U.S Death Toll in Iraq tops 1000

[Y2A]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3636340.stm

US death toll in Iraq tops 1,000

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40047000/jpg/_40047344_humvee203.jpg
The US is losing soldiers at an average of 2.25 a day


The American military death toll in Iraq has reached 1,000 since March 2003 when US forces invaded, the Pentagon says.
The stark milestone follows a recent surge in fighting and attacks, with more than a dozen US soldiers killed in the last two days alone.

Correspondents say the casualty figures re-open the debate over President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, ahead of the November election.

Meanwhile, violence has continued in Baghdad's Sadr City and Falluja.

US forces resumed air strikes against targets in Falluja on Wednesday, with the fighter planes pounding the industrial zone. Two people are reported killed.

About 100 insurgents were killed in the restive town on Tuesday with US marines saying they used air strikes and artillery fire in response to a bomb attack on Monday that killed seven marines and three Iraqi soldiers.

Also on Tuesday, about 40 Iraqis were killed as US forces fought Shia insurgents in a Baghdad stronghold of rebel cleric Moqtada Sadr, health officials said.

Two Italian aid workers and two Iraqis were also kidnapped from their Baghdad offices in broad daylight.

The Pentagon announced late on Tuesday there had been 1,001 military casualties since US-led forces moved in to Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein 18 months ago.

Another US soldier died overnight, bringing the total number to at least 1,002.

He was killed in an attack on a military convoy north of Baghdad.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40047000/jpg/_40047348_coffins203.jpg
The landmark of 1,000 dead reignites the Iraq war debate


Of the total number killed, three were civilian contractors. The number of wounded had reached 7,000.

All but 140 of the deaths have come since 1 May 2003, when US President George W Bush declared an end to major combat operations under a banner reading "Mission Accomplished". About three quarters have been in combat situations.

There are no official figures for the number of Iraqi civilians killed in the same period. A group called the Iraq Body Count (IBC) believes the number exceeds 11,000.

'Tragic milestone'

The White House paid tribute to those who had lost their lives.

"We remember, honour and mourn the loss of all those that made the ultimate sacrifice defending freedom," said US presidential spokesman Scott McClellan.

He added that the best way to honour them was to continue waging the war on terror to make "the world a safer place and make America more secure".

US Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry called it a "tragic milestone" and said Americans would always remember their fallen heroes.

"Their sacrifice will not be in vain. We are committed to making the right decisions in Iraq and the right decisions for them here at home," he said.

[fernando]

COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA!!! US SOLDIERS NEVER DIE!!!

:lol:

[Capitalist Imperial]

1000 soldiers is a historically low number of casualties for urban warfare. This low number is a testament to U.S. military capability.

Is one death too many? Fundamentally, of course it is, but within the context of an 18 month urban occupation in a hostile city, 1000 losses is a very low amount.

I salute the fallen who have sacrificed so others may be free.

[YKTMX]

It's a great shame that working class soldiers have to die for the freedom of the ruling class but the Iraqis have a legitimate right to oppose (kill) those who seek to pillage and oppress their country.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 04:49 PM
It's a great shame that working class soldiers have to die for the freedom of the ruling class but the Iraqis have a legitimate right to oppose (kill) those who seek to pillage and oppress their country.
Soldiers that volunteered for service with full knowledge of the possible sacrifice are fighting for the freedom of all Americans, there is no distinguishing between the ruling class and working class with respect to inalienable rights in the U.S.

Also, there have been plenty of officers, likely from middle-upper class homes that have died as well.

[fernando]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 8 2004, 04:53 PM
Soldiers that volunteered for service with full knowledge of the possible sacrifice are fighting for the freedom of all Americans, there is no distinguishing between the ruling class and working class with respect to inalienable rights in the U.S.

Also, there have been plenty of officers, likely from middle-upper class homes that have died as well.
But ok...how does killing people in Iraq bring more freedom to the US?

[YKTMX]

Soldiers that volunteered for service with full knowledge of the possible sacrifice are fighting for the freedom of all Americans

And exactly what does this have to do with Iraq?

And "volunteered" is a very subjective term. The reasons why most people from working class backgrounds join the army are clear and unambigious.


there is no distinguishing between the ruling class and working class with respect to inalienable rights in the U.S.

All "rights" in the U.S exist to protect and prop up the ruling class.



