Stoke up the fire! Saddams coming home!

[gummo]

I don't know if it's true or not but I have seen some articles that said Saddam has had a stroke and may die before his trial. I think it was a link on drudge. Anyways, it may be time for the bastard to meet his maker.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

[edited by Che y Marijuana: please don't spam or troll this board]

[gummo]

Damn, it was only a rumor :(

Guess we will have to keep our fingers crossed and hope he has prostate cancer. Whatever causes his death I hope it's painful.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

I hope he makes it trial, I posted all previous comments because it helps explain the silence concerning your post. Many in the leftist community condone his actions or try to justify his behavior and would hate to see any justice done. You’ll hear a lot of Saddam is bad but…

[gummo]

Originally posted by Crusader 4 da [email protected] 29 2004, 05:29 PM
I hope he makes it trial, I posted all previous comments because it helps explain the silence concerning your post. Many in the leftist community condone his actions or try to justify his behavior and would hate to see any justice done. You’ll hear a lot of Saddam is bad but…
It's pathetic that someone would even try and defend him.

Honestly, I am kind of worried about him going on trial. To many freaks, like the people on this board, that will ignore what he did and turn it into a bad US against a poor little peasant trial. I guess we shall see.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Good quotes. In particular, I really liked the scholar(LOL) El Brujo's comment:

"Unfortunately, most ignorant American pigs will see this as a "great victory against terrorism" and flock behind the neo-con's, fueling them to continue their neo-colonialist policies. That is why this event pisses me off (aside from the fact that Saddam wasn't the "evil totalitarian dictator" he is portrayed as by CNN and Fox)."

Oh, no, he wasn't an evil totalrian dictator at all. My bad. My mistake

LOL, ROFL, please...

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 05:36 PM
It's pathetic that someone would even try and defend him.

Honestly, I am kind of worried about him going on trial. To many freaks, like the people on this board, that will ignore what he did and turn it into a bad US against a poor little peasant trial. I guess we shall see.
I hope he doesn't end up like Pinochet. Milosevic is trying the same "unfit to stand trial" trick, too.

[Osman Ghazi]

I posted all previous comments because it helps explain the silence concerning your post.

Actually, I really just don't care whether he lives or dies. He is ultimately, unimportant.

Also, I noticed that you posted messages by Bolshevika and Ceacescu, both of whom were banned if I remember correctly. A lot of those others are still pertinent point, however.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

I hope he doesn't end up like Pinochet. Milosevic is trying the same "unfit to stand trial" trick, too.


Honestly, I am kind of worried about him going on trial. To many freaks, like the people on this board, that will ignore what he did and turn it into a bad US against a poor little peasant trial. I guess we shall see.

Thats why we let the Iraqis deal with him and keep International Criminal Court out of the trial. The people won't let him off the hook for his crimes.

[redstar2000]

What an odd thread.

Being mortal, Saddam Hussein will die from something.

So will you.

But here's a little wager: go join up with the occupation troops, why don't you? And we'll see who dies first, Saddam Hussein or you.

Good idea? :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Dio]

Theres no way this can be a fair trial. I say we bring up Nuremberg again, and hang Saddam, Bush I, and all others who helped commit genocide in Iraq.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 09:26 PM
What an odd thread.

Being mortal, Saddam Hussein will die from something.

So will you.

But here's a little wager: go join up with the occupation troops, why don't you? And we'll see who dies first, Saddam Hussein or you.

Good idea? :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
That's not capability, that's mathematics and environment. Saddam is one person in custody, which is, fundamentally, safe. Coalition troops are thousands and obviously in a hot war zone.

Here is a more fair comparison: Lets see who dies more, coalition troops, or Iraqi resistance fighters?

Oh, we know the answer to that one. :lol:

[Xvall]

The majority of those quotes are irrelevant. Bolshevika, El Brujo, and various other people you mentioned were authoritarian communists/'Stalinists'. In case you haven't noticed, the views of those communists and the more libertarian communists on this board are nearly diametrically opposed. The quote by Exploited Class displayed no sympathy for Hussein. She just stated that she was disgusted by the fact that a surge of blind nationalism would surface within this nation's population. AllTomorrowsParties didn't even mention Saddam. She just talked about driving. DeadMan just stated that Saddam regrets things he has done, and then talked about Bush.

[Osman Ghazi]

Here is a more fair comparison: Lets see who dies more, coalition troops, or Iraqi resistance fighters?


