?

[sunfarstar]

i worry usa make next war.!

[FeArANDLoAtHiNg]

I assume and hope it won't happen, but never underestimate the stupidity and ruthlessness of the Bush Whitehouse. I think another war in the middle east would bring much protest from the American people, but who really knows, would it be too surprising if they supported it blindly?

[GoAT]

It seems to me that the United States plans on colonizing the entire Middle East. I can hear Wolfowitz now.. "On To Damascus!"...

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Although there is a big chance the US will attack Iran at some point, I think we should look at the positive aspects.

It will drive away attention from Cuba, Venezuela, Nepal and other places where we hold important ground. Although opposing an invasion of Iran, we shouldn't be sorry for seeing an Islamic republic fall.

If a US invasion will take place, which is likely, we should support the resistance against the US in whatever form it may take, but we should not go longer than that, if it is not in the interest of the proletariat.

An invasion of Iran will only create more hostility against the US, turning people already opposed to the US closer to our agenda.

An invasion of Iran might also lead to the weakening of US military, but we should also worry about the US intentions in that region. They attack for a reason.

[dso79]

With the insurgency in Iraq still raging, I don’t think the US want to get involved in another war. However, Bush has said that the US would support an Israeli attack on Iran, which might encourage Israel to launch an attack and thus drag the US into a war with Iran.

[RedLenin]

Yes I agree with that. Israel will attack Iran first, and we will enter the war on the grounds that we must back up our allies. There are not enough soldiers so we will have a draft. There will be a tremendous amount of protest here and it could get as bad as vietnam. Who knows this, and maby North Korea, could just spark off a revolution here in the US. The people might seem brainwashed, but when things get bad enough, they will answer the call.

[captain donald]

Ya, bush even mentioned iran in a speech the other day...snuck it in while he lied about iraq. As for the draft, i really do not wanna see iran.

[Take the Power back]

Don't worry about the draft, at least not too soon. A draft only works when the vast majority of the public suports the war (ex. WWII) and this administration isn't dumb enough to think that they could get away with a full blown draft. The protests would be so heavy, the white house would probably end up on fire. I do worry, however, being a young man in his late teens. I've already told my father (a mild GOP supporter) there is no way I'm going to be a just another body getting blown to bits in the middle of nowhere. He didn't really have much to say about that. Just keep in mind, if we go to Iran, and a draft is implemented, there will be plenty of countries willing to take you in, seeing as how a war in Iran would be even less popular than a war in Iraq.

[Mad Scottsman]

I think you're all smoking something. NWOG hit the nail on the head. The only reason all of you talk of war is you wish for one.

Whether you accept this or not, the U.S. is not entirely viewed badly by everyone else. Some do not believe the U.S. wishes to colonize the Middle East. A second war would remove all doubt and we would be dealt with by the world community in a serious manner.

Right now, we're supporting an Iraq that just had an election, and over time, its people may learn to deal with the insurgency.

The best thing that could help us is our creating a timetable for withdrawal. We would look so much better.

But colonize?!? As in Iraq and Iran being new U.S. states? Or an American presense? Won't happen as long as there is no Palestine.

I think that a lot of you want a war so the U.S. will be finished as a world leader. This is probably true. But only madmen WANT war.

[dso79]

Right now, we're supporting an Iraq that just had an election, and over time, its people may learn to deal with the insurgency.

Right now, the US is destroying cities, killing people and installing puppet leaders; I wouldn’t call that supporting. And ‘its people’ don’t have to deal with the insurgency, since ‘its people’ are the insurgency.


But colonize?!? As in Iraq and Iran being new U.S. states? Or an American presense? Won't happen as long as there is no Palestine.

Maybe they don’t want to colonize those countries, but they definitely want to install pro-American governments there.


A second war would remove all doubt and we would be dealt with by the world community in a serious manner.

I don’t think the world community would be willing or able to do anything against the US.

[Mad Scottsman]

dso79: You are an idiot. People at this board have got to stop lettng their passions about revolution interfere w/ an assessment of a situation. Most reports show over 80% of Iraqis not wanting U.S. troops to leave yet, but do want them to leave after security issues have been resolved and the sooner the better. The vast majority was behind the election, and the insurgency does not speak for anyone but a minority of religious nuts and pro-milateristic morons who's day is over.

The idea that the Iraq's killing Iraqi's will cause the majority of Iraq to want the forces to leave at this moment is nuts. You may as well argue that Stalin's purges which killed hundreds of thousands (or millions, depending on whose numbers you accept) were "supported" by the vast majority of Russian citizens.

