post-Mohammed Islam. There are more islamites then there are people of any other religion. I fear that there will not only be diplomatic problems, but also pseudo-military problems like change of regimes and its consequences. The stuff I see and hear via all kinds of media are pretty damaging already, Egypt's government has changed opinion already, Jordan is getting into trouble, the Kurds are about to declare independence (at wich moment Turkey, a NATO member, gets involved), Syria is clearly on the side of Iraq. It is proven that there are Israëlians in Iraq, I don't have a problem with that, but it worsens the climate for peace because all other countries do have a problem with it.
Going into Bagdad, city of 5 million (living mostly in single level homes) can be compared with going into the city of New York, with its 8 million inhabitants (large number living in buildings with multiple stories). Can you imagine an army trying to secure NYC? The police never managed to do it. How many troops would you need? How many civilians would you have to kill accidentilly and on purpose?
The consequences are something to think about. It worries me a lot.
I am not sure if we will see 20-30% deaths on 300,000 US troops, but i'd guess-estimate at least a few thousand casualties.
30% is a worst case scenario in British calculations, based on city wars from the last 50 years and current situation estimates. I hope no one gets killed, let that be clear. Again, imagine a force going into a city as large as NYC, the more civilians you kill, the more will be ready to die in an attack against you. Boobytrapped homes, hit and run actions, mines, special forces, madmen, suicide fighters etc, accidents, friendly fire.....
It's always bloody to have to siege a city, it should be the LAST thing to do for a invading force.
Unfortunately it is what Saddam is aiming at and he already seems to be winning the propaganda war in the region. :(
We could surround the city but then do you really want 5 million people to STARVE to death? Remember, these guys are under the knife of the Republican guard who will obviously not give them any food at all.
Here is where I get political. In this situation you can blame Saddam and his regime. If he would surrender, his people wouldn't have to suffer -argument. People fleeing the city can be checked and helped. A force weakened by lack of supplies is easier to fight against. The chance of an uprising is more likely. We didn't shoot them, Saddam has let them starve.
When the coalition goes in, and accidentily (I assume) causes a lot of civilian deaths, its the coalition who did it. It is much harder to say that it is Saddam's fault and most certainly much harder to defend to the world.
I also think that 2% civilian casualties might be underestimated, especially since there are so many pseudo-civilians (civilians with weapons and ready to fight -I see them as military, but the region doesn't-). :(
|
|
|
|
03/29/2003 06:57:40 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Is it worth it?
The argument for this war was resolution 1441. The weapons of mass destruction are the supposed reason for this war, it doesn't mention change of leadership as a reason. The primary goal now should be to prove the allegations about the weapons. I don't believe that they are all in Bagdad. The world would most certainly be a better place without Saddam and his party, but the coalition has to find weapons of mass destruction (womd) else resolution 1441 (the resolution provides the reason for the war imo) cannot be used as the reason. Gas masks are not enough evidence, almost every soldier on any side in that region has one. |
We all know the power of photography. All the Bush administration has to do is find some empty canisters sitting around and he can say, "Look! Remnants of weapons of mass destruction!"
Actually, I hope they find them and that we can bring our troops back home. |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 12:03:33 AM · #96 |
Actually I agree with a lot of your points... however, we didn't go to war against Iraq until now and that's mostly a political motive (seriously, we could've invaded them again after 1991 and the biggest mistake we did was NOT supporting the Shiite revolt in 91 and let Saddam massacre the rebellions, because part of the surrender agreement was to get rid of all his chemical stuff).
But let me ask you this, is the country ready for massive casualties in the civil sector + the US casualties? I don't think we are.
(Also you can't blame one side against the next for siege for the city. In the end, war is war. They wouldn't have to die if we didnt' go there to invade (the civilians). They might be living under a tyrannical regime, but that's their choice. The fact is, if people want to rebell, and Saddam is only the minority (Suuni is like 20% of the population, the Shiites + the Kurds could've overthrow him though it'd take a lot of guts and blood), they would've done it already.
