Photographs of the Iraq occupation
December 9, 2004 6:10 PM Subscribe
Photos of an aftermath in progress (graphic). How a search for weapons of mass destruction has lead the U.S. so far. An informed citizen has an amazing right to see what is going on.
well apparently I'm more correct than I thought. that site ripped off orgishs horizontal menu.
posted by puke & cry at 6:51 PM on December 9, 2004
posted by puke & cry at 6:51 PM on December 9, 2004
Also, this is a lousy FPP.
Yes, because it causes cliched, simplistic rants, like your own.
posted by justgary at 7:07 PM on December 9, 2004
Yes, because it causes cliched, simplistic rants, like your own.
posted by justgary at 7:07 PM on December 9, 2004
...all I feel now is disgust for the people who helped perpetuate this evil
"This evil" needs to be weighed against the evil that was being carried out in Iraq before we intervened.
No one argues war isn't tragic. But it is not impossible to recognize both the horrors of war and its necessity sometimes.
posted by Lisa S at 7:31 PM on December 9, 2004
"This evil" needs to be weighed against the evil that was being carried out in Iraq before we intervened.
No one argues war isn't tragic. But it is not impossible to recognize both the horrors of war and its necessity sometimes.
posted by Lisa S at 7:31 PM on December 9, 2004
Indeed, Lisa -- to belabor the obvious -- I think the real argument for most people is whether or not the war was a necessity at all. Piles of dead bodies tends to lend weight to that discussion.
The whole "no pain, no gain" thing was tiresome at the start, even more so now -- and fitfully tragic, besides.
posted by undule at 7:45 PM on December 9, 2004
The whole "no pain, no gain" thing was tiresome at the start, even more so now -- and fitfully tragic, besides.
posted by undule at 7:45 PM on December 9, 2004
No one argues war isn't tragic.
Say it like you mean it.
posted by iamck at 7:58 PM on December 9, 2004
Say it like you mean it.
posted by iamck at 7:58 PM on December 9, 2004
Well, Lisa, maybe you should step in to replace some of those guys that, I hear, don't want to go back to Iraq. Besides, who better to show those Muslims the love and the way of our lord Jesus Christ? Eh?
posted by c13 at 7:59 PM on December 9, 2004
posted by c13 at 7:59 PM on December 9, 2004
Ogrish is better.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:06 PM on December 9, 2004
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:06 PM on December 9, 2004
c13: You're mistaken if you think I'm an evangelical Christian simply because I can argue that point of view.
Although I've never been on the front lines myself, I think the human reality of war is that war utterly devastates. Language cannot even come close to capturing this reality.
The issue is whether or not this death and destruction were justified, and that's quite a different argument. Even wars fought for noble purposes (ie: Civil War, anyone?) caused unimaginable suffering.
posted by Lisa S at 8:38 PM on December 9, 2004
Although I've never been on the front lines myself, I think the human reality of war is that war utterly devastates. Language cannot even come close to capturing this reality.
The issue is whether or not this death and destruction were justified, and that's quite a different argument. Even wars fought for noble purposes (ie: Civil War, anyone?) caused unimaginable suffering.
posted by Lisa S at 8:38 PM on December 9, 2004
I am against the war, but people getting their heads cut off is real, and is happening right now. People who were innocent, people killed so other people may live, or stay in power. This war is obscenely fucked up yet something has to be done. Does that make me conservative, or like George Bush? No, it doesn't. The war was ultimately unnecessary and destructive. Osama Bin Laden is happy because his entire point was to get US Soldiers out of Saudi Arabia, which happened.
This thing.... religion... it gives people excuses to do things like this.
posted by Keyser Soze at 9:06 PM on December 9, 2004
This thing.... religion... it gives people excuses to do things like this.
posted by Keyser Soze at 9:06 PM on December 9, 2004
And wars fought for greed and imperial hubris cause unimaginable suffering plus a particular kind of disgust for the craven liars and tools wrapping themselves in the flag and flight suits to put a noble face on it. But hey.
posted by digaman at 9:23 PM on December 9, 2004
posted by digaman at 9:23 PM on December 9, 2004
I don't think that anyone here needs convincing that there are terrible, awful things happening in Iraq every single day. Posting pictures of it at this point is just some morbid voyeurism.
posted by svenni at 9:46 PM on December 9, 2004
posted by svenni at 9:46 PM on December 9, 2004
"This evil" needs to be weighed against the evil that was being carried out in Iraq before we intervened.
No one argues war isn't tragic. But it is not impossible to recognize both the horrors of war and its necessity sometimes.
Jesus Lisa, you need to hunker down with a pile of lucid articles covering the Iraqi situation - past and present. Come back when you catch up.
posted by rotifer at 10:21 PM on December 9, 2004
No one argues war isn't tragic. But it is not impossible to recognize both the horrors of war and its necessity sometimes.
Jesus Lisa, you need to hunker down with a pile of lucid articles covering the Iraqi situation - past and present. Come back when you catch up.
posted by rotifer at 10:21 PM on December 9, 2004
Jesus Lisa, you need to hunker down with a pile of lucid articles covering the Iraqi situation - past and present. Come back when you catch up.
