War on Iraq - Unjust

[Patchy]

Well guys, I'm back from a short vacation of sorts. Wasn't really a vacation though, just a pissassing around with my friends, working, and not really making much contact with my PC. In my travels, if you will call them that, I encountered a Capitalist while playing a friendly game of counterstrike (I'm a pacifist, but I really like playing that game :( ). Anyhow, back on track. After the first round I completely owned this man with a simple desert eagle, he proceeded to shout at me! "Patchy, you stupid leftist! Communism is dead! Go back to the USSR!" I thought little of this, and proceeded to own him again on multiple occasions. My alias for this game was Patchy | The Leftist, so he changed his to postpwned | I LOVE BUSH. Silly names aside, we managed to fire off a few political words at each other, but it was difficult in game. After the hours dwindled away, I decided to engage in further interaction with this man, believing him to be an all-right guy under his misguided beliefs. I'll give him this, he knows right wing politics inside and out, he's even writing a book on it (I believe I'll post the name of it when it's out, so that we may flame it). As I was saying, he has intellect. I respect him for that. Political wise, we are polar opposites. He tried telling me that I am a misled teenager trying to fit in, and then he proceeded to tell me about the great things of the right, and I'll admit, some of his points just used simple hard logic, even if it was geared to personal gain. Still he ranted, telling me that I can't be a leftist because of my stance on abortion (I'll admit I do not like it, but that can be debated elsewhere). He told me "How can you believe in ways like that, you're all baby killers, hippies, potheads." At this point I was becoming leery, he knew his politics, yet while we were discussing politics strictly, he was being simply ignorant, tieing insults into his points. I don't know the official rules, but I don't like using derogatory shit for intellectual discussion. The night had come to an end, I still decided to talk to him tommorow.

I'm going to start a new paragraph for easier reading, but I never intended for the story to go on this long. But we talked again, this time it was just casual talking. I still respected him, even though I disagreed with his views. I'll admit I was considering if I really was a midled teenager, how naieve of me. Back on track. After talking to this man for a short time, I was given glimpses of his actual personality, and that's putting it rather nicely. I will sum it up quickly, without explanation because it isn't necessary. Sexist, Religious hate to all who are not Christian, Narrow minded, stereotypical (I'll elaborate here, because It was directed at me. I like and appreciate good art in ANY form. Graphitti, tatoos, piercings, anything. He then concluded that I have no self-esteem, and that is another reason why I'm a leftist. No self-esteem. He had told me at various times that he was loosing respect for me, but after he said this, I lost all respect for him. How could someone so smart, be so blatantly ignorant and full of hate?), Racist, Imperialist, Warmonger, and he also told me that I dress like a Bum, which was an uncalled for insult.

Now, I'm going to get on track with this actual threads topic and tell you my plans. Througout my learning experience described above, he confided in me that one of his biggest problems with the left was that "They all say the Iraq war is wrong, but I have not heard a valid point against it. Not one". I agreed with him partially, a lot of what I've heard has been simple "It's wrong." "Bush is gay." or "It's for Oil." Now, these may be true, but many of you probably know statements such as that hold no value in a political debate. I want the above stated in cold hard political facts. I want you, my comrades, to unite and aid me. I will most definitely post the results for you to see. Together, let's build a debate filled with facts to use as counters to most anything we can think he will say. In short, I want to kick the shit out of him in this debate. I would use google, but I want this to have a human factor, more personal.

I will now begin my search, and hope that many will aid me.

I also want to share a small rap I made up while working on the garbage truck. It's my first freestyle, my friend convinced me to give it a shot, so bear with me :P

"Comrades gather round, listen up, the plight of the right will end tonight. A surgical strike, the crack of midnight, total precision, the final decision - rise or fall. Workers of the world unite, tonight."

It's pretty lame in words, but neh. Hope you enjoyed it in some way.

Thanks again,
Patchy

[Patchy]

Will someone ban this man?

Thank you kindly, whoever you are. :ph34r:

[Patchy]

I don't know what kind of kicks you get out of this, but it isn't really too funny. I'm kinda laughing at the bottom picture, because the guy is going to get an infection from that, but hey, that's his problem. Thats about it.

You're not welcome here.

[anomaly]

Here are my thoughts on why the war in Iraq is not justified. First, I was reading my newsparer today, and a writer pointed out that no member of cabinet ever attempted to link Saddam with Osama. Now, the writer was saying this from a right wing perspective, but I've spun it to my favor. If there never was a link, (which, correct me if I'm wrong, the President has said already) then why did we ever invade Iraq? It is clearly not part of the War on Terror, rather, the terrorists have quite easily found us in Iraq. Secondly, Iraq was completely defenseless when we invaded, except for Saddam's Republican Guard. Saddam was also trapped between several nations that didn't much care for him (notably Iran, Kuwait, and Israel). Also, why would we ever think that a third world nation with economic sanctions placed on it could raise an army (much less, an army complete with WMDs) in just over a decade? Iraq also was notably secular, quite incapable of Islamic extremism seen in other nations. We also periodically bombed Iraq between the first Gulf War and this one (as Michael Moore documented...this part was true, as no right wingers have disputed it). Iraq simply had no chance for offensive capabilities. If we are after terrorism, then why haven't we cleaned out Saudi Arabia? Most of the terrorists from 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia! Out of any nation in the Middle East, Iraq was the least expected one to harbor terrorsits.

Why did we invade, then? Oil. With peak oil approaching, oil prices are going to be rising, especially with increased demand from China and India. Wouldn't it hen be quite a coincidence that a US-friendly government existed in the second most oil rich nation in the world?

[Patchy]

Thank you Comrade, you raise some good points. I've never even heard of the nonexistant link between Osama and Saddam, as well as the lack of military power in Iraq, but it's all making more sense now and coming together.

Thanks again.

[ColinH]

One point that I've been looking at in several articles is that right up until the war started Iraq was planning on selling its oil in Euros, and would either stop using U.S. dollars altogether or use a combination of both. In fact, I think all of OPEC is considering a dual currency system.

This would've meant a serious drop in the purchase of U.S. currency on the global market, which would cause it to devalue.

The U.S. invaded, and this seperate oil currency plan was stopped.

Now, even as we speak, Iran is planning to do the same... and guess who's pissed about it?

If we have any serious economists here, I'd like to know if this is reasonable strategic move by imperialists, given the price of such actions?

[red_orchestra]

Patchy, you need to see documentries on CBC. "The Passionate Eye" is a series which talks about serious issues from a neutral perspective... this would help fuel your debate. I give you some high lights from a documentry about Iraq:

1. The British Journalist who filmed this documentry interviewed an insurgency leader in Iraq. The British Journalist asked..."why are you so committed to killing the Americans? Why set off bombs and kill people?" The response was swift from the leader "We wished we didn't have to kill others, its really not my way of thinking but these are very despriate times for us. My country is under occupation by a force that wishes to take our wealth and the moral fouindation of our country! Tell me, what would you do if you saw a warplane drop a bomb on a school filled with children? Would that not enrage you? Would you not kill those who would occupy your land? I believe you would!"