I would say that the cost though is much higher for the Americans. As I understand it, it costs about 50 bucks to give a guy an AK and tell him to shoot at a GI. On the other hand, it costs about 25000 just to keep a GI in gear and food and shelter for a year.

So, unless you are killing them at a fantastic rate, you are losing.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 29 2004, 11:26 PM

I would say that the cost though is much higher for the Americans. As I understand it, it costs about 50 bucks to give a guy an AK and tell him to shoot at a GI. On the other hand, it costs about 25000 just to keep a GI in gear and food and shelter for a year.

So, unless you are killing them at a fantastic rate, you are losing.
Well, we are killing them at a pretty fantastic rate.

Not many coalition trops are really dying, relatively speaking.

Plus, our investment will have a return, while the insurgents are just paying with lives in futility, as they are merely postponing the inevitible.

And finally, believe it or not, I would surmise that 25k to the US government is much less, proportionately, than $50 to the Iraqi resistance.

[dopediana]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 30 2004, 12:27 AM
Well, we are killing them at a pretty fantastic rate.

Not many coalition trops are really dying, relatively speaking.
isn't that the same thing that happened in vietnam? and as "win" and "lose" would be inappropriate terms, who pulled out first?


And finally, believe it or not, I would surmise that 25k to the US government is much less, proportionately, than $50 to the Iraqi resistance.

yeah, let's run up that slightly major thing called a deficit just a little bit more. and your kids are going to be paying for it all.

with the money america has spent on the war up to this point iraq could have been fed for all of eternity. the world could have been fed for something like 18 years.

[Fidel Castro]

Hmm, if Saddam is to stand trial for crime against humanity, should those who aided him in carrying out such crimed not also be in the dock?

Now, just who did support Saddam in the war against Iran? and who did stand by whilst he gassed the Kurds? :rolleyes:

[ComradeIvan]

Iraq was much better off with Sadam in charge. If you need to know why because you are obviously a moron and blind to what goes in Iraq right now post back saying so and I will discuss why Iraq was better off with Sadam in power.

[DaCuBaN]

Plus, our investment will have a return, while the insurgents are just paying with lives in futility, as they are merely postponing the inevitible.

I imagine your 'insurgents' are expecting a return on their investment too. If they win they gain sovereignty of their land (whether you think that right/wrong) at the very least. It ain't going to happen however.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

[edited by Che y Marijuana: please don't spam or troll this board]
I knew you’d resort to editing and removing my posts at some point. You have too, because when the previous comments your comrades are exposed they look foolish.


Originally posted by Drake Dracoli+--> (Drake Dracoli)The majority of those quotes are irrelevant. Bolshevika, El Brujo, and various other people you mentioned were authoritarian communists/'Stalinists'.[/b]
I don’t see how that makes them irrelevant, they do represent communist thought.


Originally posted by Drake [email protected]
In case you haven't noticed, the views of those communists and the more libertarian communists on this board are nearly diametrically opposed.
All Communism is authoritarian by necessity regardless of the slogans that are chanted. The only way one can denigrate and destroy the rights of the individual is with the power of the state.


Drake Dracoli
The quote by Exploited Class displayed no sympathy for Hussein. She just stated that she was disgusted by the fact that a surge of blind nationalism would surface within this nation's population. AllTomorrowsParties didn't even mention Saddam. She just talked about driving. DeadMan just stated that Saddam regrets things he has done, and then talked about Bush.
Unfortunately an apparent authoritarian communist decided that no one in the forum should view those previous quotes. Would you be so kind as to post them verbatim so that we can have a debate? If I posted them it would be “spam”.

[Guest1]

Don't spam, and you won't get trouble from me, I think that's a pretty reasonable compromise. Don't you?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 12:59 AM
isn't that the same thing that happened in vietnam? and as "win" and "lose" would be inappropriate terms, who pulled out first?



yeah, let's run up that slightly major thing called a deficit just a little bit more. and your kids are going to be paying for it all.

with the money america has spent on the war up to this point iraq could have been fed for all of eternity. the world could have been fed for something like 18 years.

isn't that the same thing that happened in vietnam? and as "win" and "lose" would be inappropriate terms, who pulled out first?

Uh, no, not at all. In vietnam, we never laid seige to hanoi (by our choice), we never captured their regime leader, we never transfered sovereignty to a new government, and 65,000 american casualties compared to a mere approximate 900 in GW2 to date?

