re: Is that the only thing that matters? Of course not.

Current Events » in reply to Is that the only thing that matters? Is all else permissable, because of this hard truth?

re: Is that the only thing that matters? Of course not.

Tom Brosz — 1/17/2005 9:43:56 PM (archived)

But priorities are important. I noticed that the obliteration of the Marsh Arab environment by Saddam and its restoration by the coalition and Iraqis goes almost completely unremarked. You'd think environmentalists would be holding a party.

And for the record, Saddam wasn't exactly the best caretaker of the archeology of Iraq either. Look up the Makhul Dam.

The whole thread (28 posts)

Babylon - Raoul - 1/17/2005 7:07:28 PM
- Iraqi museum - Eric - 1/17/2005 9:06:48 PM
  - Again, priorities - Tom Brosz - 1/17/2005 10:03:54 PM
    - The Iraqi Oil Ministry had top priority. - Eric - 1/18/2005 12:16:14 AM
- In less than two weeks, some Iraqis are going to die trying to get to a ballot box. - Tom Brosz - 1/17/2005 8:04:07 PM
  - re:Old stones don't shoot - Raoul - 1/17/2005 10:44:01 PM
    - Reminiscent of shooting the nose off the Sphinx (n/t) - alcaray - 1/18/2005 12:15:26 AM
  - Is that the only thing that matters? Is all else permissable, because of this hard truth? (n/t) - alcaray - 1/17/2005 9:27:55 PM
    - re: Is that the only thing that matters? Of course not. - Tom Brosz - 1/17/2005 9:43:56 PM
      - Not a matter of priorities. It is a matter of your too-often-used rhetorical game. - alcaray - 1/17/2005 9:59:02 PM
        
        Well. - Tom Brosz - 1/17/2005 10:09:36 PM
        
        I suspect that Raoul does not seriously advocate teaching our troops archaeology - alcaray - 1/17/2005 11:20:44 PM
        
        More on Babylon and Camp Babylon - Tom Brosz - 1/18/2005 2:04:06 AM
        
        How do you join the "Archaeological Police"? - alcaray - 1/18/2005 4:39:17 PM
        
        Current definition of "confusion" here: - Tom Brosz - 1/18/2005 6:58:05 PM
        
        I think I pretty much stipulated that in my post - alcaray - 1/18/2005 7:12:23 PM
        
        I disagree. - Tom Brosz - 1/18/2005 8:00:08 PM
        
        show me one in-depth piece so I know what you are talking about - alcaray - 1/18/2005 9:07:04 PM
        
        What is your definition of "in depth?" - Tom Brosz - 1/18/2005 9:14:04 PM
        
        I asserted that internet news sources were not "in-depth" - alcaray - 1/18/2005 9:51:16 PM
        
        re: "in-depth" - Tom Brosz - 1/19/2005 2:39:40 AM
        
        guess we can't agree on the definition (n/t) - alcaray - 1/19/2005 4:01:56 PM
        
        I think we agree on the definition. - Tom Brosz - 1/19/2005 7:39:58 PM
        
        You keep ignoring that I was talking about an in-depth source - alcaray - 1/19/2005 9:52:57 PM
        
        Afraid you're out of luck, then. - Tom Brosz - 1/19/2005 10:44:36 PM
        
        Belmont Club comments on this... - Tom Brosz - 1/18/2005 8:04:44 PM
  - Gee, I'm sooo glad *you* think so. (n/t) - Davin L. - 1/17/2005 8:21:34 PM
    - Yeah. I do. - Tom Brosz - 1/17/2005 8:26:58 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (28 posts)