2. The British Journalist Interviewed a die-hard American solider, only 27 yrs old...seen 10 comrads killed in action. This Solider believed that American values and culture would "cure" the violence in Iraq. The solider stated as well "If Iraq has a McDonalds, then Bush wouldn't have attacked the country...Amerca has never gone to War with a country which has embraced Amercan culture."

3. The British Journalist interviewed the common people in Iraq...the stories are horrific. The majority of the causalities are Iraqi children and women. In the first 2 days of the bombing campaign against Iraq the US flew a slew of "smart bombs" into civilian targets. Hundreds of children were killed in the first 5 hours of the attack. The next step was to move ground troops in...and this is where some of the worst attrocities started. Unarmed civilians were dragged into the streets and shot...most of them put into prison camps...sexual abuse...defiling the Koran by urinating on them and on the holy book....making prisoners eat prohibited foods....forcing Christianity on them....etc


....I could go on forever...the docuumentry was loaded.

[Commandante_Ant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 07:01 AM
Here are my thoughts on why the war in Iraq is not justified. First, I was reading my newsparer today, and a writer pointed out that no member of cabinet ever attempted to link Saddam with Osama. Now, the writer was saying this from a right wing perspective, but I've spun it to my favor. If there never was a link, (which, correct me if I'm wrong, the President has said already) then why did we ever invade Iraq? It is clearly not part of the War on Terror, rather, the terrorists have quite easily found us in Iraq. Secondly, Iraq was completely defenseless when we invaded, except for Saddam's Republican Guard. Saddam was also trapped between several nations that didn't much care for him (notably Iran, Kuwait, and Israel). Also, why would we ever think that a third world nation with economic sanctions placed on it could raise an army (much less, an army complete with WMDs) in just over a decade? Iraq also was notably secular, quite incapable of Islamic extremism seen in other nations. We also periodically bombed Iraq between the first Gulf War and this one (as Michael Moore documented...this part was true, as no right wingers have disputed it). Iraq simply had no chance for offensive capabilities. If we are after terrorism, then why haven't we cleaned out Saudi Arabia? Most of the terrorists from 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia! Out of any nation in the Middle East, Iraq was the least expected one to harbor terrorsits.

Why did we invade, then? Oil. With peak oil approaching, oil prices are going to be rising, especially with increased demand from China and India. Wouldn't it hen be quite a coincidence that a US-friendly government existed in the second most oil rich nation in the world?
I completely agree. In my eyes, the american governments argument for invading Iraq was in two areas. 1) They had "wmd"'s. 2) They were aiding and funding Al-Qeuda.

Both of these points have been proven to be complete lies. They never were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they posed no immediate threat to the western world. And the Al-Qeuda "funding" was another convenient excuse to invade, kick saddam out and get their filthy obese hands on his oil. Lets get it right, Iraq has the 2nd biggest oil reserve in the world so if America has their hands on that, they can be the most powerful and rich country in the world.

Yes, this "war" is incredibly unjust. It is an invasion and Bush & Blair are war criminals. Saddam did commit terrible atrocities on his people but i would have rather been told "we're going to get saddam out for his complete barbarism towards his own countrymen" instead of two blatant lies.

And the US never went after the Saudi's because the Saudi's are the US country's sugar daddy. Michael Moore's films are biased but his point that the Saudi government owns 6% of America is a dark fact. They couldnt go after Saudi because Saudi Arabia owns a small but significant portion of the American economy.

[Severian]

The burden of proof is on supporters of war, to show it's justified. The death and destruction of war always need to be justified; they can never be self-justifying or justified by default.

Supporters of the war have put forward a number of arguments to try to justify it. Alleged support to al-Qaeda, alleged chemical and biological weapons programs, etc. They have utterly failed to prove those despite controlling the Iraqi government's files, etc., for about 2 years now.

Those arguments were false on their basic premises anyway. Iraq has as much right to build weapons as any other country, and nobody in Washington had a problem with chemical weapons when they were being used against Iran. If Iraq had in fact begun aiding al-Qaeda, that would have been a response to U.S. attacks on Iraq; al-Qaeda didn't even exist before those attacks began.

So those are clearly excuses not reasons from the start.

As those became discredited, new excuses are generated, or more emphasized than in the past. The big one now is creating a democratic example for the region.

But how democratic is the "new Iraq", anyway? The occupying armies have the right, and use it, to lock up anyone they please for any reason or no reason, without trial, for as long as they please. Famously, prisoners are tortured...the photos we've seen are the tip of the iceberg.

The police and army of the new Iraqi regime are even worse; they've used some truly horrific torture. Death squads are beginning to operate judging by the bodies which have turned up.....this is all well-documented in reports in the major media.

Saddam's anti-labor legislation is still in place and used against workers trying to organize. Reporters for al-Jazeera, one of the most popular TV stations in Iraq due to its uncensored reporting, have been excluded from the country. Etc.

***

Once the excuses are disposed of, then there's the question, what's the real reason....much of the analysis from opponents of the war has been pretty superficial on this point. "It's about oil". or worse "It's about Israel".

The Middle East is of course of special interest to Washington and other world powers because of its oil reserves. That's why maintaining U.S. imperial domination of the region is such a high priority.

It should be noted that the U.S. actually imports little oil directly from the region. Maintaining a steady flow of oil onto the world market might be a concern, but really whoever controls the oil will need to sell it. Avoiding war and conflict would be a better strategy if that was the goal.

Rather, control and profit are the questions. First, control of rivals' oil supply; the ability to threaten to cut it off in a crisis just as Washington cut off imperial Japan's oil supply in the pre-Pearl Harbor period.

Second, who owns the oil reserves; opportunities to invest and profit from oil industries from Iraq to Algeria. There is competition between U.S., British, French, Russian and other oil companies for this.

Israel is one tool used to maintain U.S. domination of the region. A client state/proxy policeman, one of many in the world, but of unusual importance. Still, support of Israel is meant to advance other goals of U.S. foreign policy, not vice versa.

In the broadest sense, the Iraq war is about maintaining U.S. strategic and economic domination of the region. One, by finally removing the Hussein regime, a 12-year U.S. stated goal is achieved, and U.S. "credibility" enhanced. Two, the hope is to replace it with a stable U.S. client regime which will cooperate with future U.S. actions in the region. Similar to the role the shah of Iran once played.

To what extent that is achieved, remains to be seen.

[slim]

A war for the simple reason of oil, despite its costs, would be profitable for the U.S.

A monopoly of oil would give them so much money coming in that they could fund whatever conflict they liked.

[Patchy]

Thanks again guys, work is underway on this as I type. Greatly appreciated :)

You all raise very good points. I still find it amusing that the guy I spoke of said he had never heard any good points from a leftist against the war, he must not have looked very hard.

[TheReadMenace]

Yes, this "war" is incredibly unjust. It is an invasion and Bush & Blair are war criminals. Saddam did commit terrible atrocities on his people but i would have rather been told "we're going to get saddam out for his complete barbarism towards his own countrymen" instead of two blatant lies.

Even then, though, it would have been pretty unjust, because the Iraqi people have had chances at toppling Saddam, but the US either authorised or help crush the rebellions.