Appleas and oranges. One of the most ignorant leftist comments I've seen here is tht "this will be another vietnam". Again, look at the above facts



with the money america has spent on the war up to this point iraq could have been fed for all of eternity. the world could have been fed for something like 18 years.

this is pure, unsubstantiated B.S.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 06:42 AM

I imagine your 'insurgents' are expecting a return on their investment too. If they win they gain sovereignty of their land (whether you think that right/wrong) at the very least. It ain't going to happen however.
Thats my point exactly, its not going to happen.

[Osman Ghazi]

this is pure, unsubstantiated B.S.

What? How so?

How many billions have been spent on this war? That is not at all unfeasable.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 02:52 AM
Iraq was much better off with Sadam in charge. If you need to know why because you are obviously a moron and blind to what goes in Iraq right now post back saying so and I will discuss why Iraq was better off with Sadam in power.
For a claim as audacious as this, the burden of proof is on you. Even most leftists here don't have any sympathy for the ba'athist regime. Of course, your Soviet flag avatar indicates that you are obviously a supporter of brutal regimes.

You present your argument, and I will be happy to address it.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 30 2004, 04:49 PM

What? How so?

How many billions have been spent on this war? That is not at all unfeasable.
Even if it was, so what? Its not one nation's job to feed the world anyway. We are already the world's leading exporter of aid and relief.

Besides, there are 6 billion people in the world. 3 (or at least 2, or even 1) meals day for 18 years for 6 billion?

That would be at least 108 billion meals, as much as 325 billion . Are they less than $1.00 each?

Please advise how that computes.

[Osman Ghazi]

Even if it was, so what? Its not one nation's job to feed the world anyway. We are already the world's leading exporter of aid and relief.


Well certainly feeding the world for the next 18 years would have been better than starting a war that won't do anything anyways.


That would be at least 108 billion meals, as much as 325 billion . Are they less than $1.00 each?


Yes, probably. Most of those charities where you can give money to starving kids seem to cost less than a dollar a day, and that aparently gets them an education as well. Besides, if you bought 325 billion meals, I think you'd get some sort of discount. :lol:

But seriously, how much has been pent on the war?

I thought the pres recently asked for 90 billion more.

[Capitalist Imperial]

I think that the Iraqi people will significantly benefit from this in the long run.

Not only that, but Quadafi discontinued his weapons program, and even conceded that he was bowing to Washington in the face of all of this, so it has already had cascading positive effects.

[Osman Ghazi]

I think that the Iraqi people will significantly benefit from this in the long run.


Even though their real growth rate is negative 20 percent?

[Xvall]

I don’t see how that makes them irrelevant, they do represent communist thought.

Al Capone was a capitalist, albiet a murderous one. I could just as easilly claim that he represents 'capitalist though', despite the fact that most capitalists probably don't agree with the same philosophical ideals that Al Capone had.


All Communism is authoritarian by necessity regardless of the slogans that are chanted. The only way one can denigrate and destroy the rights of the individual is with the power of the state.

No; by 'necessity', the Communist Manifesto states that communism is 'stateless'. You can go ahead and believe that communism is authoritarian in nature all you want - just don't expect anyone who doesn't share the same views as you to believe a word that you are saying.


Unfortunately an apparent authoritarian communist decided that no one in the forum should view those previous quotes. Would you be so kind as to post them verbatim so that we can have a debate? If I posted them it would be “spam”.

I don't have any board authority here. I'm afraid I can't do that.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 30 2004, 07:37 PM

Even though their real growth rate is negative 20 percent?
you can't countthe last 12 months. Wait until the re-establishment is there.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

BTW, I think your claim that occupation troops are killing Iraqi resistance fighters at a fantastic proportion is rather misleading, since the occupation just bombs and sends in tanks while guys who work for companies like Halliberton do all the dirty work. You see, when a Halliberton employee dies, they are not counted as a coalition casualty. So the US can give the rather misleading impression that thousands of Iraqi resistance fighters are dieing while we have lost only a thousand actual soldiers. Since people working for the private sector are not considered military by the books, the president can send them where he wants, when he wants at his discretion. They do however, cost far more, suffer much higher desertion rates, and die at a much higher proportion.
I would think even you Capitalist Imperial would have reservations about having a McArmy. Besides, can you imagine what would happen if military companies decided they didn't need to take orders from the government anymore and decided they wanted to dictate foriegn policy themselves and extort money from the government? O wait! Halliberton made that a reality, I forgot...Silly me.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Originally posted by Drake Dracoli+--> (Drake Dracoli)Al Capone was a capitalist, albiet a murderous one. I could just as easilly claim that he represents 'capitalist though', despite the fact that most capitalists probably don't agree with the same philosophical ideals that Al Capone had.[/b]

You are confused; Al Capone was a gangster a member of the mafia. Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of goods, with prices, production, and the distribution of goods determined by competition in a free market i.e. through voluntary mutually beneficial exchange.