Eventually, whether you accept it or not, the Iraqi's will either throw the U.S. out and disintegrate into chaos (mostly our fault) OR there will be a withdrawal and a genuine Iraqi government. It will be more or less what they deserve, in the way that our elected officials are more or less what we deserve.

I do not believe the U.S. can any longer "install" governments the way it did before the internet and the anti-globalization movement. And often our influence is the kiss of death for any politician these days.

I also believe that as the United States does good, it becomes powerful, and as it does bad, it becomes weak. All nations which work for bad intentions are vulnerable.

[Mad Scottsman]

dso79: Sorry for calling you an idiot. That was wrong of me. MS

[Hodgeh]

Scottsman is right.

We (the US) do no currently have the capabilities to outright invade Iran. Launch airstrikes and engage in small scale operations, yes, but all out invasion a la Iraq, no.

Currently the military is setup to fight 1 major theater/large scale war and 1 small intensity conflict.

[ComradeRed]

I would expect that to be the reason as to why Bu$h is "mending" with Europe...for the military support. Why not? Europe would regain oil supplies, the U.S. would make money, there would be a way for US troops to move from Afghanistan to Iraq in a day or less by land, a creation of jobs and an expanded market from the creation of an international highway and other jobs from corporations' dealings. There are a considerable number of materialist reasons to do so, it would be absurd for any member of the ruling class to sit idle and not try to take over Iran...including Bush!

Further, the Economist notes this too:
Originally posted by The Economist
Americans and Europeans share a vision of a responsible, democratic and non-nuclear Iran.[...]Americans may use force—or sanction an Israeli attack—to thwart Iran's nuclear aims. This row is likely to be papered over during the visit. (source (http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3669354), emphasis added)

This appears to be nothing more than the concentration of imperialist powers, and --consequently-- a multiplication of the number of proletariats. This has two faces though: on one hand, there will be an increase in the flow of money towards US capitalists; on the other, the Americans themselves are losing jobs and aren't creating enough to counteract such a force, and since the jobs are going elsewhere, only the capitalist class of america would only benefit. This leaves the American (formerly) working classes screwed.

Of course, supposing Europe's ruling classes decide not to side with the US for any reason, why wouldn't Israel help the US? The Israeli ruling classes would retain US support for oppressing Arabs, and the US would still profit considerably. And if the US is happy, its colonies are too.

[Intifada]

Most reports show over 80% of Iraqis not wanting U.S. troops to leave yet, but do want them to leave after security issues have been resolved and the sooner the better.

Actually, you could not be more mistaken.

Surveys carried out by various Western organisations show that the majority of Iraqis want Occupying Forces out of the country and have major disagreements with the US on many issues, while becoming increasingly hostile to Coalition Troops.

One study, a Gallup/CNN/US Today survey, conducted in late March of 2004, revealed that 57% of Iraqis wanted all troops to leave Iraq, 52% believe US-UK military action in Iraq cannot be justified, 71% considered both US and allied troops to be occupiers, while a mere 19% considered them liberators. 55% percent of Shiites and 57 % of Sunnis supported attacks against US forces.

Link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm)

Another poll, conducted for the Occupation Authority, found that 82% of all Iraqis disapprove of US and allied forces being in their country.

Link (http://flag.blackened.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=70280)

A poll, partially funded by the State Department, and conducted by the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies (ICRSS), which is regarded as reliable by the US, found that more than half of all Iraqis want US troops to leave; 88% regard US forces as occupiers not liberators; Moreover, 68% support rebel cleric Moqtada al Sadr.

Link (http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages_04/7998.html)

Another poll by the ICRSS found that over 80% of Iraqis want US troops to stop patrolling their cities; 41% would feel safer if US troops left the country, while 32% would feel less safe; 43% would be most likely to vote for a party that called for foreign forces to leave, while 16% who would not.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1249700,00.html)

Another, more recent poll, found that only 2% of all Iraqis consider the US to be "liberators" while 92% regard the US, and allied troops, as occupiers.

Link (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newsweek/)


The vast majority was behind the election

This is not to be taken as some surprise.

Who wouldn't want to have a democratic process after decades of dictatorship?

This, however, does not mean that Iraqis support the US and allied occupation of Iraq. Moreover, all the talk of Iraq becoming a "democratic" nation, is undermined by the fact that most Iraqis do not want US and allied troops to be in their homeland.


the insurgency does not speak for anyone but a minority of religious nuts and pro-milateristic morons who's day is over.