Andrew

[Santos]

Yes.... I think it was and still is wrong to be there. It is basically, Bush Jr. trying to finish what Sr. could not. They went in under the lie of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, and the Osama - Saadam link. That was a lie, was there ever any evidence? It has accomplished nothing except killing a lot of innocent people and now American soldiers each day as well. I think we are over there for no other reason than our own Government and it's interest in oil. All the while doing whatever they want ...hiding behind this facade of there "War on Terror".

[Mickalov]

All of the so called 'facts' that you have provided have been nothing more than the opinions of people writing articles for documentaries or newspapers. These so called interviews with insurgent leaders are more than likley false. And I can tell you for a fact that there were no bombs dropped on schools filled with children. Think logicly, the bombing started during the night.

And it doesn't make sence for Iraqis to say that "we are killing so many of their people" Sadam has killed over 300 thousand in the past 10 years.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

All of the so called 'facts' that you have provided have been nothing more than the opinions of people writing articles for documentaries or newspapers. These so called interviews with insurgent leaders are more than likley false. And I can tell you for a fact that there were no bombs dropped on schools filled with children. Think logicly, the bombing started during the night.

So bombing civilians is OK as long as it's done at night?


And it doesn't make sence for Iraqis to say that "we are killing so many of their people" Sadam has killed over 300 thousand in the past 10 years.

Considering that the previous US sanctions and current occupation resulted in more deaths, I hardly think the US' hands are spotless either.

[Mickalov]

I'm not saying bombing civilians is ok, just dont say "oh they bombed schools filled with kids.." since when are kids at school at night. And are you telling me that america totally bombed civilians on purpose? Your saying they TARGET civilians and bomb THEM for no reason. And thats bullshit, total civilian directly caused by the war since we have been there is at max 30 thousand how do you figure even if you double that number from sanctions is even CLOSE to 300 thousand?

[Intifada]

(Mickalov)

I'm not saying bombing civilians is ok, just dont say "oh they bombed schools filled with kids.." since when are kids at school at night.

They do not restrict their bombings and seiges to night time. Just look at what they have done to Fallujah.


And are you telling me that america totally bombed civilians on purpose?

When the US uses weapons such as cluster bombs, it is hard to believe that they care about civilian deaths, or as they more conveniently label it: "colateral damage."


And thats bullshit, total civilian directly caused by the war since we have been there is at max 30 thousand

There have been reports that the death toll exceeds that, and may also have been up to 100 000 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html) dead since the invasion.


how do you figure even if you double that number from sanctions is even CLOSE to 300 thousand?

You really are ignorant of the US and it's dealings with the nation of Iraq, aren't you?

The sanctions, which started after the First Gulf War in 1990, killed, according to estimates, at least 500 000 innocent Iraqi civilians. Other estimates exceed a million, with more than half of that numbr being children younger than the age of five.

When it comes down to numbers, the US has killed far more than Saddam Hussein ever did, and most of his slaughter was aided by the US, who funded and armed him without any hesitation.

[Technique3055]

This is all arguements I've posted against the war on other sites. I'll try to get one post from other sites to corrosponde with each seperate issue, because I've got alot of them.

Why the target for the war is undefeatable, and why we're just going to be fighting for years in a winless battle:

You can't have a war against terrorism. Terrorism isn't a country. I'm not sure how Bush hopes to defeat terrorism, but you can't just defeat one's beliefs.

The whole "War on Terror" thing is the most legitimate excuse for war in Iraq I've ever heard. Does that make it a good excuse that justifies war? Of course not. If we were truly there to fight terrorism, then we might as well just say "We're fighting a war against people who have different political and religious beliefs than us." This concept isn't hard to grasp. Why are these people terrorists? Religious, political, or ideological reasons. So we're in a war against people who have different religious, political, or ideological beliefs from ours. Does this make sense? Of course not. Granted, they do take their beliefs to an extreme, but does that justify war? It could, I don't debate that. But what will war accomplish?

And you also must question the whole reasons behind certain terrorist leaders being leaders. Why are they leaders? What qualifications are there? Is it like the qualifications for any other job? Of course not. I don't think you can make a living being a terrorist. So while we're over there capturing these "terrorist leaders," whom we may believe are something special, we aren't realizing that nothing makes these leaders so much more important than the other terrorists who rank below them. So once we capture one "leader," another steps in who can be just as capable as the one before him.

This brings me to my next point. For every one terrorist we kill or capture, there is another one, if not more, waiting to fill his spot. It's not like by capturing a few leaders, we're cutting off an entire regime. It's not like that at all. By capturing a few leaders, we're just giving different terrorists more chances than they had before.

But here is the most important thing that I want all of you to take out of this ramble - Terrorism is based on religion (and maybe other political beliefs). You can't defeat one's religion. Just so long as religion exists, so will religious extremists, and therefore, terrorists. Terrorists are nothing but religious extremists. They take their religion to an extreme, and that extreme is suicide bombings and attacks against anyone they can, preferrably Americans. This war is a war that cannot be won, for the sole reason that it is a war against religion.

And if we do so much as attempt to defeat the religion of terrorists, things will not work out. Who was the last person who tried to defeat the religion of a certain people? I believe Hitler was his name, no? He tried to exterminate the Jewish religion. Did his "Final Solution" work out for him? Of course it didn't. If it did, you and I would be speaking German right now, and there wouldn't be a single Jew walking this planet. But I'm speaking English and there are many Jews around. And how is Hitler's legacy remembered? Not so great, eh?

(I'm going to break these posts down into seperate arguements, as they can get quite legnthy if it was all at once)

[Technique3055]

On Motives for the War:

George W. Bush is a moron. I question every single motive he's given us for "War on Terror."

Why are we at war? I challange any one of you to tell me why. Nuclear weapons? To fight and capture terrorists? To "liberate" Iraq and set up a stable democratic government over there, in which other middle-eastern countries should use as an example?

All of those motives may appear to make sense, but in all seriousness, have you actually done research and questioned every one of those motives yourself? I doubt it.

If you think we're over there to find WMD's, you're pretty wrong. Top secret British intelligence documents from 2002 which were recently brought to the public's view show that George Bush knew that Saddam had no nuclear weapons upon going to war with Iraq. Yet I vividly remember the night we went to war. Bush blatantly said he believed Iraq had nuclear weapons. Hmm...somebody's lying! Also on the topic of WMD's, the UN said Iraq had none. Terrorists said they did. Who do you find to be a more reliable source - Terrorists, or the UN?

Next, onto the topic of fighting terrorism. I will admit - the overall death toll of the war in Iraq isn't horrible. But, we are looking to stop terrorists, not make it easier for them to attack our troops. About 26,000 people have died since we entered Iraq. More terrorist attacks have gone on over there in this short amount of time than could ever happen here. Just because it isn't US citizens dying, does that mean it is just? Of course not. Our military action in Iraq might've toned down major terrorist attacks in our homeland, but what about other homelands that are feeling the effects? Iraq is feeling them firsthand. England recently got a taste of them. And plus, what does Bush look to accomplish in his war on terrorism? It isn't a war that can be won by sheer military power, nor can it be won be peaceful negotiations. Bush insists on fighting a war that cannot be won. Terrorism is based on religion, not current events. For every terrorist we capture, there is another one willing to replace his spot. You can't just kill a few people, capture some, and magically expect terrorists religious beliefs to be changed. It doesn't work that way.

