Or even better: he shouldn´t have shot any of them. Better for the intelligence average of the american army and for the preservation of almost instinct animals.
Or even better: he shouldn´t have shot any of them. Better for the intelligence average of the american army and for the preservation of almost instinct animals.
"The soldiers arrived in the evening with food and beer, accompanied by a group of Iraqi police officers," Adel Salman Musa said. "One of the soldiers, who the Iraqi police said had drunk a lot, went into the cage against the advice of his colleagues and tried to feed the animal, who severely hurt his arm."
The tiger tore off one of the soldier's fingers and mauled his arm. Another soldier immediately fired at the animal and killed it, Mr. Salman Musa told AFP.
"The soldiers don't have the right to behave like that. That was the most precious and valuable animal in the whole zoo. It was 14 years old and had been born here," he said, adding sadly that he has no way of stopping the regular parties held at the zoo by occupation forces.
I'm not sure who's the bigger idiot. The soldier who went into the keepers area to feed the tiger against the advice of his fellow soldiers, or the soldier who shot the tiger.
Hopefully the soldier who was bitten had his trigger finger eaten thus ensuring he won't be doing anything as idiotic while holding a gun.
This, of course was after Chef had gotten out of the boat and was nearly eaten by a tiger. I think it sums things up nicely. Never get out of the boat.
"A later incident takes up much less screen time and is anything but spectacular, but it offers a more succinct and telling critique of American ignorance: Chef, searching the forest for mangoes, is suddenly charged by the last enemy he ever expected: a tiger. It's an ingenious illustration of the idea that America had no business being in this alien jungle. "
This, of course was after Chef had gotten out of the boat and was nearly eaten by a tiger.
I remember him lying on the deck in shock...as every one is unloading their weapons into the jungle...and he's babbling.. " It was a Fvcking Tiger..a Fvcking Tiger......a fvcking tiger.....
But the thing that really nailed it for me, was the scene where one of them gets speared to death..
So much for technological superiority...giving you the "edge "
Please try and read the cited passages. It was a zoo. That's a fact. The tiger was bred in captivity. That's also a fact. It had never seen the wild. It is probably happier dead.
If you can't come up with a response that isn't pointless, don't respond at all.
Dude (bunge), stop the straw man argument, unless your goal is to be an irritating bitch. I've met intellectual liberals in the past. You're not helping your cause here.
I think you're confused. You're the one making outlandish generalized claims about 'liberals.' That's the straw man here.
"Outlandish claims" which were meant to be somewhat self-revealing and terse at a point where I didn't want to elaborate too much. Not straw.
Straw: posting responses that have no purpose except to hold space in the thread. (i.e. no backbone.)
And there are several things you can't deny:
1) The tiger was born and raised in captivity.
2) generally speaking, the animal rights movement heavily sides with American liberalism.
Things that are speculative:
1) The Iraqui zoo, which had very little money, didn't treat the animal too well anyway.
2) What kind of life is it to be behind a cage? A pretty crappy one I'd guess. The loss of this tiger's life is not as impactful as the loss of a wild tiger's life. Even Pete Singer would agree with this.
While perhaps a shame nonetheless, it is not a big deal. Furthermore, it is foolish to use a few examples to tarnish the US military operations in Iraq, and ultimately the Bush administration, which is usually the goal with these things. At this point the US Military has a lot of experience in peaceful occupation. There will be foul ups. But this is one of the least impactful foul ups I've ever heard of. As far as I know, the US troops have been on better behavior in Iraq then have been their buddies in Okinawa. And that doesn't resound with liberal media so often, I guess, because Dems put them there.
Pure and simple party-line retardation on part of the media.
While perhaps a shame nonetheless, it is not a big deal. Furthermore, it is foolish to use a few examples to tarnish the US military operations in Iraq, and ultimately the Bush administration, which is usually the goal with these things. At this point the US Military has a lot of experience in peaceful occupation. There will be foul ups. But this is one of the least impactful foul ups I've ever heard of. As far as I know, the US troops have been on better behavior in Iraq then have been their buddies in Okinawa. And that doesn't resound with liberal media so often, I guess, because Dems put them there.
Pure and simple party-line retardation on part of the media.
Well the consistent parties seem like a bigger deal than you would suggest, even if they're not the end of the world. And they don't tarnish Bush directly, although he put the troops there. They do tarnish themselves though.
