0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 10:02 am
dlowan wrote:
It's kind of out-dated for the US to be playing that sick schtick in the 21st century - no?


Out of deference for my rather punched about admiration for you, Deb, I am walking away from this one.

Still, I would like to make a prediction that in the coming decades the American century will be looked upon rather wistfully. In regards to what's brewing in the East, the MiddleEast, and the sub-continent, I'm afraid mankind ain't seen nothing yet.

Regards.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 10:06 am
On December 18, 1793, cannons of the Revolutionary army under the command of twenty-four year-old Major Napoleon Bonaparte destroyed ten English ships anchored in Toulon's harbor. He bravely led his men in the assault on the fort guarding the city, suffering a wound in the thigh from an enemy bayonet. Bonaparte's first victory made him the hero of the day throughout France.

Hungry for greater advancement, Brigadier General Bonaparte headed for Paris. Political turmoil in the city's street soon gave him his chance. On October 5, 1795, mobs of Parisians joined national guardsmen bent on toppling the Republic, and the government called on Bonaparte to repel the attack.
"They put the matter in my hands," Napoleon recalled, "and then set to discussing whether or not I had the right to repel force by force. 'Do you intent to wait,' said I, 'until the people give you permission to fire at them? You have appointed me, and I am compromised. It is only fair that I should do the business my own way.' On that I left the lawyers to drown themselves in their own flood of words, and got the troops on the move."
------------------
This is true.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 10:08 am
WhoodaThunk wrote:
dlowan wrote:
It's kind of out-dated for the US to be playing that sick schtick in the 21st century - no?


Out of deference for my rather punched about admiration for you, Deb, I am walking away from this one.

Still, I would like to make a prediction that in the coming decades the American century will be looked upon rather wistfully. In regards to what's brewing in the East, the MiddleEast, and the sub-continent, I'm afraid mankind ain't seen nothing yet.

Regards.


If you had quoted the entire post, I might respond. Let me know if you ever do.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 10:09 am
Certainly it is true, and far from denying it, i pointed it out at the very beginning.

If you have a point in posting that, you haven't made it clear.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 10:14 am
dlowan wrote:
WhoodaThunk wrote:
dlowan wrote:
It's kind of out-dated for the US to be playing that sick schtick in the 21st century - no?


Out of deference for my rather punched about admiration for you, Deb, I am walking away from this one.

Still, I would like to make a prediction that in the coming decades the American century will be looked upon rather wistfully. In regards to what's brewing in the East, the MiddleEast, and the sub-continent, I'm afraid mankind ain't seen nothing yet.

Regards.


If you had quoted the entire post, I might respond. Let me know if you ever do.


Excuse me?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 10:17 am
An interesting aside: Napoleon arrived in Toulon as captain and left the town as general: made up four ranks within four months.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 10:24 am
Setanta wrote:
This whole "we've done it for the good of the world and the Iraqi people" horseshit was cobbled together after the fact, when no evidence of weapons of mass destruction or a connection to the September 11th attack was forthcoming. So you not only know jack **** about history, you're trying to re-write the history of the last few years.
I've dug no hole, and i've nothing i am either ashamed of or embarrassed by in this thread. You spew nonsense all over these boards every day. I take very little notice of it, but i do enjoy rubbing your nose in it from time to time.


I guess you'll have to forgive me if I don't subscribe to your notion of the "character of reasonable discussion" or what does/does not constitute "vague and unsupportable statements" of history.

Once again, you're a smart guy but you don't know everything.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 10:29 am
I've never claimed to know everything, nor even that i'm "a smart guy." I stand by the statement that Ican knows nothing about history and that he spews nonsense all over these boards. As i wrote, i've nothing i am either ashamed of or embarrassed by in this thread. This was only the latest example of Ican's attempt to use distorted characterizations of history to support his thesis. Read it how you will, Ican has consistently demonstrated that his view of history is consonant with that of Karl Marx--that it is something one uses to support an ideological position, and not something which is subject to investigation intended to separate the ideological chaff from the wheat of substantiation.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 10:31 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
An interesting aside: Napoleon arrived in Toulon as captain and left the town as general: made up four ranks within four months.