As far as I know Al Capone had no degree in economics nor did he advocate any particular economic system. He did however feel he had a right to take other peoples private property, this is commonly referred to as theft but when governments do it, leftists use euphemisms like redistribution.

The people I cited did claim to represent Communism and believed in and espoused its benefits. You are quick to deride them as heretics, because they do not believe as you do. But as you pointed out yourself no person here can agree on the basic practices and tenants of communism. There for no matter who I debate and discredit you can simply say they did not represent true comminism.

The fact that there is disagreement on the basic structure of a communist society is because your ideology is fundamentally flawed. It is not about offering any practical solutions to problems; rather it is a critique of the present system. Witch is why you don’t see a forum here dedicated to economics, but plenty of threads devoted to the evils of modern society.


Drake Dracoli
No; by 'necessity', the Communist Manifesto states that communism is 'stateless'. You can go ahead and believe that communism is authoritarian in nature all you want - just don't expect anyone who doesn't share the same views as you to believe a word that you are saying.

Unfortunately the Manifesto says a lot of things, what concerns me is what happens when those ideas are implemented, and history has not been kind. So I will continue to believe that communism is authoritarian because logic and the evidence of one failed trial after another demonstrate this. You will continue to believe that there are “libertarian” communists despite the evidence to the contrary, but you goal should be to persuade me otherwise. And I challenge you to do so, by laying out your vision of a non-authoritarian communist society.

[synthesis]

"This American system of ours . . . call it Americanism, call it capitalism, call it what you like, gives to each and every one of us a great opportunity if we only seize it with both hands and make the most of it."
-Al Capone


He did however feel he had a right to take other peoples private property, this is commonly referred to as theft but when governments do it, leftists use euphemisms like redistribution.

If you knitted a sweater, and someone stole it from you, is it theft to take it back?


The people I cited did claim to represent Communism and believed in and espoused its benefits.

Hitler and Mussolini both claimed to represent capitalism; surely you've seen the quotes.

Their entire rise to power was backed in no small part by huge multinational corporations.


There for no matter who I debate and discredit you can simply say they did not represent true comminism.

Capitalists do this FAR more than any leftist.


Unfortunately the Manifesto says a lot of things, what concerns me is what happens when those ideas are implemented, and history has not been kind. So I will continue to believe that communism is authoritarian because logic and the evidence of one failed trial after another demonstrate this. You will continue to believe that there are “libertarian” communists despite the evidence to the contrary, but you goal should be to persuade me otherwise. And I challenge you to do so, by laying out your vision of a non-authoritarian communist society.

I could give you a rather complicated theoretical explanation as to why communist movements in the past turned out how they did and how communist movements in the future will turn out differently, but would it really be worth it? I mean, I've done it plenty of times before, and each time, it went in one ear and out the other, and within minutes the capitalist was spouting the same misinformed nonsense as he was before I spent an hour explaining the subject to him.

If you'll listen, I'll write.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Quite a few people believe that the governments of the former USSR and/or Cuba represent how the Communist Party should be and what their goals and aims are. (I happen to be one of them) Unfortunately Che-lives.com restricts/bans most of those people.

[Louis Pio]

Quite a few people believe that the governments of the former USSR and/or Cuba represent how the Communist Party should be and what their goals and aims are.

Only on the internet. These people never seem to be present at union meetings etc. Only on discussionboards. And thank Marx for that! :D


(I happen to be one of them) Unfortunately Che-lives.com restricts/bans most of those people.

Only when they don't know how to behave.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 04:39 PM
Quite a few people believe that the governments of the former USSR and/or Cuba represent how the Communist Party should be and what their goals and aims are. (I happen to be one of them) Unfortunately Che-lives.com restricts/bans most of those people.
Name someone who has been restricted or banned for this.

[Guest1]

No, we don't.

We ban people who think people like Karo de Perro are what Socialists should be like.

Comrade RAF is a Marxist-Leninist and a well respected moderator of this site.

Don't give us any of this bullshit.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Name someone who has been restricted or banned for this.

ME


No, we don't.
We ban people who think people like Karo de Perro are what Socialists should be like.
Comrade RAF is a Marxist-Leninist and a well respected moderator of this site.
Don't give us any of this bullshit.

