Galloway vs. Hitchens

[Amusing Scrotum]

Not sure if this is the right forum for this topic, so feel free to move it if you wish.

On the news last night I saw some bits of the George Galloway, Christopher Hitchens deabate in Madison Square Gardens. They were debating Iraq, Galloway being against, Hitchens for. It seemed like a really good debate and I was just wondering if anyone from this board attended.

[Andy Bowden]

"Hitchens, a man who has always been willing to fight to the last drop of other peoples blood"


Quality :D


Basically just a series of insults from what I saw, but good nonetheless :P

[RedFear]

i would love to have seen this
does anyone know where i could go to see the whole thing?

[Amusing Scrotum]

"Hitchens, a man who has always been willing to fight to the last drop of other peoples blood"

:P


Basically just a series of insults from what I saw, but good nonetheless

From what I saw I thought Galloway won, though Hitchens got a couple of good insults in. The best one being about Galloway being friends with Saddam, Hitchens said "Since the Soviet Union and the Red Army went, Galloway has been desperate to find new thugs to befriend." That did bring a sly grin to my face.

Though the insults were well founded. Galloway is probably corrupt and Hitchens is a sell out.


i would love to have seen this
does anyone know where i could go to see the whole thing?

I'm searching for it on the internet right now. It was broadcast live on an American Radio Station. I don't know which one, but, it will probably have something on their website.

[Conghaileach]

I think that you might be able to listen to it at the address below...

http://kpftx.org/#galloway

[spartafc]

"Hitchens, a man who has always been willing to fight to the last drop of other peoples blood"

OH, NO HE DIDN'T!
He got served.
etc

[Commie Girl]

:lol: It is good for a laugh, I happen to like listening to Galloway. There is a link on
Democracy Now (http://www.democracynow.org/)and a link showing a rebroadcast:

The Grapple in the Big Apple
The Debate between George Galloway and Christopher Hitchens, moderated by
Amy Goodman on Wednesday evening will be broadcast on C-SPAN Book TV at the
following times:

Saturday, September 17 at 9:00 pm (EST)
Sunday, September 18 at 12:00 pm (EST)
Monday, September 19 at 5:30 am (EST)


I have no clue how to get this channel :(

[bolshevik butcher]

Galloway v the senate. Best fight ever. I hate galloway as an indidvidual but when he's kicking hte sneates ass you have to root for him.

[James]

i seem to think that i saw it advertised as being on Radio 4 tonight, at 10. I will check...

[James]

available in full on numerous sites. I'm watching it now from a guardian link.
"highlights" are on radio 4 tonight, at 10.15pm till 11pm.


Powerful words from hitchens: iraw was a "concentration camp above ground, and a mass grave below".


+ + +

EDIT:
Does anyone know where it is possible to get a transcript?

[James]

watched the two opening pieces. Does anyone actually think that galloway's was the best?
To me hitchens won hands down: style and content.

The guardian have an interesting review. What stuck out to me were the following 2 points:



(one) Mr Galloway stirred the crowd when he brought up the case of Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war protestor whose son died in Iraq last year and who has become the focus of fierce debate in the US. Repeating Mr Hitchens' scathing criticisms of Ms Sheehan, Mr Galloway said: "You are covered in the stuff you like to smear onto others. Not just me ... but people much more gentle than me, people like Cindy Sheehan ... who gave the life of her son for the war that you have come here to glory in."

Referring again to the Syria episode, Mr Hitchens asked: "Is it not rather revolting to appear in Damascus by the side of [Bashar al-]Assad [the Syrian president] and to praise the people who killed Casey Sheehan, and then to come to America and appeal to the emotions of his mother?"


...

(two)
But Mr Hitchens said he was "depressed by the ease with which a cheap point can get applause in the mouth of a really unscrupulous person. When I turned my head - which I tried not to do - it was like looking straight into the piggy eyes of fascism."




http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story...rticle_continue (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,12123,1571100,00.html#article_continue)


When i was trying to find a transcript (i failed, so if anyone has better luck please let me know) i came across hitchens review of F 9/11. Its a good read: especially the part near the end when he talks about Orwell.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/#ContinueArticle

[Amusing Scrotum]

watched the two opening pieces. Does anyone actually think that galloway's was the best?
To me hitchens won hands down: style and content.

Hitchens' opening argument regarding the war was, to be honest, very good. He was intelligent, calm and assured. However towards the end, he seemed to lose the plot, and, said a few things that even the most bigoted right wing politician, wouldn't dare to say.
Though what annoyed me most about Hitchens', was how he called the audience comrades. It got under my skin, how a sell out like Hitchens', had the front to use the word "comrade".
Although I view Galloways' political views as somewhat dubious. Personally I thought overall he won.


Galloway v the senate. Best fight ever. I hate galloway as an indidvidual but when he's kicking hte sneates ass you have to root for him.

I completely agree.

