Iraq, again

@Xi:

After losing the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the government of Saddam Hussein admitted that Iraq had WMDs.

The UN has acknowledged that Iraq had WMDs.
Hans Blix has acknowledged that Iraq had WMDs.

Iraq’s documentation in response to UN Resolution 1441 did not address the existence nor destruction of the WMDs which Iraq had previously acknowledged.

Iraq is acknowledged by many national gov’ts. as being more fanatical about documentation than the Third Reich.

After losing the 1991 war and the 2003 war there are these 12 years…
Xi, could you please state when these acknwledgements happened?
Saddam Husseins probably was directly after the 1991 war, as was the UNs (probably). Blix acknowledged the existance? When?
The documentation in response to 1441 did cover which time?
If you take that together, you will see that the “gap” for rebuilding WMDs was rather short (and that in the time before (that is after 1991 and before 1998) lots of WMDs were destroyed) and at least 2 of the 3 statements are out-of-time. These were the ones that SH admitted to have, the ones which existance was acknowledged.

For your last claim, is that some of the humor i don’t understand? I severly hope so.

@F_k:

• Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes -
• Principiis obsta -
• Qui tacet, consentiere videtur. -
• Vincere scis, victoria uti nescis - [?quote]
  I had some trouble with your post. My universal translator must be malfunctioning. My Vietnamese is rusty and very limited …

@Xi:

I had some trouble with your post. My universal translator must be malfunctioning. My Vietnamese is rusty and very limited …

grin
Well, i kind of hoped to bring this line one day…
(snip)

Well, let me tell you it’s not Vietnamese but Latin, the language that western civilization was once built upon.
(is that nicer?)

@F_alk:

@Xi:

I had some trouble with your post. My universal translator must be malfunctioning. My Vietnamese is rusty and very limited …

grin
Well, i kind of hoped to bring this line one day:
“Of course an US-american would not understand Latin, as Latin is the language of culture” …. :D ;) ;) :)

Hey! Be nice!
But curiously - this German girl i dated also knew latin (she was learning Greek, Portuguese and was fluent in English too). Is this de rigur (excuse my spelling) for Germans to know Latin as well?

Sorry, i didn’t meant to be rude. I edited that comment.

I guess learning German, English/French/Russian (depending where and when you grew up in Germany) plus one other language (most often French, Latin or Spanish) is quite common in Germany. I would say about 1/3 of all people in school learn as many.
Of course, Latin was the language, before French and then English became dominant. And Latin teaches you a lot all romanic languages, the syntax of languages etc. Being dead it’s good to study the grammar, logic, rules and so forth.

@Xi:

@various:

Remember the flags on the pulled-down statue of SH?

Yea, I do! Ain’t it GREAT?

Putting up the US flag? Well, if you like it, then it must be something everybody likes, right?

I saw the live broadcast of the event. The Iraqi people cheered and gestured when the US flag was placed over SH’s statue face. Please, note how quickly the US soldier took the US flag down and placed an IRAQ FLAG of the former government of Iraq on the statue. The people continued cheering in a friendly fashion. The Iraqi standing on the pedestal reached for (and most likely asked for) the US flag and waved it to the crowd, which continued to cheer (as the Iraq flag was being placed over SH’s face.

What’s your problem? The 200 (low estimate) Iraqi people were elated. Go back and find a valid complaint.

---

what a happy 200 people.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/30/iraq_fallujah030430

@cystic:

@Xi:

@various:

Remember the flags on the pulled-down statue of SH?

Yea, I do! Ain’t it GREAT?

Putting up the US flag? Well, if you like it, then it must be something everybody likes, right?

I saw the live broadcast of the event. The Iraqi people cheered and gestured when the US flag was placed over SH’s statue face. Please, note how quickly the US soldier took the US flag down and placed an IRAQ FLAG of the former government of Iraq on the statue. The people continued cheering in a friendly fashion. The Iraqi standing on the pedestal reached for (and most likely asked for) the US flag and waved it to the crowd, which continued to cheer (as the Iraq flag was being placed over SH’s face.

What’s your problem? The 200 (low estimate) Iraqi people were elated. Go back and find a valid complaint.

