for a few days there was rioting. police are now working again and AFAIK the looting is slowing down. a few days of riots (mostly non-violent) after 30 years of oppression doesn't seem that bad to me.
Well I don't know bunge's personal background or education level either, Powerdoc. That's not the point.
The quote is a bit of a pointer or a sideways, "close enough" thing that I've actually enjoyed WAY before I even became aware of AI (look on some old "favorite movie" threads here and you'll see my longtime fascination/adoration of "Jaws").
This just seemed like a good time to pull it out because there have been those here (regardless of education level or actual degrees earned) who sometimes come across in a superior, know-it-all fashion. Then, when proven NOT to be so all-knowing on a certain event, topic, scenario, etc., they throw up other arguments or fall back to the old standbys (which I outline in another thread). Anything to deflect that they might not have had it pegged as accurately as they believed.
When I'm wrong or mis-speak, I tend to cop to it and own up (and apologize when necessary). I don't want to be someone who thinks they're perfect and not above boo-boos. I've made TONS of them, here and elsewhere. Look just a few posts above after telling Hassan that I shouldn't have lumped him in with others).
And I think I kinda coolly counter-zinged his zinger (that sounds really nasty), so don't load bunge up exclusively on the zinger points. Spread 'em around, buddy!
Well, since babies, historically, tend not to loot, pillage and go on wild, museum-destroying rampages, I'd have to say that this is probably accurate. Good call.
Whew, you got me there, bunge.
I know when I've been beaten.
"When I'm wrong or mis-speak, I tend to cop to it and own up (and apologize when necessary)."
But other times you'll sidestep an issue with a sarcastic comment to avoid having to backtrack (not that I can think of any examples in this thread.)
No, not really. You said that I'd bitch about people saying "baby-killing U.S. soldiers..." or whatever and we all know that wouldn't be the case. It would be "looter-killing U.S. soldiers".
Any sarcasm I display is a safety valve/buffer so I don't run through a wall or fling myself off a cliff dealing with you and Robin. I mean Shawn.
Tell you what: if, in the course of these weird, up-in-the-air period in Iraq, if U.S. soldiers, while in the act of trying to keep the peace or protect certain buildings or whatever, open fire and kill some rioter/looter types and no one here responds with the usual list of charges, I'll totally go "wow, I REALLY misjudged that. I was wrong as a fella can be. You guys are taking this WAY better than I ever imagined!".
Fair?
In a weird, roundabout way, you're kinda saying or implying that my assessment IS a bit on the mark because you yourself know that if the museum had been guarded by U.S. troops and an ugly situation took place (soldiers shot and killed some violent looters or whatever), you know there'd be no way on God's green earth you wouldn't comment on it in the way I - and others - have come to expect. Throwing the "baby killer" thing in there (when babies have nothing to do with looting or rampaging) kinda shows that. I wouldn't expect anyone to call a soldier "baby killer" if they shot adults.
Who would?
In any case, this isn't going to work because for it to do so, everyone on your end of things would pretty much have to stop and reverse everything they've been saying, doing, claiming, predicting, etc. for weeks.
That - just like people who see this action the way I do - just simply isn't going to happen.
No, not really. You said that I'd bitch about people saying "baby-killing U.S. soldiers..." or whatever and we all know that wouldn't be the case. It would be "looter-killing U.S. soldiers".
I'll try and annunciate more clearly.
There are already cases where the U.S. Military is shooting looters. No one here is complaining in the fashion you say they would if the U.S. Military shot someone while protecting the museum.
So, if they/we aren't already complaining or protesting in the fashion you believe we would, then I think it is safe to say they/we wouldn't complain any louder if the U.S. Military had to shoot to protect the Museum from looters either.
EDIT: Please leave my zinger out of the equation....
I hadn't heard about any looter shootings. Really? Maybe it's toned down some then. Or maybe it would take a high-visibility one (over a famous landmark/building or, perhaps, caught on video or something like that) to make it a well-known, newsworthy event.
Okay, so far on this I'm wrong. No one has freaked out yet over such an incident. Doesn't mean they won't and doesn't mean I'm wrong in my overall assessment. Just means that so far, so good. No horrible clashes or brutal killings committed by our soldiers.
If I have to be off on something, then this is a good thing to be off on. Nobody wants any more killing or violence than there's already been. People should be calming down a bit. If they do/are, then the chances of U.S. troops shooting anyone are reduced or eliminated, no one else has to die, the Left doesn't have to go "see!" and I don't have to go "see?".
We'll just continue to see what goes on.
Can you blame me, bunge? I mean, honestly. Put aside your disdain for my views/opinions and, considering all that's led up to now, am I REALLY pulling a rabbit out of my hat in describing how things would go in such an event?
Not really.
