OK...boys and girls...what would you do? [Archive]

Sooner in Tampa

7/20/2006, 07:41 AM

New York Times photographer Joao Silva was right there in the room as a member of Muqtada al-Sadr’s “Mahdi Army” tried to kill American troops

A sniper loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr fires towards U.S. positions in the cemetery in Najaf, Iraq.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/200607015NYTFallujah.jpg

Assistant Managing Editor for Photography Michele McNally comments on this one: She says her photog has "incredible courage" :mad:

How is it incredible courage to watch someone shoot at our men and women in uniform? :mad:

I guess we should expect nothing less from the NYT.

Okla-homey

7/20/2006, 07:45 AM

Incredible courage would have been more like the photog saying to the guy, "Hey Hadji, who dressed you? You look like a punk. Kiss my big American infidel a$$!"

OU4LIFE

7/20/2006, 07:48 AM

how is this even a question?

anyone with anything close to love for his country makes a grease spot out of this jerkoff.

etouffee

7/20/2006, 07:52 AM

jk the sooner fan

7/20/2006, 07:55 AM

how bout not taken the picture?

how bout not "embed with the enemy"?

sooner_born_1960

7/20/2006, 07:59 AM

That a US photographer would do that really ****es me off.

Sooner in Tampa

7/20/2006, 08:13 AM

an awkward and bizarre circumstance to be sure, but without knowing more about the situation, i'm not entirely sure what the photographer might have done about it. thrown his camera at the guy with the gun, perhaps, in order to increase his own chances of being tortured and beheaded?While I appreciate your desire be objective about the situation, there is really no way that you can justify being an American photog embedded with the Mahdi Army. NONE!

SoonerBorn68

7/20/2006, 08:16 AM

It's a pretty easy question to answer for me.

http://www.geocities.com/soonerborn91/farks/deadhaji.jpg

etouffee

7/20/2006, 08:19 AM

I don't know the background on the situation. Was this photog "embedded" with the enemy, or did he just happen upon this sniper?

Regardless of whether he should or should not have been where he was, he was probably not in a position to interfere.

For the record, I detest the NYT, and nobody would like to see that terrorist dead more than I would. I'm just trying not to leap to conclusions without knowing more about what's really going on in this picture and how the photog came to be there.

jeremy885

7/20/2006, 08:24 AM

That a US photographer would do that really ****es me off.

He's South African not American.

jk the sooner fan

7/20/2006, 08:27 AM

or did he just happen upon this sniper?

you're joking right?

i'm thinking in that country, you dont just "happen" upon a sniper

thats the dumbest thing i've read in quite some time

etouffee

7/20/2006, 08:31 AM

thats the dumbest thing i've read in quite some timeI'm thinking you don't read much, so I'm not surprised.

Sooner in Tampa

7/20/2006, 08:34 AM

I'm thinking you don't read much, so I'm not surprised.:pop: :hot:

jk the sooner fan

7/20/2006, 08:34 AM

i read plenty to know thats a stupid statement

"just happened on a sniper"

seriously, did your head hurt after you wrote that?

C&CDean

7/20/2006, 08:37 AM

I'd be laughing too hard from watching his shooting technique. Well just before I stomped his empty melon into a pulpy mass of tissue.

If the photog and habib were the only two in the room, and the photog didn't do anything but snap pics, this photog should be bullwhipped. To death. Gutless **********.

Sooner in Tampa

7/20/2006, 08:44 AM

"just happened on a sniper"
I have to admit that this is a pretty asnine "justification" for the picture. This is FREAKIN BAGHDAD!!!! You don't just end up in a second or third story room of a gutted building while there are troops moving around and bump into a sniper. This isn't like opening a stall door in the bathroom that someobody didn't lock. This is a WARZONE with dudes shooting all over the place. An urban environment during combat ops is a scary f$&king place. Scary as sh!t ! You aren't just walking around looking for someone to take a picture of, you have to be "with" someone.

jk the sooner fan

7/20/2006, 08:46 AM

yes....something like this

"ooops, sorry ole boy.......didnt mean to walk in on you like that.....while i'm here, do you mind if i take your picture?"

OklahomaTuba

7/20/2006, 08:46 AM

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/NYT_BinLaden_152.gif

:(

OklahomaTuba

7/20/2006, 09:17 AM

Earlier this year the New York Times courageously exposed vulnerabilities of US body armor, accompanying the story with a controversial diagram and a leaked Pentagon paper in a PDF file, identifying the best areas to shoot at.
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/armor_NYT.gif
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=780

Vaevictis

7/20/2006, 09:25 AM

If that sniper shooting at US troops is "loyal" to al Sadr -- and if a reporter knows it, I think it's reasonable to expect our military knows what's going on -- then the real question is why isn't al Sadr's head on a ****ing pike on the Green Zone Wall?

Vaevictis

7/20/2006, 09:30 AM

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/armor_NYT.gif
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=780

Come on, it doesn't take any kind of genius to figure that out. It's just how body armor is designed; only the class III and above stuff really has any hope of stopping a decent rifle round, and what really separates class III and above from the rest is the plates.

