ISIS demolish ancient city of Nimrud
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:04:05 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  ISIS demolish ancient city of Nimrud
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: ISIS demolish ancient city of Nimrud  (Read 3706 times)
Incipimus iterum
1236
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,096
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2015, 04:21:00 PM »

Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: March 07, 2015, 08:17:37 PM »


I'd rather stop this at all costs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11e8XyUBqRQ
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: March 08, 2015, 03:16:47 AM »


to the extent we can know anything with use of counterfactuals, there is no doubt that "the World would be a better place" had a) the UN never imposed sanctions on Iraq and b) the US-UK had never invaded.  even the supposed worst case strong-getting-stronger Baathist dictatorship (and there are plenty of arguments that the sanctions strengthened the regime, that Saddam or a successor would not have been untouched by the 2011 events) would be infinitely preferable to our actual past 25 years.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: March 09, 2015, 06:02:10 PM »


to the extent we can know anything with use of counterfactuals, there is no doubt that "the World would be a better place" had a) the UN never imposed sanctions on Iraq and b) the US-UK had never invaded.  even the supposed worst case strong-getting-stronger Baathist dictatorship (and there are plenty of arguments that the sanctions strengthened the regime, that Saddam or a successor would not have been untouched by the 2011 events) would be infinitely preferable to our actual past 25 years.

What would arguably be even more preferable was if Saddam was overthrown during the first Gulf war.

As for the arguments that the sanctions strengthened the regime, perhaps. But we have no idea how the 'Arab Spring' would have gone down in Iraq without the invasion (I should here I'm NOT trying to implying this would have been a better outcome - only that it is unknown).
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: March 09, 2015, 07:37:10 PM »

What would arguably be even more preferable was if Saddam was overthrown during the first Gulf war.

this is a typical liberal talking point.  there were fewer (but not zero) cartoonish villains around to fill the vacuum in 1990/1 than 2003 and on, but doing so still would have required a mass invasion, humanitarian chaos, setup of a US puppet state, etc.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: March 09, 2015, 07:44:08 PM »

What would arguably be even more preferable was if Saddam was overthrown during the first Gulf war.

this is a typical liberal talking point.  there were fewer (but not zero) cartoonish villains around to fill the vacuum in 1990/1 than 2003 and on, but doing so still would have required a mass invasion, humanitarian chaos, setup of a US puppet state, etc.

1) That's a typical Obscuritan-left position which, should I be so willing, removes you from my ability to take you seriously.
2) Yes, yes it would have. So?
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: March 09, 2015, 07:59:56 PM »

What would arguably be even more preferable was if Saddam was overthrown during the first Gulf war.

this is a typical liberal talking point.  there were fewer (but not zero) cartoonish villains around to fill the vacuum in 1990/1 than 2003 and on, but doing so still would have required a mass invasion, humanitarian chaos, setup of a US puppet state, etc.

1) That's a typical Obscuritan-left position which, should I be so willing, removes you from my ability to take you seriously.
2) Yes, yes it would have. So?

2)  if we can't prove beyond a clear and convincing standard that such a massive intervention, with its guaranteed massive human cost, would be 'beneficial', that the action should not be taken.  an adoption of the Hippocratic Oath.... "first, do no harm".

of course, this is not how those who control the levers of foreign policy actually make decisions.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: March 09, 2015, 08:09:37 PM »

What would arguably be even more preferable was if Saddam was overthrown during the first Gulf war.

this is a typical liberal talking point.  there were fewer (but not zero) cartoonish villains around to fill the vacuum in 1990/1 than 2003 and on, but doing so still would have required a mass invasion, humanitarian chaos, setup of a US puppet state, etc.

1) That's a typical Obscuritan-left position which, should I be so willing, removes you from my ability to take you seriously.
2) Yes, yes it would have. So?

2)  if we can't prove beyond a clear and convincing standard that such a massive intervention, with its guaranteed massive human cost, would be 'beneficial', that the action should not be taken.  an adoption of the Hippocratic Oath.... "first, do no harm".

of course, this is not how those who control the levers of foreign policy actually make decisions.

The Hippocratic Oath can only be seen as ironic given some of the great damage Hippocrates and his followers did to Medicine and thus to human lives.