Really?

Do you want to back this claim up with some evidence, as I have done?

The vast majority of the resistance is being driven by Iraqi nationalists who simply want an end to the occupation of their country.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 04:33 PM





The vast majority of the resistance is being driven by Iraqi nationalists who simply want an end to the occupation of their country.
Whilke this' no doubt true, many of the leaders of the insurgency are religous nuts, but i agree, most of the fighters have just had enough of an illegal occupation.

[Intifada]

Whilke this' no doubt true, many of the leaders of the insurgency are religous nuts, but i agree, most of the fighters have just had enough of an illegal occupation.

You are right.

The leaders are "religious nuts".

The fighters are ordinary Iraqis.

[h&s]

From most independant reports that I have read, I would say that most insurgents have no leaders.

[RevolutionaryLeftist]

This is Imperialism at its highest.

[Colombia]

I need you guys to answer this question for me. What is worst?

Capitalist forces or Islamic fundamentalist ists?

I choose the latter.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Why would you choose the latter?

Also, there are Islamic fundamentalists that are also capitalists, ie. member of the capitalist class, so to say that they are antonyms is not necessarily correct.

[Hodgeh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 04:33 PM

Most reports show over 80% of Iraqis not wanting U.S. troops to leave yet, but do want them to leave after security issues have been resolved and the sooner the better.

Actually, you could not be more mistaken......
You do realize that the immediate withrawal of US forces now, as your data suggests is what the Iraqi people want, would lead to a massive civil war and a vastly increased amount of bloodshed.

[Intifada]

You do realize that the immediate withrawal of US forces now, as your data suggests is what the Iraqi people want, would lead to a massive civil war and a vastly increased amount of bloodshed.

You do realise that all this talk of an outbreak of "civil war" and "anarchy" if the US and allied forces withdrew from Iraq, could be used to justify support for the British in the American war for independence?

Indeed, this excuse could be used to justify the occupation of any country at any point in history as all of them might theoretically experience a civil war after the occupiers leave. By this speculative logic, the Nazis should not have been driven out of France, the Japanese out of China or Korea, the French out of Algeria etc.

Such a threat of "civil war" and "anarchy" in Iraq, has been used time and time again to justify tyranny and oppression. While Monarchies dominated the Western world, they commonly argued that without a powerful King you would have chaos.

Iraq does not need any help from the US in constructing a political system, which would undoubtedly serve US interests, not that of Iraqis.

All the country needs from America is financial aid to compensate for the destruction the invasion has caused.

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 08:43 PM
Why would you choose the latter?

Also, there are Islamic fundamentalists that are also capitalists, ie. member of the capitalist class, so to say that they are antonyms is not necessarily correct.
Forgive me. In capitalist I meant the USA and other industrialized Western nations.

But why would you prefer Fundamentalists ruling over the people over more capable leaders?

[ComradeRed]

You do realize that the immediate withrawal of US forces now, as your data suggests is what the Iraqi people want, would lead to a massive civil war and a vastly increased amount of bloodshed. --emphasis added

Yes, the very same was said for Vietnam too. Yet when the US left, there was no "mass violence" which the Pentagon predicted.

Likewise, what basis do you have to assert "If the US leaves, then there will be a massive civil war with lots of bloodshed"? Iraq has appeared to have unified...against the US! What basis do you have to assert that Iraq will divulge into a blood bath and civil war?

[dso79]

So far the US have only aggravated ethnic tensions, for example by using Shi’ite and Kurdish soldiers in Sunni areas, so they are more likely to cause a civil war than to prevent one.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I need you guys to answer this question for me. What is worst?

Capitalist forces or Islamic fundamentalist ists?

I choose the latter.


Why would you consider choosing between both?

[bolshevik butcher]

But what would be set up would be a us clien state, not necesseraly a liberal capitalists country, likely to be some kind of dictatorship.

[Colombia]

So? It still would be better than an islamic state don't you think?

[Iepilei]

Hopefully capitalism and fundamentalism will both go down with the same flush.

[seraphim]

Yes any sort of state is better than one based on religion

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 12:56 PM
So? It still would be better than an islamic state don't you think?
Not really, i'd rather live in iran, than saddams iraq, or piniche's chile.