Anyone with any kind of brain would know that, gee, if it's the plates that stop the rifle rounds, perhaps I ought to shoot around the plates?

LoyalFan

7/20/2006, 09:37 AM

He's South African not American.

He may be a citizen/denizen of Sud Afrika but dat dere is one Portugese name, you betcha.
(*%^&#! Porty-gees! All THEY evar did was give the Bazillions an effed-up version of Spanish. All WE evar got outta THAT was some song about a girl who worked for a toofpaste company and hung out at the beach. See: "Girl From Ipana". OK, so she WAS tall and tan and young and lovely, but that was 40 farging years ago. Wanna see her in a thong NOW?)
Yes, I'm ready for my medications and modelling clay therapy, Nurse Ratchett.

LoyalFan
C/O Smileview Home
Rio de Janiero

jeremy885

7/20/2006, 09:37 AM

OklahomaTuba

7/20/2006, 09:40 AM

Come on, it doesn't take any kind of genius to figure that out. It's just how body armor is designed; only the class III and above stuff really has any hope of stopping a decent rifle round, and what really separates class III and above from the rest is the plates.

Anyone with any kind of brain would know that, gee, if it's the plates that stop the rifle rounds, perhaps I ought to shoot around the plates?

Kind of like exposing the fact of us spying and going after terrorist financing? Anyone with a brain would know we are doing that.

I guess that kind of proves the point about reporting stuff like this, and what a POS paper the NY Times has become.

Thought this was good:

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/NYT_reporter_gear.gif

SCOUT

7/20/2006, 09:41 AM

If the photographer stumbled across this sniper I am pretty sure both parties would have reacted a bit differently than what is pictured. Taking a picture of the enemy trying kill US troops deserves the strongest punishment available. It is not courageous, it is treasonous.

Also, since these guys are supposed to be covered by the Geneva convention, of which nation is that "uniform" representative?

soonerhubs

7/20/2006, 09:44 AM

I just wish a US grenade would have landed in that room before Said Photo prick and Jihad wank were able to leave. Then the point would have been moot.

OU4LIFE

7/20/2006, 09:48 AM

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/armor_NYT.gif
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=780

courageously?

Vaevictis

7/20/2006, 10:00 AM

Kind of like exposing the fact of us spying and going after terrorist financing? Anyone with a brain would know we are doing that.

I doesn't take any kind of genius to guess that that kind of stuff was going on when from 2001-2004 every fourth time the Bush administration mentioned "terrorist", the word that immediately followed it was "financing".

Maybe the fact that SWIFT specifically was being used would have required a little digging -- but not that much, if you just looked up our public reports on what we were doing (it was explicitly mentioned in a report to the UN Security Council in 2002) -- but sh*t, if you don't remember all that crowing (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011107-4.html) by the administration (http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_Index/Shutting_Down_Terrorist_Financial_Networks.html) on how we were going (http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/js1462.htm) after the finances (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/40180_main25.shtml) of terrorists, (http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/) then you must be functionally retarded.

Real ****ing shocking that we're going after terrorist finances, especially when we're SOOOOOOO quiet about the fact.

The real revalation there was not that we were going after terrorist financing, the real revalation was that we were digging through the financial records of American citizens without a warrant. It's not that it hurt our operational ability to continue looking at terrorist financing. It's not that people didn't know we were going after terrorist financing. It's that the administration took a political hit and now has to justify its actions to Congress and the American people that is the problem. It's all politics. "OH NO, YOU REVEALED A NOT SO SECRET SECRET! BAD MEDIA BAD MEDIA BAD MEDIA" (gee, I hope people buy this **** so they forget that we were, you know, spying on them without a warrant!)

C&CDean

7/20/2006, 10:05 AM

So, Vaevictus likes the NYTs and hates Bush. Let me put on my surprised face. Meh.

Vaevictis

7/20/2006, 10:10 AM

Personally, I don't give a **** about the NYT, one way or the other.

I just think it's disingenuous to bitch, moan and scream about how the papers print this **** when it's pretty obvious to anyone that pays any attention that the stuff is going on in the first place.

My first reaction to the NYT SWIFT article was, "Uh, yeah, and that's news how?"

It's just a typical Republican political trick now to go "OMGZOR, BAD MEDIA! BAD!" and it's both laughable and disheartening to see people lap it up like junkies.

Tear Down This Wall

7/20/2006, 10:11 AM

I don't see what the shock is...the NYT is the mouthpiece of the terrorists in America anyway, always begging their case and chiding Bush for trying to find them and kick the sh*t out of them before they bomb us on our soil again.

I wonder where the NYT stories about the terrorists found recently in Florida and Georgia are buried?

C&CDean

7/20/2006, 10:14 AM

Vaevictis

7/20/2006, 10:18 AM

FWIW, I do get disgruntled when the media actually reports operational **** that actually matters -- like, iirc, that reporter who stupidly reported the order of battle of the unit he was embedded in during the initial invasion -- but stuff that's patently obvious?