He certainly made hay while the sun shone. There is very good evidence that he made a significant effort to secure the appointment of Dugommier to the command position, knowing that his efforts would be rewarded by an appointment within that command. Considering the hash he had made of the Corsican effort, he needed something to move his career along.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 11:27 am
I have been out of school too long and wasn't exactly a serious student so all this history stuff is out of my league.

I am talking about the here and now. Can any of you imagine another country doing an Iraq and getting away with it without a lot of other countries bearing down on them with military action if all else failed? I seriously can't. The US would be first in line to object.

In the end Bush did it because he could for whatever motive.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 11:44 am
Setanta wrote:
... I stand by the statement that Ican knows nothing about history and that he spews nonsense all over these boards. As i wrote, i've nothing i am either ashamed of or embarrassed by in this thread. This was only the latest example of Ican's attempt to use distorted characterizations of history to support his thesis. ...


Repeatedly alleging another person has stated falsehoods while failing to specifically identifying them and failing to explain why you perceive them falsehoods and failing to say what you believe the truth to be, seems deceiving to me.

www.m-w.com
Quote:
Main Entry: de·ceive
Pronunciation: di-'sEv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·ceived; de·ceiv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French deceivre, from Latin decipere, from de- + capere to take -- more at HEAVE
transitive senses
1 archaic : ENSNARE
2 a obsolete : to be false to b archaic : to fail to fulfill
3 obsolete : CHEAT
4 : to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid
5 archaic : to while away
intransitive senses : to practice deceit; also : to give a false impression <appearances can deceive>
- de·ceiv·er noun
- de·ceiv·ing·ly /-'sE-vi[ng]-lE/ adverb
synonyms DECEIVE, MISLEAD, DELUDE, BEGUILE mean to lead astray or frustrate usually by underhandedness. DECEIVE implies imposing a false idea or belief that causes ignorance, bewilderment, or helplessness <tried to deceive me about the cost>. MISLEAD implies a leading astray that may or may not be intentional <I was misled by the confusing sign>. DELUDE implies deceiving so thoroughly as to obscure the truth <we were deluded into thinking we were safe>. BEGUILE stresses the use of charm and persuasion in deceiving <was beguiled by false promises>.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 11:55 am
Quote:

Posted on Fri, May. 13, 2005


R E L A T E D L I N K S
• Two more Gulfport-based Marines reported injured
• Two Harrison County Marines injured
• Gulfport-based Marines have been SH's faces of war

Marines brave fire to save their own

By ERIN KNICKMEYER

THE WASHINGTON POST

HABAN, Iraq - The explosion enveloped the armored vehicle in flames, sending orange balls of fire bubbling above the trees along the Euphrates River near the Syrian border.

Marines in surrounding vehicles threw open their hatches and took off running across the plowed fields toward the already-blackening metal of the destroyed vehicle. Shouting, they pulled to safety those they could, as the flames ignited the bullets, mortar rounds, flares and grenades inside, rocketing them into the sky and across pastures.

Gunnery Sgt. Chuck Hurley emerged from the smoke and turmoil around the vehicle, circling toward the spot where helicopters would later land to pick up casualties. As he passed one group of Marines, he uttered just one sentence: "That was the same squad."

Among those killed or wounded when an explosive device erupted under their Amtrac on Wednesday were the last battle-ready members of a squad that four days earlier had battled foreign fighters holed up in a house in the town of Ubaydi. In that fight, two squad members were killed and five wounded.

An American military spokesman said two Marines were killed and 14 wounded in Wednesday's blast.

In 96 hours of fighting and ambushes in far western Iraq, the squad had just ceased to be.

Every member of the squad - one of three that make up the 1st Platoon of Lima Company, 3rd Battalion, 25th Regiment - had been killed or wounded, Marines here said. All told, the 1st Platoon - which Hurley commands - had sustained 60 percent casualties, demolishing it as a fighting force.

"They used to call it Lucky Lima," said Maj. Steve Lawson, commander of the company. "That turned around and bit us."