Bush's last excuse is the most asinine one. We're liberating Iraq and spreading democracy! We want to set up a successful Iraqi government! Newsflash - Your disapproval rating for military action in Iraq is a sorry 60 percent. Sixty percent of our own country disapproves of Bush being in Iraq. And we insist that democracy is so important, when in actuality, if we were truly a democracy, we wouldn't be there. In fact, we aren't a democracy. I don't know where people get the idea that we are, but maybe I'll get into this more another day. So back to the topic. We're all for establishing a successful government over there. If we were truly devoted to that mentality, why would we be blatantly stealing oil from Iraq? I'm not saying whether or not we are over there for oil, I'm just saying that we ARE taking oil from them. If this is the case, how can we truly be concerned about creating a stable government over there? It just doesn't add up.

Also, since I wrote that one, Bush has also claimed the war was "to prevent Iraqi oil fields from falling into terrorist hands."

[Technique3055]

On The Real Motive:

The United States has quite a history of running into countries, guns blazing. We've got a history of "liberating" countries from their leaders, whom in many cases are democratically elected. We flaunt this spreading of democracy as some sort of triumph. We run around saying how Pinochet was a raving success and how the people loved him, and how much good he did his country.

Basically, all this "liberation" and "democracy" is just a shady coverup for the real motive, which is the best economic interests of the U.S.

It's gone down MANY times in history. Iran, Guatemala, North Vietnam, Laos, Haiti, Cuba (luckily, they failed), Ecuador, Dominican Republic, Cambodia. The list goes on. (For more details, go here (http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/CIAtimeline.html))

It's painfully obvious to me. The United States is ONLY after their best economic interests, which in this case, is oil. We want it. They have it. We have a good coverup of a dictatorship, liberation, and terrorism. Why not invade?

My arguement for this isn't saying "the war is for oil." It's saying that the U.S. is looking out for economic interests of itself. Fuck Iraq's economy. Raise ours. We don't give a damn about what happens to the masses, or what's good for them. We are worried about our pocket size. Nothing more.

History is my source for this. It's gone down just like this MANY times in history. Read that article, you'll see it. We don't care about democracy, liberation, or equality. And that article is just a BRIEF outline of this bullshit.

[Mickalov]

Well, then if you guys are going to say by estimates, one estimate on how many people saddam has killed in all of his time in power has been over 4 million. I'm going by estimates that are not right wing, not left wing, they are in the middle. And how do you figure in the first gulf war when we didn't even go to baghdad we killed more than we have killed invading all of iraq?

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

Ask me, I don't think that the "War on Terror" will ever end. Remember Hitler? His goal was never to win World War 2. He believed that a state was at it's strongest position when at war - and naturally, it is. When there's "them and us", you must choose. In this case, it is "Islam or Democracy". Nothing else. You can never choose democracy and Islam. That isn't on America's list of "accepted beliefs".

So, what are we faced with? Terrorism is just like file-sharing. There is no central system. You can't shut down internet just to catch the peers, nor can you destroy any country, building or kill any amount of people to stop terrorism. What happens when they catch bin Laden? Another one will come, and another one after that. Hell, Hitler died over half a century ago, yet nazis are still active today.

So, in a way - "either you're with us, or you're with them" is a very valid statement. Either you join the righteous and just Empire of America, where nothing is ever wrong and every single person lives in ultimate happiness, or you join the terrorists. Oh, we can also not forget that these "terrorists" don't just live in the Middle East. They live in the US, in the UK, in China, Russia, Europe - basically, they live in every place humanly possible to live in on this planet.

So - what happens when Empire of America can't reach the terrorists? Well, they ask the country for support. If the country agrees: they get support, they set up a survelliance system like London and South Korea. Oh, I can't forget to mention that even more survelliance systems are on their way: the eyes must be scanned, the smell of a person will also be scanned. The DNA registers anybody? Laws get harder, police get thougher. Ideas and beliefs are summarized into cathegories. Everything on the left supports the terrorists, everything on the right supports the Empire.

So, basically, the Empire of America is leading us, not into the projected era of happiness and cooperation, but towards the Age of the Policestate. Brace yourselves.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 12:41 AM

Yes, this "war" is incredibly unjust. It is an invasion and Bush & Blair are war criminals. Saddam did commit terrible atrocities on his people but i would have rather been told "we're going to get saddam out for his complete barbarism towards his own countrymen" instead of two blatant lies.

Even then, though, it would have been pretty unjust, because the Iraqi people have had chances at toppling Saddam, but the US either authorised or help crush the rebellions.

Andrew
Agreed, it's still Imperialism. But, the truth would've been much better.
Oh, btw Mickalov, nice Civil Protection avatar!

[youngmarxist]

Nice one, Mickalov

I think the effects of the war in Iraq were a good thing. The only thing that still worries me is the question "Did Bush and Blair seek adequete consent for the war?"

I think Bush really wants to install a democratic regime in Iraq. If he did not want to do this, why bother to hold elections? Why did eight and a half million people take the risk of being blown up to vote? Because they are the puppets of America? Why don't you find a few Iraqis on the net and tell them they are puppets? I am sure they will appreciate your input.

There are some disturbing links between Al Quaeda and Iraq. Until the other day, I did not know about them - Bush has completely failed to publicise this properly. If you want to know more, check out Christopher Hitchens' Website (http://www.hitchensweb.com)

As far as the WMD lies go, I have been put onto an interesting theory. Bush lied about WMD because the old-guard faction of the US ruling class did NOT want to go into war in Iraq. To get away with it, Bush had to keep talking about WMD. I think this was a mistake. He should have said:

"Sadaam is a tyrant, we were wrong to have supported him and I am sorry. I am now going to make sure we never support him again".

No doubt some of the American ruling class is keen to grab the Gulf's oil. But the simple fact is that Sadaam was a fascist and Bush acted in a revolutionary way when he toppled his government. It is ALWAYS revolutionary to defeat fascism and it is ALWAYS counter-revolutionary to oppose those who are trying to defeat it.

[Intifada]

([misguided] youngmarxist)

I think the effects of the war in Iraq were a good thing.

The US, since the end of the First Gulf War, through criminal sanctions and bombings, has completely destroyed the country of Iraq.

The sanctions plunged the Iraqi population, whose levels of nutrition, schooling and public services were once well above regional standards, into endless misery. Before 1990 the country had a per capita GNP of over $3,000, today it is a few hundred dollars.

A land that once had high levels of literacy and an advanced system of health-care has been devastated by the West. Its social structure is in ruins, its people are denied the basic necessities of existence, its soil is polluted by uranium-tipped warheads.

Since the recent invasion, the malnutrition rate of Iraqi children doubled.

Removing a dictator is all well and good, but other than that, what good has the imperialist invasion of Iraq done for the people?

There's no electricity, no water, and of course no jobs.

Brilliant innit!

How can Iraq be a sovereign nation, whose people are free from tyranny, when at the same time the US, with the permission of the Iraqi puppet government, lays siege to whole cities?