---

what a happy 200 people.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/30/iraq_fallujah030430

Ummm…if someone was shooting at me, I think I’d shoot back too. :(

I guess learning German, English/French/Russian (depending where and when you grew up in Germany) plus one other language (most often French, Latin or Spanish) is quite common in Germany. I would say about 1/3 of all people in school learn as many.
Of course, Latin was the language, before French and then English became dominant. And Latin teaches you a lot all romanic languages, the syntax of languages etc. Being dead it’s good to study the grammar, logic, rules and so forth.

It’s unfortunate that more Americans don’t learn Latin. Unfortunately, there is such an emphasis put on learning Spanish that we never get a chance to explore a useful language.

Latin?
Hlel!
Somebody better suggest a good website for translations.
I tried various words from F_alk’s signature
on three different translation pages …
in Latin, Italian, French(didn’t think so!)
and German(didn’t think so!)
With NO POSITIVE RESULTS!
HELP!

I am not sure that the common translation programs can work with declinated/conjugated verbs and nouns. And unfortunately, the words are changed (usually only their last syllable) by declination/conjugation.
So, i guess you either need to put in the whole phrase, or copy and paste them into your search machine (as they are “famous quotes”).

@F_alk:

I am not sure that the common translation programs can work with declinated/conjugated verbs and nouns. And unfortunately, the words are changed (usually only their last syllable) by declination/conjugation.
So, i guess you either need to put in the whole phrase, or copy and paste them into your search machine (as they are “famous quotes”).

i think i can guess at one of them
“when silent, consent is implied/given”? something like that?
or “he who is silent grants consent/assent”? something?

I disagree both with those who says this is about oil and those who say that we would’ve used force earlier if it was abut oil.

If it was about oil, we would’ve never asked for sanctions against Iraq which kept it from selling oil to us and never would’ve boycotted Iraqiu oil in accordance with those sanctions. Saddam Hussein had no qualms about selling oil to the US at any time. Even if he did have a problem with it for any reason, he would have much rather sell the US cheap oil than have his wealth and power taken from him.

There has been no attack on Venezuela, which provides roughly twenty times as uch oil to the US as does Iraq, and whose labor strikes caused a signifigant rise in crude and gasoline prices here in the States.

This is about the fact that Saddam Hussein is an aggressive, cruel man who does not restrain himself or his methods when he wishes to acheive a goal and the fact that men like that should not have the means to kill millions of people and cripple the free world.

Yes, the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, China, India, Israel, and Pakistan have WMD. Which of them have used them on their people or in a recent war? Which of them kills extended families wholesale for the beliefs of one person in the family? Not even China or Pakistan do this, and their human rights records are far from stellar. Which of these countries openly finance suicide bombers? The answer to all of these questions in NONE of them. This is why Iraq is different– because Iraq really is different.

@Deviant:Scripter:

Ummm…if someone was shooting at me, I think I’d shoot back too. :(

Like the journalists in the Palestine Hotel?

@cystic:

i think i can guess at one of them
“when silent, consent is implied/given”? something like that?
or “he who is silent grants consent/assent”?

Yup… See medicine is good for more than curing people :)

@mr_mischief:

I disagree both with those who says this is about oil and those who say that we would’ve used force earlier if it was abut oil.
…
Yes, the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, China, India, Israel, and Pakistan have WMD.

First, if it was not about oil, why did the coalirion troops primarily protected oil fields and not hospitals?
Second, Germany does not possess WMD, Ukraine AFAIR has given back the former soviet nuclear arsenal to Russia, as has Belarus… AFAIR.

If it was about oil then why not invade Kuwait or Saudia Arabia? Should the allies have NOT protected the oil fields to PROVE it’s not about oil? Had they NOT protected the oil fields and they were sabotaged then they get blamed for inaction.

It must be nice to use action against the US and inaction against the US vis-a-vis the protection of the oil fields. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. In computer science this is known as a tautology. In logic optimisation techniques (Karnaugh maps) tautologies are eliminated as being irrelevant, much like your line of thinking F_alk! Ah F_alk, master of the spurious argument. I thought we had made some progess on this after reading your other posts, but alas you have regressed!

You are quite correct however in regards to Germany not having their own WMD, do they still have US WMD on German soil? If so, it must be nice to enjoy their protection and yet rail against the US for having them. Balarus and Ukraine as well have returned their share of nukes to Russia, though I don’t trust the regime in the Ukraine at all.

BB

@F_alk:

@Deviant:Scripter:

Ummm…if someone was shooting at me, I think I’d shoot back too. :(

Like the journalists in the Palestine Hotel?

