I suspect that Raoul does not seriously advocate teaching our troops archaeology

alcaray — 1/17/2005 11:20:44 PM (archived)

Though it would be good for them (or anyone), it would not help them be better soldiers.

I think that it is not necessary to build bases in historically precious sites. I think that it would not be difficult to avoid them.

You are putting forth the false choice that not to harm Babylon equals losing soldiers.

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)