As for Okinawa, two things. One, we've been there a long time. I'd venture to guess that it being old news has a lot more to do with the media's neglect rather than it being a partisan issue. I think it's laughable that you would even suggest that.
Second, last time I said something bad about the troops in Okinawa I got yelled at by groverat. I'm just letting you know a flame should be imminent, like the threat in Iraq....
Straw: posting responses that have no purpose except to hold space in the thread. (i.e. no backbone.)
Is that the new definition of "straw-man?" I've been out of the debate loop for a few semesters, so who really knows. Interesting, but I always thought it had something to do with setting up an imaginary or weak argument of your opponent only to knock it down.
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
And there are several things you can't deny:
1) The tiger was born and raised in captivity.
2) generally speaking, the animal rights movement heavily sides with American liberalism.
Things that are speculative:
1) The Iraqui zoo, which had very little money, didn't treat the animal too well anyway.
2) What kind of life is it to be behind a cage? A pretty crappy one I'd guess. The loss of this tiger's life is not as impactful as the loss of a wild tiger's life. Even Pete Singer would agree with this.
While perhaps a shame nonetheless, it is not a big deal. Furthermore, it is foolish to use a few examples to tarnish the US military operations in Iraq, and ultimately the Bush administration, which is usually the goal with these things. At this point the US Military has a lot of experience in peaceful occupation. There will be foul ups. But this is one of the least impactful foul ups I've ever heard of. As far as I know, the US troops have been on better behavior in Iraq then have been their buddies in Okinawa. And that doesn't resound with liberal media so often, I guess, because Dems put them there.
Pure and simple party-line retardation on part of the media.
It's..."perhaps" a shame to shoot and kill an endangered tiger. Just like "oops!" I broke a vase. "Oops, I lost my shoe!" "Oops, where's my keys?"
No, it's not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it matters to animal-rights activists, environmental groups, some reasonable people, etc. Eh. Doesn't really matter much to me as an anti-war argument. I prefer all the other ones....
Isn´t the stragedy right now to ensure a bit of stability in Iraq and try to make Baghdad as safe and normal as possible? And to win the hearts and minds of the general population?
So taking a couple of cases of beer, gettin on your civil clothes, firing up a couple of MPV and making a picnic by entering the nearest zoo after closing time bring you nearer or further away from that goal? If stability is sought wouldn´t it be logic to try to behave as normal as possible? Would that behaviour be acceptable in Woodland Park Zoo? They and their superiour should be put before a military court for actively sabotizing the goals of the US army
This only enhance the feeling that US military is not suited for actions like this.
And Spline: your totally far out here. Even if the treatment of of the animals was an issue here a picnic with alcohol, coupled with hand feeding a hungry tiger and following shooting of it isn´t the way to handle this situation.
"Outlandish claims" which were meant to be somewhat self-revealing and terse at a point where I didn't want to elaborate too much. Not straw.
Straw: posting responses that have no purpose except to hold space in the thread. (i.e. no backbone.)
And there are several things you can't deny:
1) The tiger was born and raised in captivity.
2) generally speaking, the animal rights movement heavily sides with American liberalism.
Things that are speculative:
1) The Iraqui zoo, which had very little money, didn't treat the animal too well anyway.
2) What kind of life is it to be behind a cage? A pretty crappy one I'd guess. The loss of this tiger's life is not as impactful as the loss of a wild tiger's life. Even Pete Singer would agree with this.
While perhaps a shame nonetheless, it is not a big deal. Furthermore, it is foolish to use a few examples to tarnish the US military operations in Iraq, and ultimately the Bush administration, which is usually the goal with these things. At this point the US Military has a lot of experience in peaceful occupation. There will be foul ups. But this is one of the least impactful foul ups I've ever heard of. As far as I know, the US troops have been on better behavior in Iraq then have been their buddies in Okinawa. And that doesn't resound with liberal media so often, I guess, because Dems put them there.
Pure and simple party-line retardation on part of the media.
Comments
Originally posted by Anders
Or even better: he shouldn´t have shot any of them. Better for the intelligence average of the american army and for the preservation of almost instinct animals.
Here's a more in-depth article on the incident:
Article #2
"The soldiers arrived in the evening with food and beer, accompanied by a group of Iraqi police officers," Adel Salman Musa said. "One of the soldiers, who the Iraqi police said had drunk a lot, went into the cage against the advice of his colleagues and tried to feed the animal, who severely hurt his arm."
The tiger tore off one of the soldier's fingers and mauled his arm. Another soldier immediately fired at the animal and killed it, Mr. Salman Musa told AFP.