Also, there have been plenty of officers, likely from middle-upper class homes that have died as well.

That's a shame.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 05:03 PM

And exactly what does this have to do with Iraq?

And "volunteered" is a very subjective term. The reasons why most people from working class backgrounds join the army are clear and unambigious.



All "rights" in the U.S exist to protect and prop up the ruling class.




That's a shame.

And exactly what does this have to do with Iraq?

And "volunteered" is a very subjective term. The reasons why most people from working class backgrounds join the army are clear and unambigious.

What does the reason have to do with it's voluntary nature? Of course there are reasons, there are reasons for everything, but they are no means forced into service. Check communism if you want to talk conscription.



All "rights" in the U.S exist to protect and prop up the ruling class.


you already said this. now explain it.

[YKTMX]

What does the reason have to do with it's voluntary nature?

Well because they have little chance of prospering unless they join the army so the word "voluntary" becomes meaningless. If "volunteered" meant anything in this instance then it wouldn't matter if the army offered these benefits but it happens to be the case that these benefits are the "main" reason poor people sign up.



you already said this. now explain it.

It's self explanatory.

All laws and rights in the U.S. serve the class interests of the ruling class.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 06:13 PM

Well because they have little chance of prospering unless they join the army so the word "voluntary" becomes meaningless. If "volunteered" meant anything in this instance then it wouldn't matter if the army offered these benefits but it happens to be the case that these benefits are the "main" reason poor people sign up.




It's self explanatory.

All laws and rights in the U.S. serve the class interests of the ruling class.
There is no ruling class in America. Your theorhetical elitist class doesn't exist. There are economic classes defined by tax braket, but those can be crossed and permeated by anyone.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 8 2004, 11:50 PM
I salute the fallen who have sacrificed so others may be free.
I salute to the soldiers who sacrificed their lives & passions for imperialist & apparent (fake) democracy or "so-called" freedom.

Hope they are not watching "Born on the 4th of July" in the other world at this moment.

[fernando]

A question for Capitalist Imperial:
How does killing people in Iraq bring more freedom to the US?

Because you say these young (and old) US soldiers are fighting in Iraq for the freedom of the Americans.

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 06:59 PM
A question for Capitalist Imperial:
How does killing people in Iraq bring more freedom to the US?

Because you say these young (and old) US soldiers are fighting in Iraq for the freedom of the Americans.
Killing people in Iraq might backfire on Bush, send him out of office, and thus bringing freedom to America. ;)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 8 2004, 01:25 PM
There is no ruling class in America. Your theorhetical elitist class doesn't exist. There are economic classes defined by tax braket, but those can be crossed and permeated by anyone.
Are you denying that corporate America has an influence in US governemnt?

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 8 2004, 06:25 PM
There is no ruling class in America. Your theorhetical elitist class doesn't exist. There are economic classes defined by tax braket, but those can be crossed and permeated by anyone.
The people who own the means of production never change and any mythical person who does "drift" into the ruling class becomes an enemy and just as bad.

The fact that it is possible for the individual members of a class to change does alter the fact that there objective contending classes in all capitalist socieites.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 10:24 PM
Are you denying that corporate America has an influence in US governemnt?
of course it does, but it is by no measure a "ruling class"

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Doesn't the fact that they have absolute ownership of the means of production and of the capital set in motion by society give them power to rule?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 11:37 PM
Doesn't the fact that they have absolute ownership of the means of production and of the capital set in motion by society give them power to rule?
they don't own every single means of production, and competition helps keep the benefits of the means of production working for the people's benefit at reasonable cost, and besides, anyone can purchase stock nd achieve a stake in the means of producction. additionally, individuals can start their own businesses and gain control of the means of production

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

they don't own every single means of production

Yes, they do.
If one owns a medium of production one is necessarily a member of the capitalist class.
Without the ownership of capital, they could not have acquired that medium of production.


competition helps keep the benefits of the means of production working for the people's benefit at reasonable cost

What the fuck does that mean?


anyone can purchase stock nd achieve a stake in the means of producction

And anyone can play the lotto and become a multi-millionaire.


individuals can start their own businesses and gain control of the means of production

Most business ventures fail. The ones that work usually begin with a lot of money. It's really just a big fucking casino. And a slight chance of "making it" is not freedom to become rich whenever you want to.