I'd honestly keel over from a heart attack if our troops committed some huge blunder or atrocity and you guys DIDN'T flip out and go to town on these boards.
I think you missed the part where the United States temporarily became the Iraqi police. If we can spare as many as several thousand troops to protect oil fields, you would think we could spare even a few dozen to block off the entrances to a museum.
Um? no they didn't. It's a freaking war zone and the US military is there to fight a war. Once that is done they can worry about other stuff. But ... your (and others) anti-american lens doesn't allow you to see it that way. The US is the blame for everything all the time always in your book. Free your mind.
Just when I'd gotten this thread on a friendly, settled-down footing...
Scott just sent out the AI equivalent to the bat signal.
"Come on, old chum...there's a conservative disturbance at City Hall!" (Shawn dons cowl and looks around for his utility belt and bunge fires up the turbo engines...)
I'm sure it hasn't been a huge problem, but I'm sure it'll also be downplayed by the press. The main issue is that, although it's happening, no one is freaking out. It could be of course, that since it's not 'big' news those that might freak out just haven't seen it yet.
just checking. i hear shootings and think multiples.
although that's terrible, but smart on the looter's part to tell them the armed shop owner was part of saddam's forces.
ok, read the other one too. british guys shot 5 bank robbers. not sure they count as looters, but hey, why not? that's 6 total. still not bad considering.
Once that is done they can worry about other stuff.
And what if they don't want to worry about other stuff? Is that still OK?
Quote:
In Baghdad, Marines tried to curb looting in some places Friday but said they did not have sufficient personnel or equipment to police a city of 5 million people - and no intention of serving in that role.
"At no point, do we see us really becoming a police force," said U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks.
Um? no they didn't. It's a freaking war zone and the US military is there to fight a war. Once that is done they can worry about other stuff. But ... your (and others) anti-american lens doesn't allow you to see it that way. The US is the blame for everything all the time always in your book. Free your mind.
ADMIT SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LAWLESSNESS IN BAGHDAD!
Comments
for a few days there was rioting. police are now working again and AFAIK the looting is slowing down. a few days of riots (mostly non-violent) after 30 years of oppression doesn't seem that bad to me.
is this thread going anywhere?
Originally posted by alcimedes
so what's the point to this thread exactly?
is this thread going anywhere?
Welcome in AO, Alcimedes
Originally posted by pscates
Well I don't know bunge's personal background or education level either, Powerdoc. That's not the point.
The quote is a bit of a pointer or a sideways, "close enough" thing that I've actually enjoyed WAY before I even became aware of AI (look on some old "favorite movie" threads here and you'll see my longtime fascination/adoration of "Jaws").
This just seemed like a good time to pull it out because there have been those here (regardless of education level or actual degrees earned) who sometimes come across in a superior, know-it-all fashion. Then, when proven NOT to be so all-knowing on a certain event, topic, scenario, etc., they throw up other arguments or fall back to the old standbys (which I outline in another thread). Anything to deflect that they might not have had it pegged as accurately as they believed.
When I'm wrong or mis-speak, I tend to cop to it and own up (and apologize when necessary). I don't want to be someone who thinks they're perfect and not above boo-boos. I've made TONS of them, here and elsewhere. Look just a few posts above after telling Hassan that I shouldn't have lumped him in with others).
You know the thread. Cop to it.
Originally posted by bunge
Funny to think that Robert Shaw dies an awful, painful death while Richard Dreyfuss lives to see another day.
Keep the zingers coming, bunge.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
You know the thread. Cop to it.
I said "when I'm wrong"
And I think I kinda coolly counter-zinged his zinger (that sounds really nasty), so don't load bunge up exclusively on the zinger points. Spread 'em around, buddy!
Originally posted by pscates
Well, since babies, historically, tend not to loot, pillage and go on wild, museum-destroying rampages, I'd have to say that this is probably accurate. Good call.
Whew, you got me there, bunge.
I know when I've been beaten.
"When I'm wrong or mis-speak, I tend to cop to it and own up (and apologize when necessary)."
But other times you'll sidestep an issue with a sarcastic comment to avoid having to backtrack (not that I can think of any examples in this thread.)
Any sarcasm I display is a safety valve/buffer so I don't run through a wall or fling myself off a cliff dealing with you and Robin. I mean Shawn.
Tell you what: if, in the course of these weird, up-in-the-air period in Iraq, if U.S. soldiers, while in the act of trying to keep the peace or protect certain buildings or whatever, open fire and kill some rioter/looter types and no one here responds with the usual list of charges, I'll totally go "wow, I REALLY misjudged that. I was wrong as a fella can be. You guys are taking this WAY better than I ever imagined!".
Fair?