Guys like RAF are a tiny minority here. Anarchists control these boards.

Kids like Karo de Perro SHOULD be banned, they aren't socialists by any stretch of the imagination. I think they are people who get their perception of socialism by what right-wingers tell them.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 05:31 PM

ME

LOL, are you actually convinced you've been restricted for being a Leninist?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Well, I was restricted for being a little too confrontational with the anarchists. Guess I should have been a good little Leninist and kept my big mouth shut. :rolleyes:

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 05:40 PM
Well, I was restricted for being a little too confrontational with the anarchists. Guess I should have been a good little Leninist and kept my big mouth shut. :rolleyes:
If I recall correctly, you were restricted for being a misogynist and then kept that way because you spent a lot of time here trolling for attention once you became convinced that you wouldn't be unrestricted if you stopped acting like a brat.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Im not a misogynist, just misunderstood. :(

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Seems more people on the abortion thread took a more reasonable approach to what I was saying this time rather then labeling me a misogynist and going along on their misanderous way.

[Xvall]

You are confused; Al Capone was a gangster a member of the mafia. Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of goods, with prices, production, and the distribution of goods determined by competition in a free market i.e. through voluntary mutually beneficial exchange.

And communism is supposed to be a socio-economic system wherein everyone makes decisions together and lives in an egalitarian system. Of course Al. Capone didn't really believe in any form of 'true' capitalism, but nor did people like Pol Pot actually believe in any form of 'true' communism. Like Al Capone, he was just using whatever economic system was in place to gain power through murder and intimidation.


As far as I know Al Capone had no degree in economics nor did he advocate any particular economic system.

No, didn't didn't have a degree in economics, but he did claim to support the 'american system'.

"This American system of ours, call it Americanism, call it capitalism, call it what you will, gives each and every one of us a great opportunity if we only seize it with both hands and make the most of it."
-Al Capone


The people I cited did claim to represent Communism and believed in and espoused its benefits.

Likewise, Capone claimed to have a strong belief in capitalism. Hitler claimed to represent Germans. It doesn't mean that we should furthermore assume that people of german ethnicity of having some evil plot for world-domination.


You are quick to deride them as heretics, because they do not believe as you do. But as you pointed out yourself no person here can agree on the basic practices and tenants of communism. There for no matter who I debate and discredit you can simply say they did not represent true comminism.

Likewise, you can simply claim that people like Capone don't represent capitalism. It would only be fair. Think of it this way; Hitler also claimed to represent Christianity. People would be outraged if I started just bringing up 'bad christians' as a debate against christianity, instead of actually arguing about the core of christian theology. All we are saying is that you're more likely not to get yelled at by members of the board if you just stuck with criticizing works like the 'Communist Manifesto' and 'Das Capital', as opposed to bringing up people like Pol Pot, who no communist on the board has ever liked.


The fact that there is disagreement on the basic structure of a communist society is because your ideology is fundamentally flawed.

There is disagreement on the basic structure of capitalist societies. Democrats differe greatly from Republicans. 'Anarcho-Capitalists' have entirely different beliefs than corporatists or modern-day entrepreneurs. Wouldn't that mean that capitalistic ideology is fundamentally flawed as well?


It is not about offering any practical solutions to problems; rather it is a critique of the present system.

That may be the case. Of course, with no power whatsoever in the nations that we live in (For most of us, anyways), we aren't allowed to implement practical solutions to our problems, and the only thing we can do, until we have some say in something, is criticize the present system. (And criticism proves to be, in most cases, benificial to society.)


Witch is why you don’t see a forum here dedicated to economics, but plenty of threads devoted to the evils of modern society.

There are not fourms titled 'economics', but rest assured there is pleanty of talk relating to economics in the other sections of the board.


Unfortunately the Manifesto says a lot of things, what concerns me is what happens when those ideas are implemented, and history has not been kind. So I will continue to believe that communism is authoritarian because logic and the evidence of one failed trial after another demonstrate this.

That's your opinion, you are entitled to it.


You will continue to believe that there are “libertarian” communists despite the evidence to the contrary, but you goal should be to persuade me otherwise.

There are libertarian communists. There are many of them, I don't know how to presuade you of this, other than pointing out the many libertarian communists on the board. In case you haven't noticed, most of the members here don't advocate a 1-party state.


And I challenge you to do so, by laying out your vision of a non-authoritarian communist society.

It will take me a while to lay out everything for you, but until then, just think of certain tribes of old, or the Native Americans. I'll get back to you with something a lot more intricate and detailed sometime soon.