[refuse_resist]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 9 2004, 12:12 AM
they don't own every single means of production, and competition helps keep the benefits of the means of production working for the people's benefit at reasonable cost, and besides, anyone can purchase stock nd achieve a stake in the means of producction. additionally, individuals can start their own businesses and gain control of the means of production
You've obviously forgotten about all the monopolies.

[fernando]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 8 2004, 10:06 PM
Killing people in Iraq might backfire on Bush, send him out of office, and thus bringing freedom to America. ;)
And AGAIN Capitalist Imperial cant answer my question :rolleyes:

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 11:57 PM
And AGAIN Capitalist Imperial cant answer my question :rolleyes:
The answer is simple.

It stopped Iraq's navy from invading America.

It stopped Iraq's airforce from attacking America from the sky's.

It stopped Iraq's marines from invading our shores.

Or

It took all the terrorists away from coming to America and directed them to Iraq to kill American soldiers instead of American Citizens (the ones on the American soil, not the contractors and mercenaries).

If given another 30 years, Iraq could have created missles that could someday reach America or at least parts of the Atlantic Ocean.

But really it isn't about protecting America it is all about removing a brutal dictator who killed his own people.

In trying to keep peace in his country, that asshole Saddam killed a lot of innocent people, 10,000 with nerve gas agents. Now, that is not a good thing to do. Only a very vile and corrupt evil soul would do such things. So what we did is come and do it for him. To the same groups of people. But we don't use nerve agents, we do it bullets, bombs dropped from Airplanes.

Saddams killing of his people = Evil, tryannical and crimes against humanity.
The US killing of Iraq's population = Liberating, freeing and stability for a region.

The US MOTTO should now be, "We do it better than Saddam"

[fernando]

Yes...but the US supported vile dictators before and helped them with their killing...including Saddam...

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 12:38 AM

Yes, they do.
If one owns a medium of production one is necessarily a member of the capitalist class.
Without the ownership of capital, they could not have acquired that medium of production.



What the fuck does that mean?



And anyone can play the lotto and become a multi-millionaire.



Most business ventures fail. The ones that work usually begin with a lot of money. It's really just a big fucking casino. And a slight chance of "making it" is not freedom to become rich whenever you want to.

Yes, they do.
If one owns a medium of production one is necessarily a member of the capitalist class.
Without the ownership of capital, they could not have acquired that medium of production.

Ahh, but you used the worrd "absolute" (and cleverly left it out here), AS IF IT WAS ONE CENTRAL AUTHORITY CONSPIRING TO WIELD THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION AGAINST THE PEOPLE, which it isn't, means of production are dispersed among millions of companies and businesses, and millions more stockholders and other stakeholders, which are competing with each other for consumer business, and thus must allocate, refine, and produce goods and services at optimum efficiency to make their products look the most attractive and reasonable cost. This benefits the people. And I haven't even mentioned government regulation. Come on, Red, think a little.



What the fuck does that mean?

Its a simple concept. If you don't understand, you need to take a free-market economics class, or read above


And anyone can play the lotto and become a multi-millionaire.

That's a horribly inaccurate analogy used by those who have absolutely no understanding of the US free market.


Most business ventures fail.

That is the attitude I would expect from a communist. You set yourself up for failure without ever trying. Thats whay you want the state to take care of you


The ones that work usually begin with a lot of money.

Another unsubstantiated myth


It's really just a big fucking casino.

That is among the most ignorant things one can say. You really need to brush up on your econ.


And a slight chance of "making it" is not freedom to become rich whenever you want to.

Much less chance and more of how hard and smart you work, and what you put into it.

Red, stop makin excuses for the successful and trying to justify your desired welfare state.

[Capitalist Imperial]

tell me what monopolies you suggest exist?

[Invader Zim]

CI does not understand the concept of class, as he showed this this shockingly witless statement: -

"There is no ruling class in America. Your theorhetical elitist class doesn't exist. There are economic classes defined by tax braket, but those can be crossed and permeated by anyone."

Which suggests that the classic three boundry class system could not be traversed.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 06:57 AM
And AGAIN Capitalist Imperial cant answer my question :rolleyes:
Don't flatter yourself, Fernando, it is just that your question is a fundamental one and has been argued and rehashed in this forum over and over, but let me tell you pinkos for the 100th time.