I love this type of arguement. "You're wrong. I won't tell you how, but go educate yourself and then come back we'll talk. But we both know that won't happen because I'll be avoiding you if you actually do master the facts. Because both of us are biased and wrong to some extent and twist and ignore facts to fit our arguements. So just stop arguing your side so I can win this debate."
posted by BradNelson at 11:45 PM on December 9, 2004
I love this type of arguement. "You're wrong. I won't tell you how, but go educate yourself and then come back we'll talk. But we both know that won't happen because I'll be avoiding you if you actually do master the facts. Because both of us are biased and wrong to some extent and twist and ignore facts to fit our arguements. So just stop arguing your side so I can win this debate."
posted by BradNelson at 11:45 PM on December 9, 2004
Why was it necessary to get into a war we might not be able to win?
posted by atchafalaya at 5:19 AM on December 10, 2004
posted by atchafalaya at 5:19 AM on December 10, 2004
What does it mean to "win" this war? Also, which war are you referring to? Iraq is not a war, it is an occupation. Wars are fought between armies, with commanders and ground to be controlled and held. This is a fight against a people and way of life that is "incompatable" with our goals for the region. Mainly, oil. Do not ever deny that there is always the factor of oil for that whole region. The religious crap that is spewed on either side is simply a metaphysical discussion compared to the hard solid fact that what we (the West) wants from the Middle East is the oil. Fuck the sand and fuck the people, the only purpose they serve is to work the oil fields and get the oil to us, from under their sand. When the oil is gone, we won't bother with the place anymore. It will revert to a 3rd world shithole of dust and dirt. Arguing that this war is about "freedom" for the Iraqi people or about fighting global terrorism is utter non-sense for the simple fact that until they threatened oil supply chain of oil, we could care less which warlord was in charge of what plot of sand, because they all wanted American dollars to spend on American and Russian made weapons to wage their wars of power mad fanatical resource control. Saddam did not invade Kuwait for premature baby incubators or medical supplies or anything else in a humanitarian field. He wanted their land and thier access to the West. He would have rolled into Saudi Arabia next, and then, with all that oil under his control, he could sell it to the West for more and more money to buy more and more weapons to take over more and more land that had more and more oil under it. Greed, lust for power, and overbearing were Saddams failures. Just like any expansionist ruler or set of rulers. Had this been the 18th or 19th century, Saddam would have conquered all of the sands of that region, given that no one would know or care because they would have no use for the oil. But today, we need the oil, the oil is the life blood of the economy, it heat our homes, fuels our cars, makes our jets fly. Without oil, we have to stay home. We have to work harder to survive. We must conserve energy rather than expend more than we can use. In short, we must be like everyone else without oil.
Liquid Atlanteans. -SNOG
Some days, I love how I can fixate on one thing and make something so totally incoherent.
posted by daq at 8:21 AM on December 10, 2004
Liquid Atlanteans. -SNOG
Some days, I love how I can fixate on one thing and make something so totally incoherent.
posted by daq at 8:21 AM on December 10, 2004
Even wars fought for noble purposes (ie: Civil War, anyone?) caused unimaginable suffering.
There's no such thing. No war has ever been fought for 'noble' purposes. Wars are fought by human beings, and as such are simply outgrowths of human failings--greed, misunderstanding, hatred.
Primarily the first item there; wars are usually fought for political or religious reasons, and those are almost always due to the greed of those in power. They wish to consolidate their power, whether by transparently grabbing more land or resources, or more subtly by going to war to solve domestic issues such as civil unrest, or focusing the energies of an unused warrior class from recent other conflicts.
Sure, you could point out that for underdog nations attacked by aggressors fight a noble war of defense, but that's not what _caused_ the war. Even in World War II, the US only entered the war because of Pearl Harbor, despite its strong isolationist leanings prior.
The Civil War? Not exactly noble, unless you think the sole reason for it was freeing the slaves (there's lots of debate on how large a role that topic played, but it certainly can't be said it was the only reason, and usually not even the primary one. See famous Lincoln quote about keeping the slaves if it would save the Union).
And don't point out the Revolutionary War, as that was less a war between sovereign states as it was a true revolution (hence its name)--and a revolution is an entirely different beast.
Wars aren't noble. They're just sinkholes of death and pointless destruction, often to the benefit of those in power and the detriment of the lower classes. Always has been always will be.
posted by cyrusdogstar at 11:55 AM on December 10, 2004
There's no such thing. No war has ever been fought for 'noble' purposes. Wars are fought by human beings, and as such are simply outgrowths of human failings--greed, misunderstanding, hatred.
Primarily the first item there; wars are usually fought for political or religious reasons, and those are almost always due to the greed of those in power. They wish to consolidate their power, whether by transparently grabbing more land or resources, or more subtly by going to war to solve domestic issues such as civil unrest, or focusing the energies of an unused warrior class from recent other conflicts.
Sure, you could point out that for underdog nations attacked by aggressors fight a noble war of defense, but that's not what _caused_ the war. Even in World War II, the US only entered the war because of Pearl Harbor, despite its strong isolationist leanings prior.
The Civil War? Not exactly noble, unless you think the sole reason for it was freeing the slaves (there's lots of debate on how large a role that topic played, but it certainly can't be said it was the only reason, and usually not even the primary one. See famous Lincoln quote about keeping the slaves if it would save the Union).
And don't point out the Revolutionary War, as that was less a war between sovereign states as it was a true revolution (hence its name)--and a revolution is an entirely different beast.
Wars aren't noble. They're just sinkholes of death and pointless destruction, often to the benefit of those in power and the detriment of the lower classes. Always has been always will be.
posted by cyrusdogstar at 11:55 AM on December 10, 2004
Apologies for occasional lapses in proper punctuation or grammar :D
posted by cyrusdogstar at 11:58 AM on December 10, 2004
posted by cyrusdogstar at 11:58 AM on December 10, 2004
« Older "Why you should always brush your teeth." | The Comic Bubble and the Bust. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by puke & cry at 6:49 PM on December 9, 2004