[James]

Hitchens' opening argument regarding the war was, to be honest, very good. He was intelligent, calm and assured. However towards the end, he seemed to lose the plot, and, said a few things that even the most bigoted right wing politician, wouldn't dare to say.


What comments are you refering to? I was listening to it whilst trying to do other stuff, so may have missed this.


Though what annoyed me most about Hitchens', was how he called the audience comrades.

Now i did pick up on this. I was paying extra attention because, if i remember correctly, he'd just been interupted by members of the audience who disagreed with what he was saying. When they started to stop shouting I think he said somethign along the lines of "it doesn't look good on TV comrades". i.e. he was taking the piss.
And rightly so, they should have been quite whilst he was doing his opening speech: he was right also, they did look bad on the video i watched.

Thats the only time i'm aware he said comrades in the opening speech. But like i said, i only paid extra attention because it started to get very heated. So he may well have said it other times too without me noticing.


It got under my skin, how a sell out like Hitchens', had the front to use the word "comrade".

Why exactly do you call him a sell out? I've only seen him do this, and i've just read his review on F9/11. The points he made in both seem credibly in my opinion.



Although I view Galloways' political views as somewhat dubious.


The man makes me sick. How could he suck up to saddam like that?

[Amusing Scrotum]

What comments are you refering to? I was listening to it whilst trying to do other stuff, so may have missed this.

It was towards the end of the debate. His last two or three answers. Personally I found his answers offensive.



Now i did pick up on this. I was paying extra attention because, if i remember correctly, he'd just been interupted by members of the audience who disagreed with what he was saying. When they started to stop shouting I think he said somethign along the lines of "it doesn't look good on TV comrades". i.e. he was taking the piss.
And rightly so, they should have been quite whilst he was doing his opening speech: he was right also, they did look bad on the video i watched.

Thats the only time i'm aware he said comrades in the opening speech. But like i said, i only paid extra attention because it started to get very heated. So he may well have said it other times too without me noticing.

He must have said it four of five times during the debate. I didn't like this, maybe I am a bit petty, but, I think calling someone comrade is a specific term that should only be used by Communists and maybe Anarchists.


Why exactly do you call him a sell out? I've only seen him do this, and i've just read his review on F9/11. The points he made in both seem credibly in my opinion.

He used to be a Trotskyist, now he is the liberal mouthpiece for far right American policy. Why did he change his views? In my opinion money, which makes him a sell out.


The man makes me sick. How could he suck up to saddam like that?

I'm not a fan of Galloway, but, I prefer him to many other politicians. He is the one of the best, of a bad bunch.

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, apparently respect is funded by a saudi prince as well. However he is one of the few good mps in patliment.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Yeh, apparently respect is funded by a saudi prince as well. However he is one of the few good mps in patliment.

Yeah he is dodgy, but, he is one of the only Socialists who speaks out in Parliament and manages to make the mainstream media.

[James]

how is he a good MP?

[bolshevik butcher]

He is willing to challenge the government on issues and speaks his mind. Unlike the other brainwashed zombies that make up mtuch of the labour parties mps.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 08:07 PM
how is he a good MP?
He is the one of a very few MPs who speaks the truth.

[James]

It was towards the end of the debate. His last two or three answers. Personally I found his answers offensive.

At the end of the debate? or his opening statement? I only watched the first half hour (the two opening statements).

I'm interested in what he said which was offensive. I must say though, GG started off straight away with being offensive. Also, how does a butterfly come from a slug?


He must have said it four of five times during the debate. I didn't like this, maybe I am a bit petty, but, I think calling someone comrade is a specific term that should only be used by Communists and maybe Anarchists.

Again, i can't really comment having only seen the first two speeches.

I appreciate you feel the word is for "true socialists": but its a word used by many. Indeed, the nazi soldiers refered to each other as comrade.

But i see your point.


He used to be a Trotskyist, now he is the liberal mouthpiece for far right American policy. Why did he change his views? In my opinion money, which makes him a sell out.


To be fair, his opening speech was very logical. Unlike galloways rambling incoherence.

Hitchens had strong points: Iraq was a concentration camp above ground and a mass grave below.

He said he was wrong in the early '90s. He explained his change in my opinion. He explained what would have happened if the anti war movement had had their way (kuwait would no longer exist etc etc).



I'd like to know some specific aspects of his argument you had issues with though. As i'm sure you can gather, i found myself agreeing with his opening speech, and being totally against GG.

True, bad bunch of MPs. But i do draw the line at telling a far worse mass murderer than bush, that you admire him!
Hitchens also made some good points regarding his many deep contradictions.

[Amusing Scrotum]

At the end of the debate? or his opening statement? I only watched the first half hour (the two opening statements).

At the end of the debate.


I'm interested in what he said which was offensive. I must say though, GG started off straight away with being offensive. Also, how does a butterfly come from a slug?