Sgt. Dennis Woullard of D'Iberville, who survived the explosion, sat glassy-eyed and bare-chested under a nearby building on the edge of the field. He lamented that he couldn't save all the men inside. Thursday's Sun Herald had a Page One story about Woullard's dash through a fusillade of machine-gun fire on Sunday to retrieve a fallen Marine.

"I was at the back door," Woullard said of the Amtrac explosion. "I couldn't get 'em all. There had to be six still in there. I don't know how they could've gotten out."

Another Marine, speaking with a senior officer, held back tears.

"I couldn't get to them all, sir, it was just too hot," he said, shaking his head.

As Marines treated their wounded comrades, former Lt. Col. Oliver North, the Iran-Contra figure, filmed the operation with a mini-DV recorder issued by his employer, Fox News. North, who was dressed in Marine camouflage, is traveling with Kilo company.

About a half-hour after the explosion, two Blackhawk helicopters swooped down to take the wounded to the Marine base at Al Qaim near the Syrian border.

Wednesday was the fourth day of fighting in far western Iraq, as the U.S. military continued an assault that has sent more than 1,000 Marines down the ungoverned north bank of the Euphrates River in search of foreign fighters crossing the border from Syria. Of seven Marines killed so far in the operation, six came come from Lima Company, 1st Platoon.

Lima Company drew Marine reservists from across Ohio into the conflict in Iraq. Some were still too young to be bothered much by shaving, or even stubble.

They rode to war on a Marine Amtrac, an armored vehicle that travels on tank-like treads. The Marine Reserve unit in Gulfport is an Amtrac unit.

Marines in Iraq typically crowd hip to hip in the Amtrac, with one or two men perched on cardboard boxes of rations. Only the gunners manning the top hatches of Amtracs have any view of the passing scenery. Those inside find out what their field of combat is when the rear ramp comes down and they run out with weapons ready.

Marines typically pass travel time in the Amtrac by extracting favorite bits from ration packets, mercilessly ribbing a usual victim for eating or sleeping too much, or sleeping themselves.

On Monday, when the Marine assault on foreign fighters formally began, the young Marines of the squad from 1st Platoon were already exhausted. Their encounter at the house in Ubaydi that morning and the previous night had been the unintended first clash of the operation, pitting them against insurgents who fired armor-piercing bullets up through the floor. It took 12 hours and five assaults by the squad - plus grenades, bombing by an F/A-18 attack plane, tank rounds and rockets at 20 yards - to kill the insurgents and permit recovery of the dead Marines' bodies.

Afterward, they slept in the moving Amtrac, heads back and mouths open. One stood up to stretch his legs. He fell asleep again standing up, leaning against the metal walls.

Squad members spoke only to compare their knowledge on the condition of their wounded. Getting the latest news, they fell silent again. After one such half-hour of silence, a Marine offered a terse commendation for one of the squad members shot at Ubaydi: "Bunker's a good man."

With the operation under way, Marine commanders kept the 1st Platoon largely to the back, letting its men rest.

Commanders had hoped the operation would swiftly capture or kill large numbers of foreign fighters. But the foreigners, and everyone else here, had plenty of warning the Marines were coming - including the unplanned battle at Ubaydi.

By the time the squad from Lima Company crossed north of the Euphrates, whole villages consisted of little more than abandoned houses with fresh tire tracks leading off into pastures or homes occupied only by prepubescent boys or old men. Men of fighting age had made themselves scarce. The AK-47 assault rifles ubiquitous in Iraqi households had disappeared.

Many Marines complained bitterly that commanders had pulled them out of the fight at Ubaydi while the insurgents were still battling, to start the planned offensive. "They take us from killing the people they want us to kill and bring us to these ghost villages," one said Wednesday on the porch of a house commandeered as a temporary base.

Uneventful house searches stretched into late afternoon, the tedium broken only by small-arms fire and mortar rounds lobbed by insurgents hiding on the far side of the river.

This correspondent had just gotten off the Amtrac and the reconstructed squad from 1st Platoon was rolling toward the Euphrates in a row of armored vehicles, headed for more house searches, when the vehicle rolled over the explosive.