I think Bush really wants to install a democratic regime in Iraq. If he did not want to do this, why bother to hold elections? Why did eight and a half million people take the risk of being blown up to vote? Because they are the puppets of America? Why don't you find a few Iraqis on the net and tell them they are puppets? I am sure they will appreciate your input.


This is truly ridiculous.

The elections meant absolutely diddly squat.

Voters turned out in unexpectedly high numbers, defying terrorists in an act of collective bravery that marked a historic triumph in the struggle for democracy and a turning point in the long and bloody US military operation thousands of miles from American shores.

No, this quote was not describing Iraq 2005, but Viet Nam 1967.

Are you, somebody with a Ho Chi Minh avatar (ironically enough), going to tell me that those elections were democratic too?!

Although Iraq and Viet Nam have their differnces, the fact that the US organized, manipulated and exploited elections in both countries to further its own strategic aims remains.

Held under a military occupation that resulted from an illegal war of aggression, the organization of the vote was itself the continuation of a war crime. It was prepared without an election campaign, in which rival programmes were simply put before the Iraqi people. Even the names of most of the candidates were kept secret until the day the ballots were cast.

The elections were a joke.

If you asked the Iraqi population if they support the occupation of their country (which is what they view the US presence in Iraq as), the majority would say no. I can easily provide the polls to support this fact.

If the Iraqi government was truly democratic and representative of the people of Iraq, the US led coalition would have been forced to leave long ago.


There are some disturbing links between Al Quaeda [sic] and Iraq.

Which were not there before the invasion!


If you want to know more, check out Christopher Hitchens' Website


Haha!

No, thank you.


As far as the WMD lies go, I have been put onto an interesting theory. Bush lied about WMD because the old-guard faction of the US ruling class did NOT want to go into war in Iraq. To get away with it, Bush had to keep talking about WMD.

That is simply not acceptable.

The Bush administration knew that Iraq had no WMDs, and was not a threat prior to the invasion, as far back as before 9/11 2001.

In February 2001, Colin Powell, during a visit to Cairo, answered a question about the nature of the US-imposed Iraqi sanctions:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.

Furthermore, in July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer, and when also asked about the sanctions, stated:

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

Saddam was simply not a threat to anybody.

Bush needed an excuse to invade Iraq, so he lied about Saddam being a threat to Iraq. That is what imperialists do.


But the simple fact is that Sadaam was a fascist and Bush acted in a revolutionary way when he toppled his government.

Now that really is the most stupid thing I have ever heard a "Marxist" write about the invasion of Iraq.

To go as far as to state that invading Iraq was "revolutionary" is beyond the realms of idiocy.

Imperialism is not revolutionary, and must be defeated.

Please, remove the Ho Chi Minh avatar.

[youngmarxist]

([misguided] youngmarxist)
I think the effects of the war in Iraq were a good thing.


The US, since the end of the First Gulf War, through criminal sanctions and bombings, has completely destroyed the country of Iraq.

The sanctions plunged the Iraqi population, whose levels of nutrition, schooling and public services were once well above regional standards, into endless misery. Before 1990 the country had a per capita GNP of over $3,000, today it is a few hundred dollars.

A land that once had high levels of literacy and an advanced system of health-care has been devastated by the West. Its social structure is in ruins, its people are denied the basic necessities of existence, its soil is polluted by uranium-tipped warheads.

Since the recent invasion, the malnutrition rate of Iraqi children doubled.

Removing a dictator is all well and good, but other than that, what good has the imperialist invasion of Iraq done for the people?

There's no electricity, no water, and of course no jobs.

Brilliant innit!

How can Iraq be a sovereign nation, whose people are free from tyranny, when at the same time the US, with the permission of the Iraqi puppet government, lays siege to whole cities?
The US has failed in many ways to plan properly for its project of liberating Iraq. Shelters, generators, water purifiers and so on should have been spread throughout the country in the first few days.

The sanctions which you talk about are now over. So that must be a good thing, since you say they were bad (I agree they were a bad thing that hurt the people of Iraq more than the rulers).

Can you give me figures on deaths by malnutriton and starvation since the US invasion please? Has the malnutrition rate stayed doubled in the two years since the invasion, or has the rate slid downwards? References, please.

The Iraqi social structure is being rapidly rebuilt by people who are free at last.



I think Bush really wants to install a democratic regime in Iraq. If he did not want to do this, why bother to hold elections? Why did eight and a half million people take the risk of being blown up to vote? Because they are the puppets of America? Why don't you find a few Iraqis on the net and tell them they are puppets? I am sure they will appreciate your input.


This is truly ridiculous.

The elections meant absolutely diddly squat.

Why? Why does 8 million people defying terrorists mean nothing? And by the way, the man that the Americans wanted to win the Iraqi election DID NOT WIN. HE WAS DEFEATED and a majority was formed by the Shi'ite party. Hardly the result the US was looking for.



Voters turned out in unexpectedly high numbers, defying terrorists in an act of collective bravery that marked a historic triumph in the struggle for democracy and a turning point in the long and bloody US military operation thousands of miles from American shores.

No, this quote was not describing Iraq 2005, but Viet Nam 1967.

Are you, somebody with a Ho Chi Minh avatar (ironically enough), going to tell me that those elections were democratic too?!

No, they were held by a fascist regime to make it look like they were democratic. Are you comparing the government of Iraq today to the government of the Republic of Vietnam? In Vietnam, the Americans supported the fascists. In Iraq, they support the democrats. Simple, really.



Although Iraq and Viet Nam have their differnces, the fact that the US organized, manipulated and exploited elections in both countries to further its own strategic aims remains.

What strategic aims has the US advanced by the DEFEAT of its puppet in the Iraqi election?


Held under a military occupation that resulted from an illegal war of aggression, the organization of the vote was itself the continuation of a war crime. It was prepared without an election campaign, in which rival programmes were simply put before the Iraqi people. Even the names of most of the candidates were kept secret until the day the ballots were cast.

The names of most of the candidates were kept secret becuase Baathists and jihadists threatened to kill anyone who voted or stood in the election. Surely the act of placing rival programmes before the Iraqi people IS an election campaign? What is an election for, if not so that people can decide between the programs of various groups vying for government?


The elections were a joke.

If you asked the Iraqi population if they support the occupation of their country (which is what they view the US presence in Iraq as), the majority would say no. I can easily provide the polls to support this fact.

Please do. Soon.




There are some disturbing links between Al Quaeda [sic] and Iraq.

Which were not there before the invasion!

Yes they were.

"{I}t was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war" From "Unfairenheit 911", by Christopher Hitchens at this link (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/)





If you want to know more, check out Christopher Hitchens' Website


Haha!

No, thank you.

Cool. Clearly you do not in fact wish to know more.



As far as the WMD lies go, I have been put onto an interesting theory. Bush lied about WMD because the old-guard faction of the US ruling class did NOT want to go into war in Iraq. To get away with it, Bush had to keep talking about WMD.

That is simply not acceptable.

The Bush administration knew that Iraq had no WMDs, and was not a threat prior to the invasion, as far back as before 9/11 2001.