Bitching about that is at best stupid, and is mostly just political smoke and mirrors -- if you make the story about the "BAD MEDIA", people are less likely to hold you accountable for the stuff that you're doing.

Sooner in Tampa

7/20/2006, 10:18 AM

BoogercountySooner

7/20/2006, 10:21 AM

He's probably pointing that gun at a dog he is getting ready to eat for supper.

Vaevictis

7/20/2006, 10:21 AM

As disingenuous as it is to get giant wood every time Bush makes another vocal faux paux? Or vetoes a bill that really doesn't amount to much? Like I said, meh.

shrug, same ****, different sides.

(although I think that the bill doesn't amount to much is debatable)

C&CDean

7/20/2006, 10:21 AM

Some folks are always going to be apologists for the liberal media. They refuse to accept the fact that the chicken$hits that run NYT are flaming, screaming liberals and it shows on a daily basis in their rags.

What you're obviously not understanding is that this makes them freedom fighters. This makes them heroes. This makes them courageous. You know, cause hating Bush, bashing the military, and putting our boys and girls in harms way with their ignorance is really, really patriotic.

Sooner in Tampa

7/20/2006, 10:39 AM

What you're obviously not understanding is that this makes them freedom fighters. This makes them heroes. This makes them courageous. You know, cause hating Bush, bashing the military, and putting our boys and girls in harms way with their ignorance is really, really patriotic.ACK...F&*k 'em.

For those of you who want to find out some of the stuff that is going on in Iraq and you will NEVER hear about it in the media, try this blog-it is written by someone who is actually in Iraq and he/she is telling it from a very differnt POV. Someone who BELIEVES in what we are doing.

http://bandit36.blogspot.com/

Vaevictis

7/20/2006, 10:39 AM

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/8843/britneyspears400dl4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.

Tear Down This Wall

7/20/2006, 10:41 AM

Sooner in Tampa

7/20/2006, 10:52 AM

HEH...this is an interesting view of colleges in the future as it relates to this war

One common thread you hear about troops who may be leaving the military is most will be going for a higher education at college and university. With over a million troops with experience in the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility and many of them will being going to universities and colleges when they return to America. Remember that many of the leftovers of the radical 60’s who could not make it in the free market economy retreated to the ivy towers of Academia will be in for a rude awakening with the influx of former military who have witnessed our enemies terror and will correct their Michael Moore leanings. It will be hard for a professor to argue against a veteran who was an eye witness to enemy atrocities.

Sooner in Tampa

7/20/2006, 11:16 AM

Okla-homey

7/20/2006, 12:04 PM

HEH...this is an interesting view of colleges in the future as it relates to this war

Kinda interesting. I wasn't in Iraq, only Afghanistan, but my lib profs are reluctant to opine on the war when I'm around. I expect as more guys return to school it will make it harder for the academes to spew their opinions based on crap they read written by other academes with axes to grind.

I always found it interesting that many of these folks have no problem opining on military matters despite the fact they have no experience or credentials in that area whatsoever. These same guys' heads would explode if someone lacking academic credentials attempted to advance an opinion in their particular scholastic area of expertise.

For me anyway, when I hear non-vets go on about this or that regarding this war, I just kinda chuckle to myself and think "watta putz!":rolleyes:

Mjcpr

7/20/2006, 12:07 PM

Man, that's going to severely limit the things about which I can think about and have an opinion.

C&CDean

7/20/2006, 12:14 PM

Man, that's going to severely limit the things about which I can think about and have an opinion.

And this is a bad thing?

Vaevictis

7/20/2006, 12:38 PM

For me anyway, when I hear non-vets go on about this or that regarding this war, I just kinda chuckle to myself and think "watta putz!":rolleyes:

I suppose, then, that only politicians should talk about politics, only priests should talk about religion, and only terrorists should talk about terrorism? :)

I understand where you're coming from, but I (obviously) disagree with your statement. Why does the military hire non-military to train them on such matters, if having been in the military is a requirement to know about it? (for example, tactical training exercises wrt terrorism)

Having been in the military lends credibility, but it's not required in order to know what you're talking about.

Petro-Sooner

7/20/2006, 12:41 PM

I had leftover lasanga for lunch. :rolleyes:

mdklatt

7/20/2006, 12:57 PM

I had leftover lasanga for lunch. :rolleyes:

Leftover lasagna is the best.

Sooner in Tampa

7/20/2006, 12:58 PM

Leftover lasagna is the best.
Leftover lasagna = :hot:

1stTimeCaller

7/20/2006, 12:59 PM

I don't know how to spell it but I had dos tacos sabrodda <sa-brah-dah> basically two brisket tacos with onions and cilantro.

They were awesome.

etouffee

7/20/2006, 01:10 PM

I suppose, then, that only politicians should talk about politics, only priests should talk about religion, and only terrorists should talk about terrorism? :)

I understand where you're coming from, but I (obviously) disagree with your statement. Why does the military hire non-military to train them on such matters, if having been in the military is a requirement to know about it? (for example, tactical training exercises wrt terrorism)

Having been in the military lends credibility, but it's not required in order to know what you're talking about.
Not only that, but I've heard and read some extremely absurd and outlandish statements about the war from veterans.