@cystic:

i think i can guess at one of them
“when silent, consent is implied/given”? something like that?
or “he who is silent grants consent/assent”?

Yup… See medicine is good for more than curing people :)

also music - some latin/italian terms there, plus my limited French and Portuguese . . . .

First, if it was not about oil, why did the coalirion troops primarily protected oil fields and not hospitals?

That’s a rediculous comparison F_alk, as the oil fields were drastically outside of Baghdad, well within reach of our troops. The hospitals (AFAIR), were located mainly in urban, populated areas. Besides, is there any strategic importance for Saddam if he targeted hospitals? No. However, Saddam could theoretically shut down the country if he destroyed the oil supply. Therefore, STRATEGICALLY, the oil fields are infinetely more important than protecting a hospital that isn’t neccessarily a prime target for Saddam’s band of merry men.

@Deviant:Scripter:

First, if it was not about oil, why did the coalirion troops primarily protected oil fields and not hospitals?

That’s a rediculous comparison F_alk, as the oil fields were drastically outside of Baghdad, well within reach of our troops. The hospitals (AFAIR), were located mainly in urban, populated areas. Besides, is there any strategic importance for Saddam if he targeted hospitals? No. However, Saddam could theoretically shut down the country if he destroyed the oil supply. Therefore, STRATEGICALLY, the oil fields are infinetely more important than protecting a hospital that isn’t neccessarily a prime target for Saddam’s band of merry men.

i kind of think that D:S has a point here. Afterall, who would attack Iraqi hospitals? The only worry would be from US airstrikes, and the Americans would know not to put their own soldiers in danger of these anyway.

@Deviant:Scripter:

First, if it was not about oil, why did the coalirion troops primarily protected oil fields and not hospitals?

That’s a rediculous comparison F_alk, as the oil fields were drastically outside of Baghdad, well within reach of our troops. The hospitals (AFAIR), were located mainly in urban, populated areas. Besides, is there any strategic importance for Saddam if he targeted hospitals? No. However, Saddam could theoretically shut down the country if he destroyed the oil supply. Therefore, STRATEGICALLY, the oil fields are infinetely more important than protecting a hospital that isn’t neccessarily a prime target for Saddam’s band of merry men.

Then let’s not take Baghdad, but Basra, as an example. Much closer to the oil fields, but still there was some looting in the city.

For the strategic importance: yes, from an objective point of view, hospitals would much less make a target. But, on the other hand, when was Saddam Hussein ever called or viewed as objective by the coalition? He was and is considered a madman who targeted his own people.
Therefore, though this reason is logical, it loses some of its value through the way the coalition used some arguments before. In this also falls the self-definition of the coalition as coming as liberators who want the best for the people. The best for the people surely is to have both hospitals and oil fields. But when you look at the emphasis that was put on taking and protecting the fields and the total neglect of protecting other parts of vital civil infrastructure, like water and hospitals…. then i just have to doubt that the reason “best for the iraqi people” is valid.

But, on the other hand, when was Saddam Hussein ever called or viewed as objective by the coalition?

Huh?

Saddam was the leader of his own military, whether objective or not, he still had the ability to order military attacks on wherever he wanted. He doesn’t have to be objective to not attack a hospital. He knew his armed forces for strained too thin already, so there would have had to been strategic importance in attacking a hospital–in order to justify the diversion of his troops.

In this also falls the self-definition of the coalition as coming as liberators who want the best for the people. The best for the people surely is to have both hospitals and oil fields. But when you look at the emphasis that was put on taking and protecting the fields and the total neglect of protecting other parts of vital civil infrastructure, like water and hospitals…. then i just have to doubt that the reason “best for the iraqi people” is valid.

C’mon, this is your argument against America now? When the war-plan rolled into action, there was no way for America to forsee the sporratic looting that would occur. Hospitals are not as important as oil fields, so I guess we’ll just have to disagree. :P

@Deviant:Scripter:

C’mon, this is your argument against America now? When the war-plan rolled into action, there was no way for America to forsee the sporratic looting that would occur. Hospitals are not as important as oil fields, so I guess we’ll just have to disagree. :P

“sporadic” looting?
SPORADIC???
and no one in the american staff is able to think what might happen if you have an oppressive regime first and a total lack of power/order afterwards? You are kidding.

“sporadic” looting?
SPORADIC???

You disagree?