Marines initially said they believed the blast was caused by two mines stacked on top of each other. But reports from Marines that they had seen an artillery round and two hand-held radios near the blast site raised suspicions that a remotely activated bomb had been used, Lawson said.

Hurley and others pulled passengers out of the Amtrac as flames detonated - or "cooked off," in military jargon - its ammunition. As Marines carrying stretchers ran to the Amtrac, bullets snapped out of the burning hulk and traveled for hundreds of feet. The Marines ran back through the fusillade, carrying out the wounded. "C'mon, c'mon, c'mon," some shouted, desperate to get the wounded out.

The four dead were trapped inside the vehicle, Lawson said.

"We passed right over it. We passed right over it," one of many Marines in the convoy ahead of the burning Amtrac said of the explosive, puzzling over why he was still alive.

"That's the last of the squad," said another, Cpl. Craig Miller, whose reassignment last month had taken him out of the unit. "Three weeks ago, that would have been me."

Late Wednesday, helicopters flew out Hurley and the remaining members of 1st Platoon for time off. They are to return after the platoon is remade with new members, Marines said.

Another Lima Company platoon commander ordered his men to bed early, in preparation for the next day's operations. Grieving could wait, the commander said.

"We don't have time," he said.

About Amtracs

Amtracs, or amphibious tractors, are the Marines' amphibious assault craft.

• Crew: 3 (driver, crew chief, 3rd crew)

• Capacity: Crew plus 18 infantry

• Speed: 45 mph, 9 mph in water

• Weight: 27 tons

• Weapons: .50-caliber machine gun, 40mm grenade launcher

• Other: Amtracs can cross an 8-foot ditch and climb a 3-foot wall
Information from The Los Angeles Times and The Associated Press were added to this report.


Source
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 12:08 pm
Apropos of someone's post ten or so back:

I believe that it was ex-President Clinton, who, upon being asked why he did what he did with Monica in the Oval Office, replied: "I did it for the worst possible reasons. Because I could."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 12:37 pm
In response to Ican's most recent, off-target rant:

I haven't contended that you are stating falsehoods, Ican, that is a straw man, and your post, as is typical of your work, is wasted knocking down the straw man you have set up.

I have contended that you know nothing of history. I have used as examples (recently--i don't intend to delve any further into the past) your ludicrous contention that the War of 1812, World War I and World War II were pre-emptive wars. When challenged on that, you decided you have some kind of right to re-define pre-emptive to suit your purposes.

Then you came out with this claptrap about Hussein, Napoleon, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. Rather than take you down a path which would have confused you further, i simply pointed out that you would be unable to support a contention that Napoleon was responsible for the deaths of millions of civilians. The point about civilians is important, because in a list of monsters which includes Hitler and Pol Pot, any contender for a place of honor there would have to had been responsible for the deaths of millions of non-combatants.

You just don't get it, because your world view is oversimplistic, and your devotion to a purely partisan support of the current administration leads you to reach beyond your understanding of history to establish precedence for the administration's actions. The United States has had some pretty flimsy reasons for going to war, but this is the first "pre-emptive" war in our history. It is a pre-emptive war in that the administration claimed there was a proximate danger of Iraq threatening our security with weapons of mass destruction. The administration knew better than to assert outright that Iraq was involved in the September 11th tragedy, but they were certainly not above a sub rosa implication to that effect.

But no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and no undeniable linkage of Iraq and the September 11th bombers has been established. So the conservatives have switched the rationale to one of freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal tyrrant. Without doubt, Hussein was a brutal tyrrant. What is in doubt is whether or not the Iraqi people would have suffered as much if some other member of the Ba'at Arab Socialist Party had been in charge. What is in doubt is whether or not it is justifiable to assert that Hussein is in a league with Hitler and Pol Pot. What is not in doubt is that Napoleon does not belong in that list.