Okla-homey

7/20/2006, 01:14 PM

Not only that, but I've heard and read some extremely absurd and outlandish statements about the war from veterans.

disgruntled former employees usually have an axe to grind.

Okla-homey

7/20/2006, 01:24 PM

See my comments below:

I suppose, then, that only politicians should talk about politics, only priests should talk about religion, and only terrorists should talk about terrorism? :)

No, they can speak about these matters is they want, but they are not percieved by moi as doing so with any real authority. My Aunt Margaret is free to opine on any subject she wants, but I pay more attention when she states her opinions on whether or not somebody else knits well vice her opinions on thermodynamics. Look, all I'm saying is the prosecution and planning of war is graduate level stuff. People who have not been educated and experienced in it shouldn't expect to taken seriously by those who have. I further believe criticism and public opining from unqualified folks, while an inalienable right in this country thank God, is often destructive and serves to undermine mission

I understand where you're coming from, but I (obviously) disagree with your statement. Why does the military hire non-military to train them on such matters, if having been in the military is a requirement to know about it? (for example, tactical training exercises wrt terrorism)

Just about anyone is competent to be hired to stand in a mock town in a tactical training area and act like a jerk or angry resident.

Having been in the military lends credibility, but it's not required in order to know what you're talking about.

We shall just have to agree to disagree;)

Vaevictis

7/20/2006, 01:45 PM

Look, all I'm saying is the prosecution and planning of war is graduate level stuff. People who have not been educated and experienced in it shouldn't expect to taken seriously by those who have.

Ah hah, see, now that's a little better qualified, and makes more sense.

Obviously, military service by itself doesn't mean you're qualified on the level you're talking about. By itself, it may mean only that you can fire and maintenance a rifle, you can pass the PT regimen, and follow orders for two years.

What level of experience is required before you're qualified? What level of education?

Further, is it that these things are required before you're capable, or just before you're recognized as capable?

As a history buff, I'm sure you can think up quite a few examples of normal people -- who you would normally consider "unqualified" -- who suddenly find themselves in the position of a general, and who proved quite capable in spite of it.

I further believe criticism and public opining from unqualified folks, while an inalienable right in this country thank God, is often destructive and serves to undermine mission

Reasonable.

Just about anyone is competent to be hired to stand in a mock town in a tactical training area and act like a jerk or angry resident.

That's not what I'm talking about, and I expect you know it. No, I'm talking about civilians -- having never been in the military -- who know enough about their subject matters that they are heavily involved in the design and execution of these exercises.

Specifically, I'm talking about a guy I know who used to be involved in the design and execution of terrorist simulation exercises for federal law enforcement and the military. Hell, for all I know, he still is, but the only thing he'll say about the matter is that "he's been very busy since September 11."

EDIT: But that's besides the point, and the original question remains unanswered. If it's impossible for non-vets to know about stuff like this, then why is it that non-vets get hired as consultants on such projects?

EDIT II: For example, author of this (http://aupress.au.af.mil/Books/Sloan/Sloan.pdf) is (iirc), not a vet, but is considered an expert in the subject matter.

Pricetag

7/20/2006, 01:49 PM

For me anyway, when I hear non-vets go on about this or that regarding this war, I just kinda chuckle to myself and think "watta putz!":rolleyes:
If the non-vets are speaking specifically about military stuff, then you have a point.

The debate has been more about foriegn policy rather than military tactics and/or strategy, and I'm guessing that only the highest ranking members of the military could really be considered experts in this field.

Mjcpr

7/20/2006, 02:00 PM

Okla-homey

7/20/2006, 02:25 PM

If the non-vets are speaking specifically about military stuff, then you have a point.

The debate has been more about foriegn policy rather than military tactics and/or strategy, and I'm guessing that only the highest ranking members of the military could really be considered experts in this field.

Typically, I'm critical of the sort of folks who look up from their cup of chai and declare...This war in unwinnable and is a failure/quagmire/etc.

I'm also rather critical of people who put "No Blood for Oil" bumper stickers on their cars. What pray tell do they propose to run said vehicle on in the absence of oil? The thing is, its a generally accepted fact of life in professional military circles that militaries exist to protect and even advance matters of vital national interest. Soldiers have died for oil, land, water, food, cheap bananas, etc. for centuries -- even in the US. The notion that loss of life is not justified to ensure an adequate and steady supply of oil to this country is so niave its foolish.

Vaevictis

7/20/2006, 02:29 PM

What pray tell do they propose to run said vehicle on in the absence of oil?

For chrissake, goodwill and fairy dust. Haven't you been paying attention at all?

etouffee

7/20/2006, 02:33 PM

militaries exist to protect and even advance matters of vital national interest. Soldiers have died for oil, land, water, food, cheap bananas, etc. for centuries -- even in the US. The notion that loss of life is not justified to ensure an adequate and steady supply of oil to this country is so niave its foolish.That's a true statement, but I don't think this particular war has much to do with oil.