1) The US is not simply "killling Iraqis". Our beef was with the Ba'athists, not the Iraqi people. Saddam's regime was toppled. Now the islamic terrorist insurgents are making the clean up and re-establishment of democratic government much more difficult than it already is. Why don't they allow dfemocratic representative government? Because they want oppressive islamic law. They are merely making thingts harder for Iraq. Their capitulation will end the occupation, not their meaningless resistance.

2) As for Iraq itself: Saddam was in violation of secutity council resolution 1441 for over 1 decade. The UN itself acknowledged that. He kicked UN inspectors out in 1996, and started violating no fly zones. Why would he do that, but not provide proof of dismantled weapons and ceased weapons programs that everyone knew and acknowledged existed, incuding the UN, thr US, and Iraq itself. Not only that, but Saddam attempted to assasinate Bush Sr. during a trip to Kuwait.

Would you consider an assasination attempt on the president of the US a hostile action? Call me crazy, but I do.

So, we know that saddam had WMD's at some point, and weapons technology and programs whichhe could either employ or export. We also know he tried to assasinate the President of the USA.

These two facts are enought to infer that Saddam could easily either create WMD's or export the technology to other nations wishing to do the US harm.

Even weapons inspector Paul Bremmer, while admitting that we couldn't find WMD's on the scale that US, British, and Russian intelligence all suggested existed, he did say that he is sure that Saddam did move some, likely to Syria or Jordan.

So, Saddam and the Baathisats had:

1) A demonstrated adversarial relationship with the US, incuding a previous war defeat, significant threataning anti-American rhetoric and most importantly an attepted assasination of Bush Sr.

2)Established WMD programs at some point, with no proof they were ever ceased, and the ability to export regardless

Thus, preemption by the US, especially post 9/11, was easily justified and the right thing to do.



2)

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 9 2004, 08:35 PM
tell me what monopolies you suggest exist?
walmart, microsoft, coke. To name a few.

[fernando]

Would you consider an assasination attempt on the president of the US a hostile action? Call me crazy, but I do.


Saddam tried to kill Bush? :blink:


So, we know that saddam had WMD's at some point, and weapons technology and programs which either he could employ or export.
Yes you sold him the parts for it

But ok...you&#39;re other arguments show that it is for the safety of Bush, because people want to kill him...but how does invading Iraq make the people of the US more free? <_< This has nothing to do with defending freedom...it;s defending homeland security...two totally different things

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 08:13 PM
walmart
LOL,LOL, get serious.

Kmart
Target
Kohls
Big 5
JC Penny&#39;s
Woolworth&#39;s
Sears
Costco


all compete with Wal-Mart, all still doing good business, and thriving at that.

.. just to name a few off the top of my head.

You&#39;re going to have to do better than that.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 9 2004, 09:20 PM
LOL,LOL, get serious.

Kmart
Target
Kohls
Big 5
JC Penny&#39;s
Woolworth&#39;s
Sears
Costco


all compete with Wal-Mart, all still doing good business, and thriving at that.

.. just to name a few off the top of my head.

You&#39;re going to have to do better than that.
Well I dont know about the others, but Woolworths is on the verge of closing, its profits are minimal, and its staff are being refused overtime pay.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 08:13 PM

Saddam tried to kill Bush? :blink:


Yes you sold him the parts for it

But ok...you&#39;re other arguments show that it is for the safety of Bush, because people want to kill him...but how does invading Iraq make the people of the US more free? <_< This has nothing to do with defending freedom...it;s defending homeland security...two totally different things
come on, fernando, if you attack the nation that leads the free world, you attack FREEDOM

Also, its not just about Bush Sr. If you attempt to assasinate an active president, you are in effect attacking the nation. An assasiantion of the president would severely compromise US security, economy, and stability

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 08:24 PM
Well I dont know about the others, but Woolworths is on the verge of closing, its profits are minimal, and its staff are being refused overtime pay.
Well, thats true, but is that necessarily due to Wal-Mart? Even if it was, that is not a Monopoly, it is just competition. We can&#39;t attribute every business closure to the success of Wal Mart. Hey, lets not kid ourselves, Woolworths was in trouble even before Wal-Mart became the juggernaught it is today.

Monopolies are illegal per US anti-trust law.

The board game is dope though. It is basically Sunday school for American children.