[Hodgeh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 09:22 PM
You do realise that all this talk of an outbreak of "civil war" and "anarchy" if the US and allied forces withdrew from Iraq, could be used to justify support for the British in the American war for independence? No. There were not 2-3 major ethnic groups grappling for political power when British forces withdrew from teh colonies.

Indeed, this excuse could be used to justify the occupation of any country at any point in history as all of them might theoretically experience a civil war after the occupiers leave. By this speculative logic, the Nazis should not have been driven out of France, the Japanese out of China or Korea, the French out of Algeria etc. Again, you are not recognizing the uniqueness of the current Iraq situation.

Such a threat of "civil war" and "anarchy" in Iraq, has been used time and time again to justify tyranny and oppression. While Monarchies dominated the Western world, they commonly argued that without a powerful King you would have chaos.

Iraq does not need any help from the US in constructing a political system, which would undoubtedly serve US interests, not that of Iraqis.

All the country needs from America is financial aid to compensate for the destruction the invasion has caused. ...I in no way suggested that this threat of civil war was in defense of US-sponsored oppression. There is clearly a threat of "civil war" and "anarchy" in Iraq due to aggrivated ethnic tensions created in part by US meddling.
Responses in bold.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Not really, i'd rather live in iran, than saddams iraq, or piniche's chile.

Piniche?

Is that a feminine edition of "Che Guevara"? :lol:

Seriously, why would you rather live in Iran than Saddam's Iraq, or piniche's Chile?

[Hodgeh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 11:50 PM

You do realize that the immediate withrawal of US forces now, as your data suggests is what the Iraqi people want, would lead to a massive civil war and a vastly increased amount of bloodshed. --emphasis added

Yes, the very same was said for Vietnam too. Yet when the US left, there was no "mass violence" which the Pentagon predicted.

Likewise, what basis do you have to assert "If the US leaves, then there will be a massive civil war with lots of bloodshed"? Iraq has appeared to have unified...against the US! What basis do you have to assert that Iraq will divulge into a blood bath and civil war?
According to all the polls and surverys I've seen, the Iraqi people are all for the US exit from Iraq - once they have significant protection via domestic forces. Who would wantforeign occupation anyways?! It's not like you've got a disjoint ethnic minority running around blowing shit up all the time! I mean, let's get rid of all those 150,000 US troops and any realistic means of security and open ourselves up to our angry countrymen!


:rolleyes: You too are either unaware or ignoring the tensions between the ethnicities within Iraq. Point is, the Iraqi people are not currently equipped to maintain peace in their own country. More time is needed to bring up Iraqi Army, ING, and police forces to sufficient strength to maintain order. Perhaps you want to see a war between the Sunnis and Shi'ites. I don't. I've seen enough Iraqi death.

[bunk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 01:11 AM

Not really, i'd rather live in iran, than saddams iraq, or piniche's chile.

Piniche?

Is that a feminine edition of "Che Guevara"? :lol:

Seriously, why would you rather live in Iran than Saddam's Iraq, or piniche's Chile?
I don't understand what you mean, he meant pinochet's(sp?) Chile

[Colombia]

Originally posted by Clenched Fist+Feb 24 2005, 08:12 PM--> (Clenched Fist @ Feb 24 2005, 08:12 PM)
[email protected] 24 2005, 12:56 PM
So? It still would be better than an islamic state don't you think?
Not really, i'd rather live in iran, than saddams iraq, or piniche's chile. [/b]
:D

No, wait a minute

:D

[dso79]

You too are either unaware or ignoring the tensions between the ethnicities within Iraq. Point is, the Iraqi people are not currently equipped to maintain peace in their own country. More time is needed to bring up Iraqi Army, ING, and police forces to sufficient strength to maintain order.

You’re right, you can’t ignore those tensions. However, the US and their Iraqi puppets are trying to maintain order through oppression, which will not lead to peace. They only suppress the tensions, and don’t resolve them. In order to achieve peace, you have to try to get the different ethnic groups to talk to each other and work out their differences. That also means that the US and the Iraqi government have to accept that the insurgents are not “anti-Iraqi forces“, but actually represent a significant portion of the Iraqi population.

While negotiations are being held, peacekeepers can be useful, if they are accepted by all parties. However, the US are considered enemies, so they are not capable of acting as peacekeepers or peacemakers. The ING is not a solution either, since it is considered part of the occupation. Besides, it is currently made up mainly of Shi’ites and Kurds who are abusing their power to take revenge on the Sunnis. Many of them consider all Sunnis terrorists and there have been numerous reports of INGs maltreating Sunnis in cities like Mosul and Falluja.
UN peacekeepers might be an option, though.