Okla-homey

7/20/2006, 02:37 PM

EDIT II: For example, author of this (http://aupress.au.af.mil/Books/Sloan/Sloan.pdf) is (iirc), not a vet, but is considered an expert in the subject matter.

If I were to guess based on a review of his bio in the frontspiece of the article, he's a former spook of the "Jack Ryan" variety. He's therefore qualified to opine and write about counter-terrorism in my book. He's not, OTOH, qualified to opine on military operations at the operational level --which he doesn't appear to be doing.

Okla-homey

7/20/2006, 02:38 PM

That's a true statement, but I don't think this particular war has much to do with oil.

I think its about two things:
1) the west vs fundamentalist islam
2) keeping gas at your local gas station.

I'm fine with both.

C&CDean

7/20/2006, 02:43 PM

I think its about two things:
1) the west vs fundamentalist islam
2) keeping gas at your local gas station.

I'm fine with both.

1) Those **********s started it, so it should be islam vs. the west
2) True statement

And I'm fine with both too.

Vaevictis

7/20/2006, 03:06 PM

I think its about two things:
1) the west vs fundamentalist islam
2) keeping gas at your local gas station.

I'm fine with both.

You don't think it has more to do the PNAC agenda? Personally, I think that the Bush crew always wanted to implement the PNAC agenda, and 9/11 just provided an actionable excuse.

(and, FWIW, I fundamentally agree with the PNAC position wrt American involvement, I just have issues with the execution by this administration)

etouffee

7/20/2006, 03:11 PM

I think its about two things:
1) the west vs fundamentalist islam
2) keeping gas at your local gas station.
If it IS about oil (keeping gas at your local station = oil), why are so many people so quick to bash and ridicule people who say it's about oil?

Also, why hasn't the administration been truthful about what it's about, if it's about oil? I suppose you could say tact and political savvy. The problem with that is that I seem to remember a month or so ago there was a thread about some politician saying he was proud to have no gays in his family, and when people said he lacked tact and political savvy, a lot of folks declared that they want their politicians to speak the absolute truth with no regard for such things.

Vaevictis

7/20/2006, 03:26 PM

If I were to guess based on a review of his bio in the frontspiece of the article, he's a former spook of the "Jack Ryan" variety. He's therefore qualified to opine and write about counter-terrorism in my book. He's not, OTOH, qualified to opine on military operations at the operational level --which he doesn't appear to be doing.

He does go into high level recommendations, such as recommendations on command structure for counter-terrorism, relationships between the branches and a possible independent branch dedicated to counter-terrorism, etc. Maybe I'm a little fuzzy on the definition, but isn't some of that operational level stuff?

(If not, it would be nice if you could educate me on the matter. And I'm not being facetious here.)

I will say that the book is a little old and is focused more on Soviet-sponsored terrorism. I just cite it in this case in support of my theory that there is such a thing as a non-military person who knows a little something about matters military. The guy consult(s/ed) with the military on a regular basis on terrorism, both at the high level (as is evidenced in this book) and at the low level (see his book Simulating Terrorism, for example)

Vaevictis

7/20/2006, 03:27 PM

If it IS about oil (keeping gas at your local station = oil), why are so many people so quick to bash and ridicule people who say it's about oil?

The answer to that is very easy: The American public would not have gotten behind it if it was about oil. But terrorists who flew planes into the WTC and Pentagon? Yeah, we can get behind in that case.

Like I said, 9/11 was an actionable excuse.

SoonerBorn68

7/20/2006, 04:14 PM

The answer to that is very easy: The American public would not have gotten behind it if it was about oil. But terrorists who flew planes into the WTC and Pentagon? Yeah, we can get behind in that case.

Like I said, 9/11 was an actionable excuse.

Yeah, I guess terrorists flying planes into the World Trade Center & killing over 3,000 people is a good excuse to go to war over oil. :rolleyes:

Dude, I've read every statement you've made in this thread & I've come to the conclusion you have no opinion unless you can link it.

SoonerBorn68

7/20/2006, 04:20 PM

Having been in the military lends credibility, but it's not required in order to know what you're talking about.

Having been in the military is like hitting the home run in the World Series as opposed to watching it on TV.

Apparently someone gave you a badge that says "expert" on it.

SoonerBorn68

7/20/2006, 04:22 PM

As a history buff, I'm sure you can think up quite a few examples of normal people -- who you would normally consider "unqualified" -- who suddenly find themselves in the position of a general, and who proved quite capable in spite of it.

Name one since 1900.

Vaevictis

7/20/2006, 04:28 PM

Yeah, I guess terrorists flying planes into the World Trade Center & killing over 3,000 people is a good excuse to go to war over oil. :rolleyes:

Well, if you accept the premise that the war is over oil (which I don't), and you take into account that the reasons that were given for invading Iraq involved terrorists, 9/11, etc (and never oil), then what other conclusion can there be?