[fernando]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 9 2004, 08:27 PM
come on, fernando, if you attack the nation that leads the free world, you attack FREEDOM

Also, its not just about Bush Sr. If you attempt to assasinate an active president, you are in effect attacking the nation. An assasiantion of the president would severely compromise US security, economy, and stability
Freedom? The US is the face of "freedom", you&#39;re free to do what you want as long as you obey and do what the government wants? Yah real freedom....

But ok...with that mentality you could say that the person who killed Kennedy was attacking freedom.

Maybe Saddam wanted to attack the Western world...not this abstract concept of freedom...but ok it looks nicer if that is said...and the sheep will obey ;)

Free world...what price did the rest have to pay for it?

[Invader Zim]

Do you play the london or new york version?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 08:59 PM
Freedom? The US is the face of "freedom", you&#39;re free to do what you want as long as you obey and do what the government wants? Yah real freedom....

But ok...with that mentality you could say that the person who killed Kennedy was attacking freedom.

Maybe Saddam wanted to attack the Western world...not this abstract concept of freedom...but ok it looks nicer if that is said...and the sheep will obey ;)

Free world...what price did the rest have to pay for it?

Freedom? The US is the face of "freedom", you&#39;re free to do what you want as long as you obey and do what the government wants? Yah real freedom....

That could be said about absolutely any type of government. of course there still has to be law, for everyoon&#39;e safety. There has to be minimums, I mean, of course all reasonable people concede that yu should not have a "right" of "fredom" to, say, kill or steal. Tell me, Fernando, where does the US government fundamentally resrict freedom?



But ok...with that mentality you could say that the person who killed Kennedy was attacking freedom.

Sure you could, i agree


Maybe Saddam wanted to attack the Western world...not this abstract concept of freedom...but ok it looks nicer if that is said...and the sheep will obey ;)

Even if he wanted to attack the "Western World", then our preemptive strike is still justified

Oh, and that "sheep" angle is so played out. You using it makes you a sheep.

Funny, eh?

Come with something less cliche and meaningless next time. If you want sheep, look at a communist nation. America is probably the least sheepish nation on earth, indiuviduality and diversity are huge constituents of our culture.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 09:05 PM
Do you play the london or new york version?
I play the U.S. version, whic is actually based on Atlantic City, New Jersey

[socialistfuture]

Would you consider an assasination attempt on the president of the US a hostile action? Call me crazy, but I do.

its been widely speculated kennedy was knowcked off by ppl within the pentagon - even if not he was killed by an american. - if it had been anyone else from another country it could of been declared an act of war.

saddams WMD that you talk to have not existed for some time - and were supplied by the west (including the USA) and developed with the help of the west.

the US assisted in the deposing of Allende, and the attempted coup on Hugo Chavez and there have been tons of attempts by the CIA on Castro&#39;s life. how many US snipers been operating in latin america? double standards?

also the US founds the israeli army which constantly tries to assasinate palestinians leaders. if the US is the beacon of freedom - amnesty international is a terrorist organization.

how many must die in US wars before people learn occupations do not lead to freedom. britian couldnt free ireland by occupying it, USSR could not free afghanistan) like the US can&#39;t), china couldn&#39;t free tibet - america could not free vietnam - invasion is NOT liberation. The western crusades and genocides against other people has nothing to do with FREEDOM and has everything to do with POWER and WEALTH.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Ahh, but you used the worrd "absolute" (and cleverly left it out here), AS IF IT WAS ONE CENTRAL AUTHORITY CONSPIRING TO WIELD THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION AGAINST THE PEOPLE, which it isn&#39;t, means of production are dispersed among millions of companies and businesses, and millions more stockholders and other stakeholders, which are competing with each other for consumer business, and thus must allocate, refine, and produce goods and services at optimum efficiency to make their products look the most attractive and reasonable cost. This benefits the people. And I haven&#39;t even mentioned government regulation. Come on, Red, think a little.

There may not be a central organization of capitalists where they conspire against the working class, but it is in their common class interest to oppress the general public so that they can continue to wield power through their stranglehold on society.

You try to make it seem like the opposite of this occurs. The fact that they want to phase out their corporate competition so they can get more money is yet another inherent interest of the capitalist class: to concentrate power in their own hands.


Much less chance and more of how hard and smart you work, and what you put into it.