However, if the parties don’t manage to reach an agreement, it might be better to reduce tensions by giving all groups a high degree of autonomy in their own region, so they can all police and govern themselves, for the time being.

[Intifada]

No. There were not 2-3 major ethnic groups grappling for political power when British forces withdrew from teh colonies.

The point I am trying to make to you, is that any occupation can be justified by the occupiers saying that "If we leave the country will be in turmoil."

This excuse is not a valid justification of an occupation of another people's homeland. It is based upon hypothetical situations which may or may not happen, but never justify occupation.


...I in no way suggested that this threat of civil war was in defense of US-sponsored oppression. There is clearly a threat of "civil war" and "anarchy" in Iraq due to aggrivated ethnic tensions created in part by US meddling.

The continued occupation of Iraq will never stop the violence anyway.

Like I have said, the Iraqi people do not need the US to construct a political system for them. They are capable of doing that.

All Iraq needs is financial aid to allow Iraqis to reconstruct their own country.

[Red Robe Majere]

First afgan then iraq then iran to me it sounds like he is goining on a cruesade

[colombiano]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 03:34 PM
Yes I agree with that. Israel will attack Iran first, and we will enter the war on the grounds that we must back up our allies. There are not enough soldiers so we will have a draft. There will be a tremendous amount of protest here and it could get as bad as vietnam. Who knows this, and maby North Korea, could just spark off a revolution here in the US. The people might seem brainwashed, but when things get bad enough, they will answer the call.
[QUOTE]The people might seem brainwashed, but when things get bad enough, they will answer the call. [QUOTE]

LOL, You are underestimating the ignorance of the majority in the American Public.

[Jina]

USofA will never touch Iran, if they do it will bring them in close confrontation with the Russia, China and the India. I don't think USofA wants to make war with those countries so they will just bark all day long hoping Iran will screw up.

[Zingu]

On side note, Fundalmentalists ARE NOT pro-capitalist*.

*They hold a similar stance as the fascists; they want the forgien capitalists off their soil and turn capitalism for national interests. They are anti-imperialist in the sense they want to drive out Western coporate infulence and political manipulation; but purely for Islamo-nationalist interest.

[Jina]

Islamo-nationalist :blink:

Nationalism is not religious fanaticism... and Sheria Laws are way more Communist minus the whole women repression shit then any of the current Western form of governance.

[Zingu]

Fundalmentalists want to return to the Arab world to traditional vaules, they ARE reactionaries; they want to turn the clock backwards. And they see the West as a corruption of those vaules. I mean nationalism by that; attempting to arise the old identity of the Arab region through Islam. In sense; they don't want the Middle East "westernized".

[Zingu]

I would not call the Sharia laws "Communist"; that would be like calling the Koran Marxist.

Islam is dogmatic; Marxism is scientific.

Do the Sharia laws say anything about the working class in control of the state or class antagonisms? I think not.

[Jina]

I wasn't saying Islam is Communism but rather it is more closer then the Capitalist system and Iran is not an Arab country.

Ohhh I don't want the Middle East to be Westernized also... bahh American culture is ehhhh so shitty really... only thing I like about America are there movies/cartoons/comic books/novels :) other then that rest are shit.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 06:25 AM
I wasn't saying Islam is Communism but rather it is more closer then the Capitalist system and Iran is not Arab country.
Are we talking about Fundalmentalists in a general sense or Iran in particular? That might be our misunderstanding. =)

I would rather argue against that first point; Islam belongs to a place before Capitalism; from what I've seen, politically; Islam is reactionary. It resists globalization, yes, just like us Communists, but it also wants to go backwards, not forwards! Not not like us! It holds on to old vaules that are obsolete in the modern world. Its reactionary, nowhere near Communism.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 06:25 AM
Ohhh I don't want the Middle East to be Westernized also... bahh American culture is ehhhh so shitty really... only thing I like about America are there movies/cartoons/comic books/novels :) other then that rest are shit.
I have to agree.

Wait; America has culture?! :blink:

[Jina]

:lol: :lol: :lol:
I have 2 amazing quote for you

Originally posted by Oscar Wilde+--> (Oscar Wilde)America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. [/b]


Sigmund Freud
America is a mistake, a giant mistake.

[Zingu]

First one I think I can get some rednecks to bite on....