Dude, I've read every statement you've made in this thread & I've come to the conclusion you have no opinion unless you can link it.

So, I actually provide supporting documentation for my opinions, and that's a problem? Wow, I guess the only opinions that matters are the ones that people randomly pull out of their ***.

In any case, your conclusion is incorrect. Counter-example to your conclusion: In my opinion, you're a bit of a ******.

No link. QED.

etouffee

7/20/2006, 04:32 PM

Having been in the military is like hitting the home run in the World Series as opposed to watching it on TV.Depending on the subject matter, yes. However, as someone earlier pointed out, having been in the military does not make one an expert on politics or foreign policy, and that's where people tend to insinuate that veterans speak with more authority/credibility.

OklahomaTuba

7/20/2006, 04:38 PM

Well, if you accept the premise that the war is over oil (which I don't), and you take into account that the reasons that were given for invading Iraq involved terrorists, 9/11, etc (and never oil), then what other conclusion can there be?

Have you ever read the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998? Bill Clinton signed it even.

Vaevictis

7/20/2006, 04:45 PM

Have you ever read the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998? Bill Clinton signed it even.

... and?

Like I said, if you accept the premise that we invaded for oil, and you consider that the reasons that were given were related to terrorism, what other conclusion can there be?

If you've got another one -- preferably one that follows logically -- please put it forth.

The fact is, the reasons stated prior to the invasion focused on WMD and how there were links to Al-Qaeda, etc, etc. These are reasons that would cause the American public to support an invasion.

If they had just come out and said, "We want to invade because we want their oil," they wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

Vaevictis

7/20/2006, 04:52 PM

Name one since 1900.

I dunno, after some initial hiccups (*** kickings), it seems like Castro managed to wage a successful campaign down in Cuba. IIRC, the only military he was ever in was the one(s) he organized.

OklahomaTuba

7/20/2006, 04:57 PM

The fact is, the reasons stated prior to the invasion focused on WMD and how there were links to Al-Qaeda, etc, etc. These are reasons that would cause the American public to support an invasion.

If they had just come out and said, "We want to invade because we want their oil," they wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

Heh, first off, the only people who talk about oil being a part of this event are leftists like you. Oil is why the middle east is important, no doubt, but the war is about many things. 9/11 just made it happen sooner rather than later (a mistake no doubt).

I suggest reading the authorization to go to war with Iraq that was passed by Congress in 2003. I think you will find that there are many things discussed other than WMD they found and the support of AQ and terrorism by Saddam. (One important point being the violation of the cease fire that ended the first gulf war.)

Also, its important to note that we had more reason to go to war with Iraq than any other major conflict except the revolution, 1812, the civil war, WW2 & Afganistan.

Okla-homey

7/20/2006, 05:04 PM

Heh, first off, the only people who talk about oil being a part of this event are leftists like you. Oil is why the middle east is important, no doubt, but the war is about many things. 9/11 just made it happen sooner rather than later (a mistake no doubt).

I suggest reading the authorization to go to war with Iraq that was passed by Congress in 2003. I think you will find that there are many things discussed other than WMD they found and the support of AQ and terrorism by Saddam. (One important point being the violation of the cease fire that ended the first gulf war.)

Also, its important to note that we had more reason to go to war with Iraq than any other major conflict except the revolution, 1812, the civil war & WW2.

'Scuse me brotha Tuba, I think the war is partly over oil and I am pretty rightist on lots of things. Sounds like Dean-o is too and he's right of flippin' Attila the Hun. Therefore, I must respectfully disagree with your assertion.
Further, I don't mind that it is. Ample supplies of oil for America is worth killing people over, lots of 'em if necessary. That's just the way it is. That said, I have no political aspirations so I can make such statements.:)

mdklatt

7/20/2006, 05:12 PM

If it wasn't for oil, we wouldn't be involved in the Middle East at all. And the Middle Eastern countries would be so poor and backwards that they wouldn't be able to bother anybody even if they wanted too. We'd still be supporting Israel, but without oil to bargain with there would be nothing stopping us from bombing the durka durkas even farther back into the Stone Ages, and that would be the end of that.

Vaevictis

7/20/2006, 05:12 PM

Heh, first off, the only people who talk about oil being a part of this event are leftists like you. Oil is why the middle east is important, no doubt, but the war is about many things. 9/11 just made it happen sooner rather than later (a mistake no doubt).

Heh, first off, I never said it was about oil. Never even implied it. Even said, explicitly, that I didn't think it was. So, instead of addressing what you've decided I've said, how about you read what I'm saying and address that?

I suggest reading the authorization to go to war with Iraq that was passed by Congress in 2003. I think you will find that there are many things discussed other than WMD they found and the support of AQ and terrorism by Saddam. (One important point being the violation of the cease fire that ended the first gulf war.)

That may be, but are those reasons the reasons that were sold? Or did we hear, over and over in speeches, ad nauseum, "WMD WMD WMD WMD AL QAEDA AL QAEDA AL QAEDA?" How about the timing? Did Bush start pounding the drums for war before 9/11, or after?