Well, what the fuck are all of the minimum-wage earners who work over 40 hours a week doing physical labor doing wrong? They&#39;re certainly working harder than most capitalists, so are all of these people too stupid to have an influence over their society by controlling what they produce?

[PRC-UTE]

does anyone else think that Capitalist Imperial is Tom Clancy? :lol:

[fernando]

That could be said about absolutely any type of government. of course there still has to be law, for everyoon&#39;e safety. There has to be minimums, I mean, of course all reasonable people concede that yu should not have a "right" of "fredom" to, say, kill or steal. Tell me, Fernando, where does the US government fundamentally resrict freedom?

Persecution of communists in the past, persecuting Austin Sherman (that was his name right...the guy Zack De La Rocha was on about...its on this website) for making left wing websites, the Patriot Act in which your government will watch everybody in what he or she reads, watches, thinks practically.

Attacking other nations who want to persuit their freedom, supporting regimes that are against freedom, look at Iraq for example, there is no free media there..I mean Al Jazeera is illegal there now <_<

So I dont think you can say the US is the embodiment of freedom

[refuse_resist]

Kmart
They actually weren&#39;t doing so good and shut down all those stores a few years back. Believe me, I would know how they do since I used to work for them. They treat their employees like absolute crap too.


does anyone else think that Capitalist Imperial is Tom Clancy?
No, but he sure seems to think he&#39;s living in one of his novels. :P

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 08:52 AM

Persecution of communists in the past, persecuting Austin Sherman (that was his name right...the guy Zack De La Rocha was on about...its on this website) for making left wing websites, the Patriot Act in which your government will watch everybody in what he or she reads, watches, thinks practically.

Attacking other nations who want to persuit their freedom, supporting regimes that are against freedom, look at Iraq for example, there is no free media there..I mean Al Jazeera is illegal there now <_<

So I dont think you can say the US is the embodiment of freedom
Persecution of communists in the past

Keeping an eye on communists in during the cold war? That is not restricting freedom, that is due diligence for national security. Did you reallty expect the US to ignore domestic communists during the cold war?


persecuting Austin Sherman (that was his name right...the guy Zack De La Rocha was on about...its on this website) for making left wing websites

We all know there was more to it than just that


the Patriot Act in which your government will watch everybody in what he or she reads, watches, thinks practically.

I have yet to see an actual case of the Patriot act being abused. The government isn&#39;t watching "everybody" Orwell.


Attacking other nations who want to persuit their freedom,

What nations that the US has liberated were pursuing freedom? The Ba&#39;athists in Iraq? The Taliban in Afghanistan? Please&#33; Ask Afghani women if they want the Taliban back. I&#39;m sure they&#39;ll be fine with being forced to wear burkhas and being denied education or even medical attention.

I maintain that the US is the embodiment of freedom and opportunity, as do the thousands that immigrate here every day.

[fernando]

Freedom to some...oppression to others

[Osman Ghazi]

US free market.


No such thing exists. For example, Canadian companies are not allowed to sell softwood lumber in the U.S. becuase we can sell it at a much cheaper price and put all the American companies out of business. But of course, America has a free market, so, I guess, this must just be a paradox or something.


Persecution of communists in the past

Keeping an eye on communists in during the cold war? That is not restricting freedom, that is due diligence for national security. Did you reallty expect the US to ignore domestic communists during the cold war?


Like, for example, laws which prevent freely-elected Communists from serving in union positions.


We all know there was more to it than just that


Yes, his site had a link to one that had a link on how to make a bomb. Go to totse.com, you can find out how to make at least five different bombs, two or three makeshift pistols, how to break locks, how to pick locks, and guess what? They&#39;re still up and running. So, my conclusion is that there has to be more to it than just some phony &#39;terror&#39; charge.


I have yet to see an actual case of the Patriot act being abused. The government isn&#39;t watching "everybody" Orwell.


Yes, their abilities are nowhere near as great as in 1984. Rather than monitor everyone so that they can &#39;catch&#39; their questioning minds early, the US surveillance systems only monitor for those that are already &#39;threats&#39;. However, I am confident that with the US governments&#39;s 2 trillion bucks per year to throw around, they are keeping tabs on anyone they consider dangerous, a list that includes many left-wingers, both foreign and domestic.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 10 2004, 09:09 PM

No such thing exists. For example, Canadian companies are not allowed to sell softwood lumber in the U.S. becuase we can sell it at a much cheaper price and put all the American companies out of business. But of course, America has a free market, so, I guess, this must just be a paradox or something.