Also, it doesn't strike me as necessarily a good principle to base foreign policy. Even less than Cheney doctrine, which at least recognizes the notion of a threat.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: March 09, 2015, 08:16:09 PM »

Destruction of pre-Islamic artifacts happened in Maldives, but that incident flew under the radar.
Indeed, and the Waqf in charge of the Temple Mount destroys important archaeological sites all the damn time and few people are ready to invade Israel to make them put somebody less assholish in charge.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: March 10, 2015, 08:23:39 PM »

Also, it doesn't strike me as necessarily a good principle to base foreign policy. Even less than Cheney doctrine, which at least recognizes the notion of a threat.

'threat' has to be part of the harm calculus, but there are two big problems with it.

1) it's easy to states to claim that there's a threat when there isn't, based on classified intelligence.  we both know how that works out.  2) the problem of proportionality.  how much is a US citizen 'worth' compared to an Iraqi or an Afghan?  since Sept 2001 the answer seems to be a ratio of thousands to one.  a mass invasion in pre-emptive 'response' to a threat is almost always going to be way out of proportion.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: March 10, 2015, 08:40:15 PM »

Remember when the Taliban blew up the Buddhas of Bamiyan?

Yes, I do. 

This is bad, but funny that I'd notice a mention of Nimrud, of all places, twice in one day.  Just this morning, as I shat, I was reading an article in the current issue of NGM about Paul Salopek's most recent segment of his journey.  This one was spent in refugee camps in Anatolia housing tens of thousands of Syrian refugees.

We have had several threads on syria and how much war Americans (and brits?) can stomach.  This time it seems a little different than Bamiyan.  According to the article you link, they're looking to sell some of this loot to fund their activities.  Not that this should be allowed either, but it seems differently motivated than the Talibaan destruction of the Buddhas.  This one plays up looting, and as I recall looting was not an issue in Bamiyan.  I've already seen a good bit of Nimrud already housed in Boston, New York, and London, probably as much as still exists in the actual site of Nimrud, thanks to looting.  That said, I'm glad that this is being reported for what it is.  Callous.  Maybe some US-led strikes will buy local archaeologists some time, but my guess is that this sort of thing will continue as long as there is a market.





Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: March 10, 2015, 11:10:04 PM »

Also, it doesn't strike me as necessarily a good principle to base foreign policy. Even less than Cheney doctrine, which at least recognizes the notion of a threat.

'threat' has to be part of the harm calculus, but there are two big problems with it.

1) it's easy to states to claim that there's a threat when there isn't, based on classified intelligence.  we both know how that works out.  2) the problem of proportionality.  how much is a US citizen 'worth' compared to an Iraqi or an Afghan?  since Sept 2001 the answer seems to be a ratio of thousands to one.  a mass invasion in pre-emptive 'response' to a threat is almost always going to be way out of proportion.

Huh? Now you are being obtuse. This thread is about the destruction of archaeological sites. At no point was the relevance of your value of life calculus mentioned. Not only that but you accuse United States authorities of hypocrisy of treating American life as more of value than other life such as Iraqi or Afghan while attacking those who want intervention in Iraq (which btw I haven't said I'm favour of)... yet logically upholding the first principle would mean US intervention against ISIS because that would be less 'hypocritical' (as if hypocrisy is always a bad thing).

Furthermore you seem to be arguing that classified intelligence is reliable and not subject to any bias. The example of the Iraq War and how evidence was ignored by the defense establishment on Saddam's WMDs seems to disprove that point (and hardly the only time the competence of US' defense establishment has been put into question).
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: March 11, 2015, 11:20:17 PM »

the discussion between us had obviously evolved well beyond the discussion of the Nimrud situation. your last post got to talking about the Cheney doctrine.  I don't see how I was out of keeping in carrying on some talk about war doctrine.
Logged
Silent Hunter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,306
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: March 13, 2015, 12:41:42 PM »

I'm rather curious at how our actions make ISIS do what they're doing.
Logged
Platypus
hughento
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,478
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: March 13, 2015, 08:44:11 PM »

As genuinely sad as all this is... the genocide of whole peoples ind of affects me more. Not to be too SJW but I've found the concern levels about this being higher than the tens of thousands murdered more than a little off-putting.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.039 seconds with 11 queries.