I'm not saying that there weren't good reasons for going into Iraq. I'm saying that absent 9/11 and the repeated "WMD AL QAEDA WMD AL QAEDA" thing, the administration could never have sold that war.

Again, put simply: The American public would never have gone to war with Iraq simply for the sake of oil. This is why -- if you assume that it was over oil -- the administration never came out and said that it was over oil.

It's really not that hard to understand. Why did it take Gulf of Tonkin to sell Vietnam? Why did it take Pearl Harbor to sell WWII? Lusitania to sell WWI? USS Maine to get us involved in a war with the Spanish?

SoonerBorn68

7/20/2006, 05:15 PM

So, I actually provide supporting documentation for my opinions, and that's a problem? Wow, I guess the only opinions that matters are the ones that people randomly pull out of their ***.

This is funny. You read these articles to form your opinion. There's a word for that: sheep.

In any case, your conclusion is incorrect. Counter-example to your conclusion: In my opinion, you're a bit of a ******.

No link. QED.

Wow, gettin' all high and mighty on me...that's great. If you're calling me names I'll take it as a compliment, as I feel you are the most no nothing poster on this board.

PhilTLL

7/20/2006, 05:16 PM

I just wish a US grenade would have landed in that room before Said Photo prick and Jihad wank were able to leave. Then the point would have been moot.

Mmmm...bloodlust.

mdklatt

7/20/2006, 05:23 PM

This is funny. You read these articles to form your opinion. There's a word for that: sheep.

Wow, gathering information in order to make a informed opinion is being a sheep? What do you call parroting Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly?

baaaaa

Vaevictis

7/20/2006, 05:28 PM

This is funny. You read these articles to form your opinion. There's a word for that: sheep.

As opposed to someone like you who forms opinions without having gathered any relevant information? There's a word for that too: ignorant.

Or someone who talks out of their ***, but never provides any information to back it up? Two words: feckless blowhard.

(aside: still waiting on your edification on what we did in 1946 that makes the Chinese support Kim Jong-Il today. Methinks you mean Chiang Kai-shek, but as I said before -- not worth it if you can't just say what you mean instead of cryptically referring to ****.)

etouffee

7/20/2006, 07:00 PM

This is funny. You read these articles to form your opinion. There's a word for that: sheep.Just curious-- where do you get the information that your opinions are based on?

SoonerBorn68

7/20/2006, 07:06 PM

As opposed to someone like you who forms opinions without having gathered any relevant information? There's a word for that too: ignorant.

Or someone who talks out of their ***, but never provides any information to back it up? Two words: feckless blowhard.

(aside: still waiting on your edification on what we did in 1946 that makes the Chinese support Kim Jong-Il today. Methinks you mean Chiang Kai-shek, but as I said before -- not worth it if you can't just say what you mean instead of cryptically referring to ****.)

No, the dates were 1905, 1910, and 1937. It has nothing to do the Generalissimo. But, since you seem unable to put those specific dates together. 1905: Japan becomes a world force by attacking and sinking a majority of the Russina navy. 1910: Japan annexes Korea. 1937: Japan invades China. China and Korea became steadfast allies because of the mutual rape of their countries by Japan. It's kind of like how the US and Britain came together in WWI. Mutual interests. So now N. Korea is the barking dog for China. That's the extreme cliff notes version.

I gather my opinions from reading books, talking to others, watching the news, reading from the internet, and other various other forms. I don't listen to the ranting of others in blogform. I've never quoted Limbaugh or any other "conservative" talk show host in this forum. I don't need to have someone tell me what to believe.

So, calling me ignorant is just calling yourself the same as you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to me.

etouffee

7/20/2006, 07:09 PM

I gather my opinions from reading books, talking to others, watching the news, reading from the internet, and other various other forms.Ok, so I'm not sure why that makes someone else a sheep and not you.

SoonerBorn68

7/20/2006, 07:17 PM

Ok, so I'm not sure why that makes someone else a sheep and not you.

I don't have a problem with anyone's opinion, only link boy thinks his is superior of some reason. His elitist attitude is getting old & I just want to get his blood pressure up. :hot:

:twinkies:

7/20/2006, 07:30 PM

I'd probably sh*t myself and start praying as loudly as possible.

(This IS a survey based on the truthful answers of contributing respondents when placed in a hypothetical situation, right?)

Vaevictis

7/20/2006, 07:32 PM

7/20/2006, 07:36 PM

Dude, I'm a lover, not a fighter.

Besides, I'm probably much larger than you are.

sooneron

7/20/2006, 08:06 PM

Wow this one degenerated quickly.

Vaevictis

7/20/2006, 08:08 PM

Don't they always?

SoonerBorn68

7/20/2006, 08:24 PM

As I said: feckless blowhard. All talk, no substance.

Anyhow, good to know on the trolling. Ignore lists are awesome for that. I was wondering why the S/N ratio went to crap every time you posted in a thread.