Sadaam was, indeed, a threat.

From the same Hitchens article I linked to above:

Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)



In February 2001, Colin Powell, during a visit to Cairo, answered a question about the nature of the US-imposed Iraqi sanctions:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.

Sadaam, with or without WMD, was a brutal dictator who deserved to be overthrown.


Furthermore, in July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer, and when also asked about the sanctions, stated:

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

Saddam was simply not a threat to anybody.

Or whatever. Tell that to the people who languished in Abu Ghraib prison BEFORE the invasion.


Bush needed an excuse to invade Iraq, so he lied about Saddam being a threat to Iraq.

No, Bush lied about WMD. He did not lie about Sadaam being a threat, because Sadaam was a threat.



But the simple fact is that Sadaam was a fascist and Bush acted in a revolutionary way when he toppled his government.

Now that really is the most stupid thing I have ever heard a "Marxist" write about the invasion of Iraq.

To go as far as to state that invading Iraq was "revolutionary" is beyond the realms of idiocy.

Imperialism is not revolutionary, and must be defeated.

Please, remove the Ho Chi Minh avatar.

You have failed to explain why removing a fascist dictator is not revolutionary. I will keep the avatar, as you have not convinced me that Ho would be ashamed of or reject any of my positions.

Until you can at least understand that the nature of US foreign policy has undergone a revolutionary change, and that Bush intends in his foreign policy to spread the democratic revolution throughout the world of dictators, then you will continue in your incorrect analysis.

Second last: If you are prepared to read something with which you disagree, you should read Beating a Dead Parrot - Why Iraq and Vietnam have nothing whatsoever in common - By Christopher Hitchens (http://www.slate.com/id/2112895/)

Lastly: Long live the Iraqi revolution! Death to fascists and death to terrorists!

[Intifada]

The US has failed in many ways to plan properly for its project of liberating Iraq. Shelters, generators, water purifiers and so on should have been spread throughout the country in the first few days.


Why weren't they planning properly?

The shelters, generators and - in particular - water purifiers, ironically, were targeted during the sanctions and the war.

The US couldn't care less about the lives of the Iraqi people. For goodness sake, they were happy enough to use cluster bombs on them.


The sanctions which you talk about are now over. So that must be a good thing, since you say they were bad (I agree they were a bad thing that hurt the people of Iraq more than the rulers).


The sanctions - evidence of the US government's willingness to harm Iraqi people - may be over, but a whole new chapter has begun in the story of US oppression of the Iraqi people.


Can you give me figures on deaths by malnutriton and starvation since the US invasion please? Has the malnutrition rate stayed doubled in the two years since the invasion, or has the rate slid downwards? References, please.


Children Pay Cost of Iraq's Chaos (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A809-2004Nov20.html)


The Iraqi social structure is being rapidly rebuilt by people who are free at last.


How can a nation be free when they are occupied by a foreign coalition which is continuing to lay seige upon whole towns and villages?


Why? Why does 8 million people defying terrorists mean nothing?

Because the process meant nothing.

The Iraqi people want an end to the occupation which makes it impossible for there to be free and fair elections. In fact, the elections were not even legitimate, because of the fact that it occured under a hostile military occupation.

Furthermore, Iraqi has 18 million elegible voters. Therefore, 8 million is still a minority of the population.


And by the way, the man that the Americans wanted to win the Iraqi election DID NOT WIN. HE WAS DEFEATED and a majority was formed by the Shi'ite party. Hardly the result the US was looking for.


US domination of Iraq remains unchanged, even after the election. The US-imposed Transitional Administrative Law remains the law of the land. Amending that law requires super-majorities of the assembly as well as a unanimous agreement by the Presidency council, almost impossible given the range of constituencies that must be satisfied.

Chiefs of key control commissions, including Iraq's Inspector General, the Commission on Public Integrity, the Communication and Media Commission and others, were appointed by Paul Bremer with five-year terms, and can only be dismissed "for cause." The Council of Judges, as well as individual judges and prosecutors, were selected, vetted and trained by the US occupation, and are dominated by long-time US-backed exiles, whom I shall address soon enough.


Are you comparing the government of Iraq today to the government of the Republic of Vietnam? In Vietnam, the Americans supported the fascists. In Iraq, they support the democrats. Simple, really.


Both the elections in Viet Nam (1967) and Iraq (2005) were carried out in order to fool gullible people, like yourself, that the countries were independent.

Moreover, the US has never supported democrats, but Iraqi exiles, who are just as crooked as Saddam Hussein's old regime. Have you ever heard of the Iraqi National Accord (INA)? This group was supported and financed by the CIA, MI6 and Jordanian intelligence, and engaged in many acts of terrorism, and claimed responsibility for the bombing of civilian targets, including a Baghdad cinema and newspaper offices. According to INA insiders, these activities were carried out in order to "impress the CIA."

These are the kind of people the Americans supported and continue to support.


What strategic aims has the US advanced by the DEFEAT of its puppet in the Iraqi election?


There has been no defeat for the US occupiers.

I have addressed this above.


The names of most of the candidates were kept secret becuase Baathists and jihadists threatened to kill anyone who voted or stood in the election. Surely the act of placing rival programmes before the Iraqi people IS an election campaign? What is an election for, if not so that people can decide between the programs of various groups vying for government?


Like I have already stated, the elections were not legitimate under international law.

The Hague Convention of 1907, to which the US is a signatory, prohibits an occupying power from creating any permanent changes in the government of the occupied territory.

These elections, however, were arranged under an electoral law and by an electoral commission installed and backed by the occupying power. They took place in an environment so violent that, as you stated, voters could not even learn the names of candidates, and the three days surrounding the vote included a complete lock-down of the country, including shoot-to-kill curfews in many areas, closure of the airport and borders, and closure of roads.

There wasn't even any international monitors in the country.

The US based Carter Center, which has monitored elections around the world for more than a decade, declined to participate in Iraq. They did, however, identify key criteria for determining the legitimacy of elections, and their spokesman noted, the day before the elections took place, that none had been met.


Please do. Soon.

Poll: Iraqis out of patience (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm)

82 Percent of Iraqis Oppose US Occupation (http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/advocacy/protest/iraq/2004/0513poll.htm)

Percentages do vary, but there is a general consensus that the Iraqis want an end to the occupation.

Who wouldn't?


Yes they were.


No.

That is a lie.

The Bush administration did claim that al Qaeda was linked to Saddam Hussein, but American intelligence agencies could not find any evidence of an operational relationship.

After the invasion, in January of 2004, Colin Powell stated

I have not seen [a] smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the [al Qaeda] connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist, and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did.

By September 2005, Powell had backed off even this statement, suggesting in an interview:

I have never seen any evidence to suggest there was such a link.

Various independent investigations into the question of an al Qaeda connection by US intelligence agencies including the CIA, FBI, and NSA concluded that there was no evidence of cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda.

Like the WMD claim, it was quite frankly a lie.

For fucks sake, Saddam Hussien was running a secular Iraq!

Bin Laden believed that he was an "infidel" for doing so.


Cool. Clearly you do not in fact wish to know more.

No, I simply refuse to read the crap written by that "drink-soaked, former Trotskyist popinjay", as George Galloway quite neatly put it.

