Comments on: Photographs of the Iraq occupation

Photographs of the Iraq occupation

omidius — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 18:10:50 -0800

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.

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 18:49:32 -0800

I really liked that site when it was called ogrish.

By: fandango_matt

fandango_matt — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 18:49:56 -0800

Hasn't this been previously posted? Sorry. I'm so fucking tired of these hideous image collections; I've been sickened and outraged at the people responsible for these atrocities for so long that I'm completely burned out and all I feel now is disgust for the people who helped perpetuate this evil by voting for George W. Bush. /rant

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 18:51:53 -0800

well apparently I'm more correct than I thought. that site ripped off orgishs horizontal menu.

By: fandango_matt

fandango_matt — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 18:59:43 -0800

Also, this is a lousy FPP.

By: justgary

justgary — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:07:22 -0800

Also, this is a lousy FPP. Yes, because it causes cliched, simplistic rants, like your own.

By: undule

undule — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:24:11 -0800

*buh-doom-boom*

By: Lisa S

Lisa S — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:31:55 -0800

...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.

By: undule

undule — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:45:54 -0800

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.

By: iamck

iamck — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:58:11 -0800

No one argues war isn't tragic. Say it like you mean it.

By: c13

c13 — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:59:07 -0800

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?

By: Civil_Disobedient

Civil_Disobedient — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 20:06:09 -0800

Ogrish is better.

By: Lisa S

Lisa S — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 20:38:21 -0800

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.

By: Keyser Soze

Keyser Soze — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:06:02 -0800

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.

By: digaman

digaman — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:23:21 -0800

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.

By: svenni

svenni — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:46:32 -0800

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.

By: rotifer

rotifer — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 22:21:03 -0800

"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.

By: BradNelson

BradNelson — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 23:45:04 -0800

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."

By: Witty

Witty — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:18:11 -0800

Bravo!

By: atchafalaya

atchafalaya — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 05:19:23 -0800

Why was it necessary to get into a war we might not be able to win?

By: fandango_matt

fandango_matt — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:01:04 -0800

Why was it necessary to get into a war ~~we might not be able to~~ cannot win? Also: Why was it necessary to invade Iraq?

By: daq

daq — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:21:55 -0800

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.

By: Ynoxas

Ynoxas — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:49:50 -0800

War. Good God. What is it good for?

By: fandango_matt

fandango_matt — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:17:43 -0800

Hally-bur-ton! Huh! Say it again.

By: cyrusdogstar

cyrusdogstar — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:55:10 -0800

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.

By: cyrusdogstar

cyrusdogstar — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:58:12 -0800

Apologies for occasional lapses in proper punctuation or grammar :D