Now that's a good one. Ignore me. I won't put you on ignore, well, 'cause I'm not a coward.

You say I have no substance. Good for you. I share the same opinion of you, but I think the term "link boy" is far more SO than "feckless".

Post in any torture threads lately?

Okla-homey

7/20/2006, 09:28 PM

:D Well well. I get home from work and class tonight and this thing is still humming.

I would ask that have a bit of civility here. Please, for the love of all that's Crimson, lets get back on track.

Th photog was a South African and thus does not have a dog in our fight...at least until the jihaadis assplode something or someone down there. Therefore, its okay for him to take such pitchers without tossing a grenade under the filfthy heathen scum from Hell.:D

7/20/2006, 09:31 PM

It isn't like the South African's have college football or anything.

Okla-homey

7/20/2006, 09:36 PM

It isn't like the South African's have college football or anything.

I love Chris Rocks schtick on Mandela and marriage:

The man endured torture and prison for 20 plus years. Hard labor in the broiling sun. Carpy food. Beatings. Never made a peep.

Gets out of prison. Two months back home with his wife and :les: I CAN'T TAKE THIS CHIT! Divorced Winnie and a playa again!

proud gonzo

7/20/2006, 09:49 PM

so is there anything going on in this thread other than bitching about someone doing his job? i'm going to assume the answer's "aside from the standard cliche bitch fits, no" and not read the rest.

Vaevictis

7/20/2006, 10:07 PM

I would ask that have a bit of civility here. Please, for the love of all that's Crimson, lets get back on track.

Awww, c'mon. Haven't you ever felt just a little catharsis from railing at random people on the internet? If not, I highly recommend you try it just once. You exhibit entirely too much decorum; it can't possibly be healthy. ;)

----------------------

In any case, with respect to the photographer... well, to some extent, they have to remain neutral. They can't do their job otherwise (sometimes, they can't do their job with it), and, suprisingly enough, a certain group of important men thought that maybe the job was important enough that the daily rags be given a free hand.

And yeah, it does take some amount of bravery for journalists to go get stories like that. Maybe some of you've heard of Daniel Pearl? I think something bad happened to him.

VeeJay

7/20/2006, 10:42 PM

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/200607015NYTFallujah.jpg

Why isn't that onion sucking bastage clutching his trusty koran while he's firing that weapon?

Fuggin' infidel.

Stoop Dawg

7/21/2006, 01:04 AM

I don't have a problem with anyone's opinion, only link boy thinks his is superior of some reason. His elitist attitude is getting old & I just want to get his blood pressure up. :hot:

:twinkies:

And your "I don't need no facts to form my opinion" attitude is wonderfully refreshing. No, wait, no it's not. It's actually par around here.

SoonerBorn68

7/21/2006, 01:52 AM

And your "I don't need no facts to form my opinion" attitude is wonderfully refreshing. No, wait, no it's not. It's actually par around here.

No, I don't need "links".

olevetonahill

7/21/2006, 02:19 AM

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/200607015NYTFallujah.jpg

Why isn't that onion sucking bastage clutching his trusty koran while he's firing that weapon?

Fuggin' infidel.
I have to agree with Dean that dudes firing position is stupid
Now If the dude was Firing at OUR guys Id smack him with My camera
Are Y'all sure that wasn't hanoijane taking that pic ?

Sooner in Tampa

7/21/2006, 05:37 AM

so is there anything going on in this thread other than bitching about someone doing his job? "some just doing his job" that is funny. We are not talking about some dude driving the honey wagon cleaning out portajohns...we are talking about a photog (South African or not does not matter, the NYT is paying his salary) taking a picture of some jihadist $hitbag shooting at our men and women in uniform. Some of us are just tired of the sickening way the NYT does buisness.

etouffee

7/21/2006, 06:15 AM

"some just doing his job" that is funny. ...we are talking about a photog (South African or not does not matter, the NYT is paying his salary) taking a picture of some jihadist $hitbag shooting at our men and women in uniform.In other words, DOING HIS JOB. He's there to chronicle an event, not to take pictures that make Americans smile. As ugly and revolting as the subject matter of this photo is, it is part of the event being covered, and I cannot fault a photojournalist for capturing it, given the opportunity. Yes, yes, I know, that position makes me a libruhl anti-American supporter of terrah, right? Before you go off on that particular tirade, remember that I've been an strong supporter of the Iraq war from the beginning, and continue to be. I'm just not sure when taking a picture of something became a declaration of support for it.

This is faux outrage at its finest. People are just looking for something new to be p1ssed about so they can remind everyone how much they hate the NYT. Meh. I despise the NYT, too, because they promote an agenda and make a mockery of the concept of objective journalism. But that's old news, and it doesn't really change the fact that this photographer was doing what he was being paid to do: chronicle an event.

And it's not as though this guy is somehow different from every other journalist over there, no matter which agency they work for. Do you honestly think ANY journalist covering a war would turn down the opportunity to spend time with enemy fighters and record what they saw? Hell no.