Saddam Hussein captured...

"Phil Fraering" wrote

Let's see...

Iraq was conquered by the Turks sometime in the Middle Ages.
Then the Mongols conquered them. Somewhere along the way
Timur conquered the country as well (he claimed to be Mongol,
but he claimed a lot fo things). Somewhere along the way, a lot
of the infrastructure they used to support themselves.

Even the Vikings held it for a time, (well, Baghdad anyway).

(I've forgotten whether the population before the crash was
larger than today, or merely larger than it was until the second
half of this century. Either way, that's a lot of damage.)

They eventually wound up ruled by the Ottomans, except for a
brief period where they were ruled by the Persians. In both
cases the Sunni minority were used as tribute farmers by the
larger empire.

I expect the Ottomans used the child tribute in Iraq as well. The best
and brightest have been abandoning Iraq for quite some time, (as would I
in their circumstance).

Then, in the aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the
British decided to install the Hashemites as rulers. Who got
overthrown by the Ba'athists, who were mainly recruited from
one of Iraq's several ethnic minorities, and effectively a client
state of the old SU.

They've never quite had a state of their own to begin with.

And that excuses them? They have fared better than many in the region.
Is it Jerusalem that has averaged something like a new ruler every
twenty years for the last three thousand years?

"People get the governments they deserve" I can not say that I have
ever found an exception to this.

Just some historical perspective.

Thank you, I appreciated it.

Pete.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:26:45 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

This is a difference in small details, not in basic philosophy. A fair
fraction of the Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross winners were -- at least,
at the time -- borderline lunatics, doing things most sensible men would
never have dreamed of doing, with near-suicidal (and sometimes outright
suicidal) disregard for their own survival.

That's a natural consequence of being thrown into combat--it's a human
response, not driven by culture.

Is it? Anyway, here's a quote about one of the most famous VCs of
recent times. For those who are not aware of the finer points of
British military decoration, the Victoria Cross is the highest
award going (MoH equivalent?).

[From http://www.asylumnation.com/asylum/_...readid_26029/]
"He never got anything named after him, but Colonel H Jones got the VC
(posthumously, but that is pretty common for VCs) for charging the
argentinians at Goose Green, which was pretty daft (although the paras
went bonkers afterwards and wiped the argentinians out (apparently
finishing the killing with spades after they had run out of bullets)).
All the paras (all 3 of them) that I have spoken to about him said that
he was a complete tit for charging like that."

--
Ne magna voce clametis ne canatis. Ne sine mediocritate edatis neve
bibatis. Ne ructetis. Ne inflationibus ventris alicui noceatis.
Ne consuetudinem vomitandi conservetis. Ne sitis satyri.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:41:26 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor
: glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Actually, it's George C. Scott playing Patton.

: No, it's Patton.

Did Patton ever make that comment? Remember what Gen. Omar Bradley (the
real one not Karl Malden) said about Scott doing Patton? He said, "Scott
played Patton better than Patton played Patton." Now is the
poor-*******-dying-for-his-country speech actually from Patton or was it
part of the movie?

Hell, I just looked it up myself. It was indeed Patton. I left the above
rather than erase it just to illustrate Bradley's comment, though.

Eric

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 02:58:53 +0000, in a place far, far away, Mary
Pegg made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

This is a difference in small details, not in basic philosophy. A fair
fraction of the Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross winners were -- at least,
at the time -- borderline lunatics, doing things most sensible men would
never have dreamed of doing, with near-suicidal (and sometimes outright
suicidal) disregard for their own survival.

That's a natural consequence of being thrown into combat--it's a human
response, not driven by culture.

Is it?

It seems to be.

Rand Simberg wrote:
unavoidable to achieve the objective. We don't put guns in the hands
of five year olds and teach them about the glory of dying for God.

Nop, you put guns in the hands of your five year olds and teach them about
their God given right to bear arms as written in your constitution.

Since guns have only one purpose: to kill, then why would the USA grant all
its citizens the right to kill, yet have laws that make it illegal to kill ?

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:43:01 -0500, in a place far, far away, Frank
Burns made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

unavoidable to achieve the objective. We don't put guns in the hands
of five year olds and teach them about the glory of dying for God.

Nop, you put guns in the hands of your five year olds and teach them about
their God given right to bear arms as written in your constitution.

That's a change of subject. Very few people do that, but even if they
did, it's an entirely different thing.

Since guns have only one purpose: to kill, then why would the USA grant all
its citizens the right to kill, yet have laws that make it illegal to kill ?

Because guns don't only have the purpose to kill. They can also deter
other people from killing you simply by brandishing them. And it's
not illegal to kill in self defense. It's only illegal to murder.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:43:01 -0500, in a place far, far away, Frank
Burns made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

unavoidable to achieve the objective. We don't put guns in the hands
of five year olds and teach them about the glory of dying for God.

Nop, you put guns in the hands of your five year olds and teach them about
their God given right to bear arms as written in your constitution.

That's a change of subject. Very few people do that, but even if they
did, it's an entirely different thing.

Since guns have only one purpose: to kill, then why would the USA grant all
its citizens the right to kill, yet have laws that make it illegal to kill ?

Because guns don't only have the purpose to kill. They can also deter
other people from killing you simply by brandishing them. And it's
not illegal to kill in self defense. It's only illegal to murder.

Guns have other uses including target shooting.

Guns on farms and ranches are used to kill animal predators and
people use guns for hunting. Still used to kill, but not humans.

Mike Walsh

"Frank Burns" wrote in message
...
Rand Simberg wrote:
unavoidable to achieve the objective. We don't put guns in the hands
of five year olds and teach them about the glory of dying for God.

Nop, you put guns in the hands of your five year olds and teach them about
their God given right to bear arms as written in your constitution.

I don't know too many 5 year olds being taught that.

Though I will say the first time I fired a 22 I was probably 4 or so.
Scared the hell out of me at the time. Kept me from playing with guns for
awhile.

And it's not a God given right, but a man given right. Since the Founding
Fathers knew the tyranny that can be had when only the government has guns.


Since guns have only one purpose: to kill, then why would the USA grant
all
its citizens the right to kill, yet have laws that make it illegal to kill
?

Who said that is the only purpose.

I can think of several:
Sport shooting (target practice, skeet, biathlon, etc.)
Hunting
Self-defense

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Reed Snellenberger wrote:
Not all cultures encourage and worship martydom...
Name one where this is not true of at least the armed forces.
Ours...
To say nothing of the almost hagiographic attitude toward the firemen and
policemen who died in the World Trade Center collapse.

Because they EARNED it, Henry.

I'm inclined to agree, but so what? It's still encouraging and
worshipping martyrdom, when done in the right cause. The claim that
our culture is somehow totally different in this regard is nonsense.

I think in the military we encorage and worship bravery. A common
cause of bravery is martyrdom.

(Alex Terrell) wrote in message . com...
(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Reed Snellenberger wrote:
Not all cultures encourage and worship martydom...
Name one where this is not true of at least the armed forces.
Ours...
To say nothing of the almost hagiographic attitude toward the firemen and
policemen who died in the World Trade Center collapse.

Because they EARNED it, Henry.

I'm inclined to agree, but so what? It's still encouraging and
worshipping martyrdom, when done in the right cause. The claim that
our culture is somehow totally different in this regard is nonsense.

I think in the military we encorage and worship bravery. A common
cause of bravery is martyrdom.

oops - I meant result, not cause