In a weird, roundabout way, you're kinda saying or implying that my assessment IS a bit on the mark because you yourself know that if the museum had been guarded by U.S. troops and an ugly situation took place (soldiers shot and killed some violent looters or whatever), you know there'd be no way on God's green earth you wouldn't comment on it in the way I - and others - have come to expect. Throwing the "baby killer" thing in there (when babies have nothing to do with looting or rampaging) kinda shows that. I wouldn't expect anyone to call a soldier "baby killer" if they shot adults.
Who would?
In any case, this isn't going to work because for it to do so, everyone on your end of things would pretty much have to stop and reverse everything they've been saying, doing, claiming, predicting, etc. for weeks.
That - just like people who see this action the way I do - just simply isn't going to happen.
Originally posted by pscates
No, not really. You said that I'd bitch about people saying "baby-killing U.S. soldiers..." or whatever and we all know that wouldn't be the case. It would be "looter-killing U.S. soldiers".
I'll try and annunciate more clearly.
There are already cases where the U.S. Military is shooting looters. No one here is complaining in the fashion you say they would if the U.S. Military shot someone while protecting the museum.
So, if they/we aren't already complaining or protesting in the fashion you believe we would, then I think it is safe to say they/we wouldn't complain any louder if the U.S. Military had to shoot to protect the Museum from looters either.
EDIT: Please leave my zinger out of the equation....
Okay, so far on this I'm wrong. No one has freaked out yet over such an incident. Doesn't mean they won't and doesn't mean I'm wrong in my overall assessment. Just means that so far, so good. No horrible clashes or brutal killings committed by our soldiers.
If I have to be off on something, then this is a good thing to be off on. Nobody wants any more killing or violence than there's already been. People should be calming down a bit. If they do/are, then the chances of U.S. troops shooting anyone are reduced or eliminated, no one else has to die, the Left doesn't have to go "see!" and I don't have to go "see?".
We'll just continue to see what goes on.
Can you blame me, bunge? I mean, honestly. Put aside your disdain for my views/opinions and, considering all that's led up to now, am I REALLY pulling a rabbit out of my hat in describing how things would go in such an event?
Not really.
I'd honestly keel over from a heart attack if our troops committed some huge blunder or atrocity and you guys DIDN'T flip out and go to town on these boards.
THEN, I'd be wrong. REALLY wrong.
Originally posted by pscates
Can you blame me, bunge? I mean, honestly. Put aside your disdain for my views/opinions....
Help...trying...can't, do it...arrrrggghhh!!!!
Originally posted by bunge
I think you missed the part where the United States temporarily became the Iraqi police. If we can spare as many as several thousand troops to protect oil fields, you would think we could spare even a few dozen to block off the entrances to a museum.
Um? no they didn't. It's a freaking war zone and the US military is there to fight a war. Once that is done they can worry about other stuff. But ... your (and others) anti-american lens doesn't allow you to see it that way. The US is the blame for everything all the time always in your book. Free your mind.
Scott just sent out the AI equivalent to the bat signal.
"Come on, old chum...there's a conservative disturbance at City Hall!" (Shawn dons cowl and looks around for his utility belt and bunge fires up the turbo engines...)
Originally posted by Scott
Um? no they didn't. It's a freaking war zone and the US military is there to fight a war. Once that is done they can worry about other stuff.
Once the current regime is removed, the U.S. must fill the void. There is no 48 grace period for looting. I'm sorry.
Originally posted by alcimedes
bunge, you got links to the looter shootings? i google news'ed it, but got nothing.
Sure.
Here's one.
Here's another.
Here is a third.
And a fourth.
I'm sure it hasn't been a huge problem, but I'm sure it'll also be downplayed by the press. The main issue is that, although it's happening, no one is freaking out. It could be of course, that since it's not 'big' news those that might freak out just haven't seen it yet.
just checking. i hear shootings and think multiples.
although that's terrible, but smart on the looter's part to tell them the armed shop owner was part of saddam's forces.
ok, read the other one too. british guys shot 5 bank robbers. not sure they count as looters, but hey, why not? that's 6 total. still not bad considering.
Originally posted by alcimedes
so there's been a shooting of one person?
Bump...because I was editing the original post.
Originally posted by Scott
Once that is done they can worry about other stuff.
And what if they don't want to worry about other stuff? Is that still OK?
In Baghdad, Marines tried to curb looting in some places Friday but said they did not have sufficient personnel or equipment to police a city of 5 million people - and no intention of serving in that role.
"At no point, do we see us really becoming a police force," said U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks.
Link.
Originally posted by Scott
Um? no they didn't. It's a freaking war zone and the US military is there to fight a war. Once that is done they can worry about other stuff. But ... your (and others) anti-american lens doesn't allow you to see it that way. The US is the blame for everything all the time always in your book. Free your mind.
ADMIT SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LAWLESSNESS IN BAGHDAD!
Damn.