Here are some better resources:

Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches (http://dahrjamailiraq.com/index.php)

Electronic Iraq (http://electroniciraq.net/)

Whatever happened to "No war but the class war?"


Sadaam was, indeed, a threat.


No he was not.

Even the Bush administration knew this, yet you continue to believe this lie.

The rubbish that you gave from the Hitchens article, refers to the false claims of "terrorist" elements being present in Iraq.

All of Hitchens' arguments have been destroyed.

Most of it refers to Saddam's past record in aggression.


Sadaam, with or without WMD, was a brutal dictator who deserved to be overthrown.

Yes, but did tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis deserve to die for that?

The same Iraqi population that the US claimed to have liberated has been attacked and made to suffer by their so-called "liberators" since 1990. Why should anybody trust a country that supported Saddam to bring freedom to an oil-rich country which they plan to privatise?

How very revolutionary.


Or whatever. Tell that to the people who languished in Abu Ghraib prison BEFORE the invasion.


I'll completely ignore how you changed the topic.

Nice to see that you brought up Abu Ghraib.

The US has simply replaced the torturers.

The "new" Iraqi Police, as trained by the US occupiers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4718999.stm)


You have failed to explain why removing a fascist dictator is not revolutionary. I will keep the avatar, as you have not convinced me that Ho would be ashamed of or reject any of my positions.

Until you can at least understand that the nature of US foreign policy has undergone a revolutionary change, and that Bush intends in his foreign policy to spread the democratic revolution throughout the world of dictators, then you will continue in your incorrect analysis.

All you have done, is spew the same crap that Washington tells us, whilst backing it up with the rubbish that Hitchens writes.

Ho Chi Minh would be rolling in his grave, if he knew that someone using his face also supported the US occupation of Iraq.

[anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 02:59 AM
Will someone ban this man?

Thank you kindly, whoever you are. :ph34r:
why do you say this, because he has a valid point, and you do not agree, there is much truth in what he says, not enough facts are being presented as to why the war is "wrong". The very calling it "wrong" is wrong, in short, references to things must be made. If you do not believe in war for religious reasons, then quote specific passages of the Bible, or whatever religious text you read, that says war is "wrong". If you do not believe in it for cultural reasons, explain why. It is wrong, Bush is a loser, IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. I agree, though I do not support war, I do not have enough solid evidence to support my dislike, so i will not trying to convince anyone to agree with me. <_<

[Orthodox Marxist]

I am anti war lets look at some of the negative Impacts of that war

1.Between 20,000 and 50,000 Iraqi&#39;s have died since the start of the war
2.The entire war was based on propoganda lies and bad intelligence
3.The cost of the war itself in terms of economic cost
4.between 1000 to 2000 U.S soliders have died
5.As a direct result of the invasion of Iraq the U.S has exponentially increased anti americanism and hatred throughout the world
6.As a result of the war the U.S has dramatically increased terrorist activity in the world making other nations as well as themselves a target(london bombings)
7.The wars Impact on oil prices
8.Negative Impact for future world relations with middle east countries
9.Bush is an unapologetic mass murdering dumbass and a monkey could run the country better

[anarchy]

Originally posted by Red Marxist [email protected] 7 2005, 08:39 PM
I am anti war lets look at some of the negative Impacts of that war

1.Between 20,000 and 50,000 Iraqi&#39;s have died since the start of the war
2.The entire war was based on propoganda lies and bad intelligence
3.The cost of the war itself in terms of economic cost
4.between 1000 to 2000 U.S soliders have died
5.As a direct result of the invasion of Iraq the U.S has exponentially increased anti americanism and hatred throughout the world
6.As a result of the war the U.S has dramatically increased terrorist activity in the world making other nations as well as themselves a target(london bombings)
7.The wars Impact on oil prices
8.Negative Impact for future world relations with middle east countries
9.Bush is an unapologetic mass murdering dumbass and a monkey could run the country better
these things are very true, where are you getting this information from?

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:59 PM
Until you can at least understand that the nature of US foreign policy has undergone a revolutionary change, and that Bush intends in his foreign policy to spread the democratic revolution throughout the world of dictators, then you will continue in your incorrect analysis.
Yeah, this is what Bush&#39;s "democratic revolution" looks like:

- Bringing back former Ba&#39;athist generals to run torture camps
- Supporting death squads (the "Salvador Option")
- Leveling entire cities like Fallujah
- Rolling back the status of women in Iraq
- Backing neocolonial dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Egypt
- Funding the Israeli apartheid state as it continues attacking and bantustanizng the Palestinian people

It&#39;s the same old imperialism, justified with the same old racist "white man&#39;s burden."

[Orthodox Marxist]

Mostly what I have read In the past some documentaries a few web site etc I have photographic memory to a certain extent if something interests me I usually remember it

[GreenAffairz]

I think some people at the time thought war was good, well we all now know now that the war that the U.S led was just bs, they shouldn&#39;t have went to &#39;stop&#39; them. They have already killed many thousands and thousands of Iraqi&#39;s but they are still there now or am I wrong? Prices of oil has skyrocketed not leaving a good impact on anybody, I just dont see any reason for this war, although im not saying they should have sat around like ducks while terrorists bombed the U.S

[Orthodox Marxist]

except for reason 9 thats my own personal opinion of the man and all of his republican cronies

[GreenAffairz]

thats a good description of him.

[Orthodox Marxist]

thanks I knew George was full of b.s before the war even started he couldnt provide the world with any proof for war

oh yeah and I almost forgot the war was illegal and condemned by the united nations #10

I remember how when our hockey team played a game In the U.S at the beggining of the war they booed our national anthem because we didnt support their war of aggression

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by fats+Oct 8 2005, 12:52 AM--> (fats &#064; Oct 8 2005, 12:52 AM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 06:59 PM
Until you can at least understand that the nature of US foreign policy has undergone a revolutionary change, and that Bush intends in his foreign policy to spread the democratic revolution throughout the world of dictators, then you will continue in your incorrect analysis.
Yeah, this is what Bush&#39;s "democratic revolution" looks like:

- Bringing back former Ba&#39;athist generals to run torture camps
- Supporting death squads (the "Salvador Option")
- Leveling entire cities like Fallujah
- Rolling back the status of women in Iraq
- Backing neocolonial dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Egypt
- Funding the Israeli apartheid state as it continues attacking and bantustanizng the Palestinian people

It&#39;s the same old imperialism, justified with the same old racist "white man&#39;s burden." [/b]
Oh, and while we&#39;re on the topic of Bush&#39;s "democratic revolution," let&#39;s not forget how his administration:

1) kidnapped the democratically-elected president of Haiti in 2004

2) supported a coup against the democratically-elected president of Venezuela in 2002

[GreenAffairz]

he is really hated, everyone hates him&#33; yay lol

[anarchy]

Originally posted by Red Marxist [email protected] 7 2005, 08:53 PM
Mostly what I have read In the past some documentaries a few web site etc I have photographic memory to a certain extent if something interests me I usually remember it
all right, all we were saying is that in this case, opinions must be supported by solid evidence and fact. There is nothing wrong with your opinion at all, I will even say that I too do not particuarly like Bush, but I have noticed many peoples reasons for this and the war have been opinions, not fact. Thank you for shedding some light so to speak on this area.