It serves conservative propaganda quite well to whip the discussion into hysteria by likening Hussein to Hitler and Pol Pot. However, that contention will not stand up to close examination. Of the more than 300,000 Iraqis estimated to have died during his regime, other than combat deaths, the majority came after the failed uprising which Shi'ites undertook in the belief, tragically mistaken, that Pappy Bush would support them. While not in the least condoning any of the behavior of that regime, i can understand well why the number of deaths chargeable to them would increase dramatically after a failed uprising.

It would be absurd to contend that no war would have taken place in Europe in the mid-20th century had Hitler not taken power. It would be reasonable to state, however, that the number of deaths would have been fewer by millions had there been no Hitler, no Eichmann, no "final solution." However, the greatest number of deaths took place in the Soviet Union, many if not actually most were as a result of the actions of Stalin's regime, and the reduction in deaths in that war had there been no "final solution," no death camps, would have been proportiately small. Reasonable estimates of deaths in the Soviet Union are placed at 25,000,000. Subtract the deaths of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals and anti-Nazi activitists from the death toll, and the difference is far less significant as a proportion of the total loss of life, given the horrible toll of death in the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, it is still quite reasonable to contend that millions fewer would have died had there been no Hitler.

In the case of Pol Pot, the examination reveals an even more extreme case of bloody murder. There is no reason to deny that life would have been brutal under a Khmer Rouge regime. However, under Pol Pot's leadership, millions died who likely would never have had to fear for their lives, absent Pol Pot. It simply is ridiculously unreasonable to put Hussein in the same league as Hitler or Pol Pot.

And that is a significant point. Having failed to find the weapons of mass destruction, having failed to find solid evidence of a link between Iraq and the September 11th bombers, conservatives have rushed to assert that it was always about freeing the Iraqis of a brutal, murderous regime. But those who opposed the war, and now criticize the administration's fabrications leading to war point to two significant holes in that story. The first is that the PNAC has listed bases in southwest Asia in general and Iraq in particular as a goal in their agenda, since long before the Shrub was even elected. The second is to point out that there are other brutal, murderous regimes around the world which have not received the tender minstrations of the Shrub and his Forty Theives--North Korea is mentioned again and again, because it is a brutal dictatorship which murders its people through starvation, and there is not doubt in the mind of any reasonable person that they possess weapons of mass destruction.

Therefore, the conservatives attempt to raise the debate to an hysterical level by comparing Hussein to the likes of Hitler and Pol Pot. It is an attempt to place the justification for war on the solid ground of removing an epochal murderous tyrrant from power. But the case cannot be made, because it depends of analogies which don't hold up.

That is why i found your post to be a line of crap. Were anyone to make the same assertion again, i would consider it a line of crap, and say as much. Therefore, i did not and do not accuse you of retailing lies. I simply point out that you are not equipped to make such historical analogies, because you demonstrably possess insufficient knowledge of history, and insufficient historical prespective to sustain such analogies.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 12:58 pm
Watching Adlai Stevenson debate Al Gore would be far preferable to this ... excuse me while I go vomit a couple of quarts.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 01:00 pm
sumac wrote:
Apropos of someone's post ten or so back:

I believe that it was ex-President Clinton, who, upon being asked why he did what he did with Monica in the Oval Office, replied: "I did it for the worst possible reasons. Because I could."


I know I had that in mind and I was thinking I would have rather Bush had done what clinton did because he could.

I turns out though that clinton really couldn't do what he wanted because he could, he got impeached. Whereas Bush lies and takes our country to war and nothing happens to him.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 01:05 pm
Still tryin' to pick a fight, huh, Whooda?


God, you crack me up . . .
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 01:34 pm
Setanta wrote:
Still tryin' to pick a fight, huh, Whooda?


No, actually you did both of us a favor with that last diatribe/Ode To Me because there's a limit to how much self-adoration I can stomach, and I believe it's time for me to tune out of this thread. It's beyond me why anyone with a dissenting opinion sticks around these shooting gallery threads anyway.

So ... here's to you ... but I guess you pretty much covered that earlier on your own. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 01:46 pm
See ya . . . don't let the door hit ya in the ass . . .
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 01:48 pm
Children, she mutters.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/07/2025 at 05:38:45