Like, for example, laws which prevent freely-elected Communists from serving in union positions.



Yes, his site had a link to one that had a link on how to make a bomb. Go to totse.com, you can find out how to make at least five different bombs, two or three makeshift pistols, how to break locks, how to pick locks, and guess what? They&#39;re still up and running. So, my conclusion is that there has to be more to it than just some phony &#39;terror&#39; charge.



Yes, their abilities are nowhere near as great as in 1984. Rather than monitor everyone so that they can &#39;catch&#39; their questioning minds early, the US surveillance systems only monitor for those that are already &#39;threats&#39;. However, I am confident that with the US governments&#39;s 2 trillion bucks per year to throw around, they are keeping tabs on anyone they consider dangerous, a list that includes many left-wingers, both foreign and domestic.

No such thing exists. For example, Canadian companies are not allowed to sell softwood lumber in the U.S. becuase we can sell it at a much cheaper price and put all the American companies out of business. But of course, America has a free market, so, I guess, this must just be a paradox or something.

Isolated incidents of trade protection such as ttariffs on european steel or Canadian soft lumber does not negate the free nature of the market. You also have to have a licence to buy/sell liquor, but the trade is still free. The reason Canadian lumber is cheap is because the Canadian lumber industry is heavily susidized by the Canadian government. Come on, Ozman, stop trying to apply isolated items to disprove an overall philosophy. Every reasonable economist on earth will concede that American Economics are based on a free-market.


Like, for example, laws which prevent freely-elected

Those laws are no longer active

[Abadali_the_Scholar]

yeah you said coke was a monopoly....

so... whats pepsi? a competitor... yeah its kinda late but hey.

and k-mart lost business because of martha stewerts stock scandal..

and oh being from the middle east. i would have to say. bush is doing good by knocking out those regimes.


and yes america is a free nation, with free thinking people.. like you can have a communist, nazi, or KKK website in america but in europe there are laws that do not let you have those websites.

and that tom clancy joke was funny. i dont know if it was meant to poke fun but its just funny..

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 07:55 AM
does anyone else think that Capitalist Imperial is Tom Clancy? :lol:
No, because CI writes with far more quality than Tom Clancy... :P

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 05:27 PM
Yes...but the US supported vile dictators before and helped them with their killing...including Saddam...
Fernando, as you clearly see Capitalist Imperial and those like him avoid arguments about the US supporting Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, or Pol Pot, because it would hurt their pride to answer them. The only answer I recall reading from people like this is: "It is pointless talking about old allies". Today they will not admit that the US wanted the Taliban in power in Afghanistan, the Ba&#39;athists in power in Iraq, the Khmer Rouge in power in Cambodia, and so on. This is all US idea of freedom.

Its really a shame that young Americans have to die for the greed of one man. The Iraqi resistance is not out to destroy Iraq nor are they Hussein loyalists as some idiots like to believe. There is no doubt that the Iraqi rebels commit atrocities, but should Iraq lose its right of self determination to the United States? The Iraqi resistance desires an Iraq without US authority, naturally they are not so stupid as to believe that the US actually cares about the freedom of Iraq which is why they refuse to lay down their arms. The USA has never once in history cared about the freedom of any people. It is the investment opportunities, natural resources, and cheap labor they seek. This is was the true reason for the war in Iraq. What if Saddam Hussein allowed American corporations to invest on Iraqi soil and continued his human rights abuses? Would he have been toppled? Definitely not&#33; He would still be a "Freedom Fighter" like in the 1980&#39;s. Money not people matters to the United States. Who ever the US can make money off of will always be in power, who ever refuses US investments will be bombed.

[fernando]

Ok...I know the official rule here is no Nazi trash...but one of those Nazis had something interesting to say, and it kind of fits in this Iraq War thing:

“Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the
leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a
simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country.”

--- Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall, at the Nuremberg
Trials after World War II.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 07:22 PM
No, because CI writes with far more quality than Tom Clancy... :P
Uhhhh, thanks?