[Sabocat]

That we invaded Iraq on the pretext of Weapons of Mass Destruction and that they had solid evidence that they were there is a lie. That&#39;s fact.

That up to 29,000 have been killed is considered fact.

Conservative Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/)

The Lancet in England has estimated more in the neighborhood of 100,000

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/)

With the entire annihilation of towns like Falluja, I find the Lancet most likely correct in their assesment.

With regards to the U.S. soldier death toll, that is a pretty publicized number of around 2000. The thing to remember about that number however is that is only the soldiers actually killed on the battlefield. Soldiers that have died as a result of injuries sustained in battle and died in a hospital are not part of that count. It has been released that approximately 9000 may have been killed as a result of the war. Other estimates put that number closer to 14-20,000.

Link (http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/10554)

[Technique3055]

Originally posted by anarchy+Oct 8 2005, 06:06 PM--> (anarchy @ Oct 8 2005, 06:06 PM)
Red Marxist [email protected] 7 2005, 08:53 PM
Mostly what I have read In the past some documentaries a few web site etc I have photographic memory to a certain extent if something interests me I usually remember it
all right, all we were saying is that in this case, opinions must be supported by solid evidence and fact. There is nothing wrong with your opinion at all, I will even say that I too do not particuarly like Bush, but I have noticed many peoples reasons for this and the war have been opinions, not fact. Thank you for shedding some light so to speak on this area. [/b]
An opinion is a great reason to dislike someone. If MY opinion is that I don&#39;t like Bush, that&#39;s reason enough for me.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Technique3055+Oct 8 2005, 03:01 PM--> (Technique3055 @ Oct 8 2005, 03:01 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 06:06 PM

Red Marxist [email protected] 7 2005, 08:53 PM
Mostly what I have read In the past some documentaries a few web site etc I have photographic memory to a certain extent if something interests me I usually remember it
all right, all we were saying is that in this case, opinions must be supported by solid evidence and fact. There is nothing wrong with your opinion at all, I will even say that I too do not particuarly like Bush, but I have noticed many peoples reasons for this and the war have been opinions, not fact. Thank you for shedding some light so to speak on this area.
An opinion is a great reason to dislike someone. If MY opinion is that I don&#39;t like Bush, that&#39;s reason enough for me. [/b]
Agreed. I have always thought that it&#39;s perfectly acceptable grounds to hate someone based on their opinion, whether it be Political, Racial, etc. I hate Republicans and Capitalists because while they may have a different "opinion" on things than I do, theya re still equally wrong in my eyes, and are my enemy. Same with Nazi, Racist scum. I don&#39;t give a fuck about their "opinions". I hate them with a sincere passion.

[anarchy]

Originally posted by Technique3055+Oct 8 2005, 03:01 PM--> (Technique3055 @ Oct 8 2005, 03:01 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 06:06 PM

Red Marxist [email protected] 7 2005, 08:53 PM
Mostly what I have read In the past some documentaries a few web site etc I have photographic memory to a certain extent if something interests me I usually remember it
all right, all we were saying is that in this case, opinions must be supported by solid evidence and fact. There is nothing wrong with your opinion at all, I will even say that I too do not particuarly like Bush, but I have noticed many peoples reasons for this and the war have been opinions, not fact. Thank you for shedding some light so to speak on this area.
An opinion is a great reason to dislike someone. If MY opinion is that I don&#39;t like Bush, that&#39;s reason enough for me. [/b]
yes, an opinion is a great reason to dislike someone. But the question is, in the case of presidential cases is that enough? I am not sure myself.

[anarchy]

Originally posted by Ownthink+Oct 8 2005, 03:05 PM--> (Ownthink @ Oct 8 2005, 03:05 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 06:06 PM

Red Marxist [email protected] 7 2005, 08:53 PM
Mostly what I have read In the past some documentaries a few web site etc I have photographic memory to a certain extent if something interests me I usually remember it
all right, all we were saying is that in this case, opinions must be supported by solid evidence and fact. There is nothing wrong with your opinion at all, I will even say that I too do not particuarly like Bush, but I have noticed many peoples reasons for this and the war have been opinions, not fact. Thank you for shedding some light so to speak on this area.
An opinion is a great reason to dislike someone. If MY opinion is that I don&#39;t like Bush, that&#39;s reason enough for me.
Agreed. I have always thought that it&#39;s perfectly acceptable grounds to hate someone based on their opinion, whether it be Political, Racial, etc. I hate Republicans and Capitalists because while they may have a different "opinion" on things than I do, theya re still equally wrong in my eyes, and are my enemy. Same with Nazi, Racist scum. I don&#39;t give a fuck about their "opinions". I hate them with a sincere passion. [/b]
do not misunderstand my point, an opinion is wonderful, and a great foundation, but is this the only reason? this is my question.

[Technique3055]

Originally posted by anarchy
yes, an opinion is a great reason to dislike someone. But the question is, in the case of presidential cases is that enough? I am not sure myself
I think we&#39;re having a communication gap in what is an opinion.

An opinion of one may or may not involve facts. If it&#39;s strictly your opinion, it doesn&#39;t matter. You could hate the world for no apparent reason, that&#39;s your opinion, I respect that. You may love some mass murderer for no apparent reason, that&#39;s your opinion, I respect that. I disagree, but you&#39;re entitled to it.

BUT, in many cases, especially like the one we&#39;re dealing with on this board, people base opinion on facts.

For example, "I dislike Bush because the war in Iraq has killed 26,000 people." The person&#39;s opinion "I dislike Bush..." is based on fact "war in Iraq has killed 26,000 people." I also think you&#39;re idea of a fact is a bit skewed. It doesn&#39;t need to have 10 links posted alongside it to be considered a fact.

[anarchy]

Originally posted by Technique3055+Oct 8 2005, 04:53 PM--> (Technique3055 @ Oct 8 2005, 04:53 PM)
anarchy
yes, an opinion is a great reason to dislike someone. But the question is, in the case of presidential cases is that enough? I am not sure myself
I think we&#39;re having a communication gap in what is an opinion.

An opinion of one may or may not involve facts. If it&#39;s strictly your opinion, it doesn&#39;t matter. You could hate the world for no apparent reason, that&#39;s your opinion, I respect that. You may love some mass murderer for no apparent reason, that&#39;s your opinion, I respect that. I disagree, but you&#39;re entitled to it.

BUT, in many cases, especially like the one we&#39;re dealing with on this board, people base opinion on facts.

For example, "I dislike Bush because the war in Iraq has killed 26,000 people." The person&#39;s opinion "I dislike Bush..." is based on fact "war in Iraq has killed 26,000 people." I also think you&#39;re idea of a fact is a bit skewed. It doesn&#39;t need to have 10 links posted alongside it to be considered a fact. [/b]
yes, you have some valid points. Believe me, i am not trying to hurt anyone&#39;s feelings or say that your OPINIONS do not matter, i was just wondering pretty much were you got your info. I of all people undestand how sacred an opinion can be. :(