"The soldiers don't have the right to behave like that. That was the most precious and valuable animal in the whole zoo. It was 14 years old and had been born here," he said, adding sadly that he has no way of stopping the regular parties held at the zoo by occupation forces.
I'm not sure who's the bigger idiot. The soldier who went into the keepers area to feed the tiger against the advice of his fellow soldiers, or the soldier who shot the tiger.
Hopefully the soldier who was bitten had his trigger finger eaten thus ensuring he won't be doing anything as idiotic while holding a gun.
Chef: Never get out of the ****ing boat!
This, of course was after Chef had gotten out of the boat and was nearly eaten by a tiger. I think it sums things up nicely. Never get out of the boat.
"A later incident takes up much less screen time and is anything but spectacular, but it offers a more succinct and telling critique of American ignorance: Chef, searching the forest for mangoes, is suddenly charged by the last enemy he ever expected: a tiger. It's an ingenious illustration of the idea that America had no business being in this alien jungle. "
Critic - Memphis Times
Yep. Never get out of the ****ing boat.
way to win the hearts and minds, fool.
Originally posted by Scott
I wonder if this had been a brit to someone else if you all would be posting with as much venom.
he has no way of stopping the regular parties held at the zoo by occupation forces.
You're
a
troll.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
It was a tiger in captivity. Being f-ing deal. Aren't you liberals supposed to be against zoo's in the first place?
Please try and make sense if you post.
Thanks.
Originally posted by Artman @_@
From Apocalypse Now....
Chef: Never get out of the ****ing boat!
This, of course was after Chef had gotten out of the boat and was nearly eaten by a tiger.
I remember him lying on the deck in shock...as every one is unloading their weapons into the jungle...and he's babbling.. " It was a Fvcking Tiger..a Fvcking Tiger......a fvcking tiger.....
But the thing that really nailed it for me, was the scene where one of them gets speared to death..
So much for technological superiority...giving you the "edge "
Originally posted by bunge
Please try and make sense if you post.
Thanks.
Please try and read the cited passages. It was a zoo. That's a fact. The tiger was bred in captivity. That's also a fact. It had never seen the wild. It is probably happier dead.
If you can't come up with a response that isn't pointless, don't respond at all.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
It had never seen the wild. It is probably happier dead.
Please try and make sense if you post.
Thanks.
Originally posted by Scott
I wonder if this had been a brit to someone else if you all would be posting with as much venom.
Yes.
Stupidity isn't limited to the US.
Since your 'anti-american' radar is way out-of-tune, you seem to interpret everything as an affront to America - chill out.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
...stop the straw man argument....
I think you're confused. You're the one making outlandish generalized claims about 'liberals.' That's the straw man here.
Originally posted by bunge
I think you're confused. You're the one making outlandish generalized claims about 'liberals.' That's the straw man here.
"Outlandish claims" which were meant to be somewhat self-revealing and terse at a point where I didn't want to elaborate too much. Not straw.
Straw: posting responses that have no purpose except to hold space in the thread. (i.e. no backbone.)
And there are several things you can't deny:
1) The tiger was born and raised in captivity.
2) generally speaking, the animal rights movement heavily sides with American liberalism.
Things that are speculative:
1) The Iraqui zoo, which had very little money, didn't treat the animal too well anyway.
2) What kind of life is it to be behind a cage? A pretty crappy one I'd guess. The loss of this tiger's life is not as impactful as the loss of a wild tiger's life. Even Pete Singer would agree with this.
While perhaps a shame nonetheless, it is not a big deal. Furthermore, it is foolish to use a few examples to tarnish the US military operations in Iraq, and ultimately the Bush administration, which is usually the goal with these things. At this point the US Military has a lot of experience in peaceful occupation. There will be foul ups. But this is one of the least impactful foul ups I've ever heard of. As far as I know, the US troops have been on better behavior in Iraq then have been their buddies in Okinawa. And that doesn't resound with liberal media so often, I guess, because Dems put them there.
Pure and simple party-line retardation on part of the media.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
While perhaps a shame nonetheless, it is not a big deal. Furthermore, it is foolish to use a few examples to tarnish the US military operations in Iraq, and ultimately the Bush administration, which is usually the goal with these things. At this point the US Military has a lot of experience in peaceful occupation. There will be foul ups. But this is one of the least impactful foul ups I've ever heard of. As far as I know, the US troops have been on better behavior in Iraq then have been their buddies in Okinawa. And that doesn't resound with liberal media so often, I guess, because Dems put them there.