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 12:53 PM
Ok...I know the official rule here is no Nazi trash...but one of those Nazis had something interesting to say, and it kind of fits in this Iraq War thing:

“Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the
leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a
simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country.”

--- Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall, at the Nuremberg
Trials after World War II.
In most countries the people need to be convinced to become supportive of their government&#39;s actions. In other words, they will question at first, but if they can be convinced after weighing all the evidence why there should be a war, then they go along with it. In North America this is not the case, because people here don&#39;t need to be convinced. They&#39;re like robots, they believe and support the government without question based on whatever the government says. For example: if Bush said Saddam Hussein was a fighter for democracy, the American public would love Hussein. But Bush said he was a terrorist, so the American public hates him.

[Osman Ghazi]

Isolated incidents of trade protection such as ttariffs on european steel or Canadian soft lumber does not negate the free nature of the market.

Actually, yes, it does. You see, on the one hand, there is protectionism and on the other, free trade. When you put tariffs on a product, you are being protectionist.


The reason Canadian lumber is cheap is because the Canadian lumber industry is heavily susidized by the Canadian government.

The only subsidized Canadian company is Air Canada.


Come on, Ozman, stop trying to apply isolated items to disprove an overall philosophy. Every reasonable economist on earth will concede that American Economics are based on a free-market.

Its hardly isolated if they do it to both most of their major trading partners. I mean, the policy isnt isolated at all. It&#39;s very simple: free trade when your winning, protectionism when your not.

[Capitalist Imperial]

The only subsidized Canadian company is Air Canada.

Really? Even this Anti-American Site suggests otherwise:

http://eatthestate.org/06-03/FreeTradeWhen.htm

And here is an Official letter from a U.S. Senator:

http://johnson.senate.gov/~johnson/release...2001312845.html (http://johnson.senate.gov/~johnson/releases/200102/2001312845.html)

Here is a third site corroborating my claim and refuting yours:

http://www.bdmag.com/issues/sept_2002/d_making_headlines.htm

So, I guess the question is, why are you lying, Osman?

And Osman, we all know that Canada subsidises US pharmeceuticals, and I&#39;m sure many other things.

[socialistfuture]

persecuting Austin Sherman.....



We all know there was more to it than just that

could you please explain what else is involved? and bring us all out of the dark.



What nations that the US has liberated were pursuing freedom? The Ba&#39;athists in Iraq? The Taliban in Afghanistan? Please&#33; Ask Afghani women if they want the Taliban back. I&#39;m sure they&#39;ll be fine with being forced to wear burkhas and being denied education or even medical attention.

USA funded the Ba&#39;athists and the Taliban - those who &#39;hate freedom&#39; did it in the name of freefom once. And Afghanistan is not free today - Burkhas are still worn in many areas - a lot has not changed. the Nothern Alliance also has a dark history - many are as fundamentalist as the Taliban indeed some are the same people - swapping sides isn&#39;t uncommon in Afghanistan.



RAWA is a an organization that fights for woman&#39;s rights in Afghanistan I would suggest you read some of their first hand reports.
http://rawa.false.net/index.html

&#39;RAWA is the oldest political/social organization of Afghan women struggling for peace, freedom, democracy and women&#39;s rights in fundamentalism-blighted Afghanistan.&#39;

Taliban-style public hangings in "liberated" Afghanistan
http://rawa.false.net/f-hang.htm

Afghanistan under the US strikes
http://rawa.false.net/s-photos.htm

Afghanistan IS NOT FREE and neither is Iraq&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Osman Ghazi]

In Canada, federal and provincial governments own 95% of time resources and set the price of timber at a level to ensure high employment levels. These administratively set prices are generally one-half to one quarter of the actual market value of the time, which constitutes a significant government subsidy to the Canadian timber industry," Johnson said.



The U.S. Department of Commerce found Canadian softwood to be subsidized through the Canadian government&#39;s fixing of stumpage fees - the price paid for each harvested tree by lumber mills.


Two of the articles give a totally different account of how the Canadian softwood industry are subsidized. What the Senator said is an outright lie. The government doesn&#39;t fix the price of timber at all. They simply sell parcels of land at a set amount.

Besides which, the WTO ruled that it wasn&#39;t actually a subsidy, whereas the American government unabashedly subsidzes many industries, including biotechnology. And still you claim that they have free trade. But I guess there are just thousands of "isolated incidents" that disprove that.