I am afraid in the end we won't get the Iraqi people's support, like many wars we fight in outside the US. Without popular support, this war will end badly. We will have victory but with a big price to pay later. We'd most likely have ot sit there and take random terrorist bombings like Israel has endured and at the end, the new regime might not even like us after we leave.
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by paganini:
Even if Saddam is killed, the war will continue because the Baath party is the political force in Baghdad. Killing him wont' necessarily stop the war. The only way to beat them is to hit them hard and not worrya bout civilian casualties, which as you said, will have severe diplomatic and world view opinions on the U.S. but it will be unavoidable when the Republican guards move themselves into the city and start to do street fighting tactics. |
Is it worth it?
The argument for this war was resolution 1441. The weapons of mass destruction are the supposed reason for this war, it doesn't mention change of leadership as a reason. The primary goal now should be to prove the allegations about the weapons. I don't believe that they are all in Bagdad. The world would most certainly be a better place without Saddam and his party, but the coalition has to find weapons of mass destruction (womd) else resolution 1441 (the resolution provides the reason for the war imo) cannot be used as the reason. Gas masks are not enough evidence, almost every soldier on any side in that region has one.
What if Bagdad falls, Saddam is killed, the party broken down but still no womd are found. The whole war would be (UN) illegal, it would be seen as a Bush vs Saddam vendetta in the largest part of the world.
Up to now I am pretty sure Saddam has some womd's. As soon as he decides to use them the whole diplomatic issue will shift around, something that Saddam wants to avoid.
Remember that Bagdad is seen as the captital of post-Mohammed Islam. There are more islamites then there are people of any other religion. I fear that there will not only be diplomatic problems, but also pseudo-military problems like change of regimes and its consequences. The stuff I see and hear via all kinds of media are pretty damaging already, Egypt's government has changed opinion already, Jordan is getting into trouble, the Kurds are about to declare independence (at wich moment Turkey, a NATO member, gets involved), Syria is clearly on the side of Iraq. It is proven that there are Israëlians in Iraq, I don't have a problem with that, but it worsens the climate for peace because all other countries do have a problem with it.
Going into Bagdad, city of 5 million (living mostly in single level homes) can be compared with going into the city of New York, with its 8 million inhabitants (large number living in buildings with multiple stories). Can you imagine an army trying to secure NYC? The police never managed to do it. How many troops would you need? How many civilians would you have to kill accidentilly and on purpose?
The consequences are something to think about. It worries me a lot.
I am not sure if we will see 20-30% deaths on 300,000 US troops, but i'd guess-estimate at least a few thousand casualties.
30% is a worst case scenario in British calculations, based on city wars from the last 50 years and current situation estimates. I hope no one gets killed, let that be clear. Again, imagine a force going into a city as large as NYC, the more civilians you kill, the more will be ready to die in an attack against you. Boobytrapped homes, hit and run actions, mines, special forces, madmen, suicide fighters etc, accidents, friendly fire.....
It's always bloody to have to siege a city, it should be the LAST thing to do for a invading force.
Unfortunately it is what Saddam is aiming at and he already seems to be winning the propaganda war in the region. :(
We could surround the city but then do you really want 5 million people to STARVE to death? Remember, these guys are under the knife of the Republican guard who will obviously not give them any food at all.
Here is where I get political. In this situation you can blame Saddam and his regime. If he would surrender, his people wouldn't have to suffer -argument. People fleeing the city can be checked and helped. A force weakened by lack of supplies is easier to fight against. The chance of an uprising is more likely. We didn't shoot them, Saddam has let them starve.
When the coalition goes in, and accidentily (I assume) causes a lot of civilian deaths, its the coalition who did it. It is much harder to say that it is Saddam's fault and most certainly much harder to defend to the world.
I also think that 2% civilian casualties might be underestimated, especially since there are so many pseudo-civilians (civilians with weapons and ready to fight -I see them as military, but the region doesn't-). :( |
|
|
|
|
03/30/2003 03:17:38 AM · #97 |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 10:18:21 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 10:18:21 AM EDT.
|