Pure and simple party-line retardation on part of the media.
Well the consistent parties seem like a bigger deal than you would suggest, even if they're not the end of the world. And they don't tarnish Bush directly, although he put the troops there. They do tarnish themselves though.
As for Okinawa, two things. One, we've been there a long time. I'd venture to guess that it being old news has a lot more to do with the media's neglect rather than it being a partisan issue. I think it's laughable that you would even suggest that.
Second, last time I said something bad about the troops in Okinawa I got yelled at by groverat. I'm just letting you know a flame should be imminent, like the threat in Iraq....
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Straw: posting responses that have no purpose except to hold space in the thread. (i.e. no backbone.)
Is that the new definition of "straw-man?" I've been out of the debate loop for a few semesters, so who really knows. Interesting, but I always thought it had something to do with setting up an imaginary or weak argument of your opponent only to knock it down.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
And there are several things you can't deny:
1) The tiger was born and raised in captivity.
2) generally speaking, the animal rights movement heavily sides with American liberalism.
Things that are speculative:
1) The Iraqui zoo, which had very little money, didn't treat the animal too well anyway.
2) What kind of life is it to be behind a cage? A pretty crappy one I'd guess. The loss of this tiger's life is not as impactful as the loss of a wild tiger's life. Even Pete Singer would agree with this.
While perhaps a shame nonetheless, it is not a big deal. Furthermore, it is foolish to use a few examples to tarnish the US military operations in Iraq, and ultimately the Bush administration, which is usually the goal with these things. At this point the US Military has a lot of experience in peaceful occupation. There will be foul ups. But this is one of the least impactful foul ups I've ever heard of. As far as I know, the US troops have been on better behavior in Iraq then have been their buddies in Okinawa. And that doesn't resound with liberal media so often, I guess, because Dems put them there.
Pure and simple party-line retardation on part of the media.
It's..."perhaps" a shame to shoot and kill an endangered tiger. Just like "oops!" I broke a vase. "Oops, I lost my shoe!" "Oops, where's my keys?"
No, it's not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it matters to animal-rights activists, environmental groups, some reasonable people, etc. Eh. Doesn't really matter much to me as an anti-war argument. I prefer all the other ones....
Isn´t the stragedy right now to ensure a bit of stability in Iraq and try to make Baghdad as safe and normal as possible? And to win the hearts and minds of the general population?
So taking a couple of cases of beer, gettin on your civil clothes, firing up a couple of MPV and making a picnic by entering the nearest zoo after closing time bring you nearer or further away from that goal? If stability is sought wouldn´t it be logic to try to behave as normal as possible? Would that behaviour be acceptable in Woodland Park Zoo? They and their superiour should be put before a military court for actively sabotizing the goals of the US army
This only enhance the feeling that US military is not suited for actions like this.
And Spline: your totally far out here. Even if the treatment of of the animals was an issue here a picnic with alcohol, coupled with hand feeding a hungry tiger and following shooting of it isn´t the way to handle this situation.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
"Outlandish claims" which were meant to be somewhat self-revealing and terse at a point where I didn't want to elaborate too much. Not straw.
Straw: posting responses that have no purpose except to hold space in the thread. (i.e. no backbone.)
And there are several things you can't deny:
1) The tiger was born and raised in captivity.
2) generally speaking, the animal rights movement heavily sides with American liberalism.
Things that are speculative:
1) The Iraqui zoo, which had very little money, didn't treat the animal too well anyway.
2) What kind of life is it to be behind a cage? A pretty crappy one I'd guess. The loss of this tiger's life is not as impactful as the loss of a wild tiger's life. Even Pete Singer would agree with this.
While perhaps a shame nonetheless, it is not a big deal. Furthermore, it is foolish to use a few examples to tarnish the US military operations in Iraq, and ultimately the Bush administration, which is usually the goal with these things. At this point the US Military has a lot of experience in peaceful occupation. There will be foul ups. But this is one of the least impactful foul ups I've ever heard of. As far as I know, the US troops have been on better behavior in Iraq then have been their buddies in Okinawa. And that doesn't resound with liberal media so often, I guess, because Dems put them there.
Pure and simple party-line retardation on part of the media.
someone is blind
Originally posted by Scott
I wonder if this had been a brit to someone else if you all would be posting with as much venom.
Yeah we would. But Brits aren't that stupid.