Listen to it, it just sounded wrong what Hitchens said at the end. It was like he had lost the plot slightly.
Also don't butterflys come from caterpillars? Maybe its different in Scotland. :lol:


Again, i can't really comment having only seen the first two speeches.

I appreciate you feel the word is for "true socialists": but its a word used by many. Indeed, the nazi soldiers refered to each other as comrade.

But i see your point.

Its petty I know, but, it still bugs me all the same.


To be fair, his opening speech was very logical. Unlike galloways rambling incoherence.

Hitchens had strong points: Iraq was a concentration camp above ground and a mass grave below.

He said he was wrong in the early '90s. He explained his change in my opinion. He explained what would have happened if the anti war movement had had their way (kuwait would no longer exist etc etc).



I'd like to know some specific aspects of his argument you had issues with though. As i'm sure you can gather, i found myself agreeing with his opening speech, and being totally against GG.

Yeah I'll give him credit, Hitchens was pretty good early on, its just later in the debate, like I said, he seemed to completely lose it.


True, bad bunch of MPs. But i do draw the line at telling a far worse mass murderer than bush, that you admire him!

There is some debate whether Galloway was saying that to Saddam or the Iraqi people.


Hitchens also made some good points regarding his many deep contradictions.

Some of Galloways political views are weird, especially concerning the Middle East.

[James]

He speaks the truth?
Do you also wish that you could have traveled to visit a dictator who gassed many, tortured more, to salute his “courage, strength and indefatigability”?


Well if thats what a socialist is: i'm NO SOCIALIST.

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, i wouldnt call galloway a soiclaist He's really a bit of a reformist. He's made stupid mistakes a lot, but he also makes good points and stands up to blair.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 08:30 PM
He speaks the truth?
Do you also wish that you could have traveled to visit a dictator who gassed many, tortured more, to salute his “courage, strength and indefatigability”?


Well if thats what a socialist is: i'm NO SOCIALIST.
That was indeed a mistake on Galloway's behalf.

He has stated that he was not referring to Saddam Hussein specifically, but the Iraqi people as a whole.

Galloway was no friend of Saddam Hussein, and Saddam Hussein was not very friendly towards Galloway either.

[James]

At the end of the debate.

Got you. I'll listen to it tomorrow if i can.


Listen to it, it just sounded wrong what Hitchens said at the end. It was like he had lost the plot slightly.


I'll tell you what i think tomorrow.

But on losing the plot: surely galloway did with his opening sentence?? As you said "don't butterflys come from caterpillars? Maybe its different in Scotland".

Aye, it must be wierd up narf.


There is some debate whether Galloway was saying that to Saddam or the Iraqi people.

hahaha, seriously mate?
He was a totalitarian dictator, so its not like he could even say that he was saying it to the people's elected representative: on behalf of the people.

It seems quite clear in the video who he was saluting.

He could have made it dam clear if he'd meant the iraqi people. You didn't see Benn making such an arse out of himself when he went to iterview saddam:
http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/02/week_...addam_benn.html (http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/02/week_1/04_saddam_benn.html)


Some of Galloways political views are weird, especially concerning the Middle East.

What do you mean by wierd though?

[James]

I'd believe the words you have spoken, if he then didn't go and praise the "resistance". How is blowing up a car surronded by crowds justified? Its bloody sick, motivated by individuals who want to spark a civil war (indeed they comented afterwards that it was an attack on those who did not follow their brand of islam). Simily, he justified those who murdered young men who don't have jobs, who join the police to live and help rebuild their country.

Again, if this is socialism: i'm certainly not a socialist. I don't want to be associated with anyone who thinks like that.



+ + +
also, how was it a mistake? Was he hung over that day? Or did he judge that it had been a mistake after: after he'd had time to examine the PR consequences of him saluting a mass murdering fascist?

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 08:44 PM
I'd believe the words you have spoken, if he then didn't go and praise the "resistance". How is blowing up a car surronded by crowds justified? Its bloody sick, motivated by individuals who want to spark a civil war (indeed they comented afterwards that it was an attack on those who did not follow their brand of islam). Simily, he justified those who murdered young men who don't have jobs, who join the police to live and help rebuild their country.

Again, if this is socialism: i'm certainly not a socialist. I don't want to be associated with anyone who thinks like that.
Any Iraqi that chooses to fight against the Occupation has my full backing.

Galloway has not condoned the killing of the innocent Iraqi people by the followers of sectarian Islamists.

Anyway, James, many people already believe that you are "certainly not a Socialist."

[Amusing Scrotum]

But on losing the plot: surely galloway did with his opening sentence?? As you said "don't butterflys come from caterpillars? Maybe its different in Scotland".

Aye, it must be wierd up narf.

Galloway never seems particually sane, however Hitchens was supposed to be the sensible one. Its hard to explain how exactly Hitchens lost the plot, once you've listened to it maybe you'll understand. To me his answers just seemed kind of strange towards the end.
Also I just looked it up on the internet and Scottish butterflys are different, as are Scottish cats which can change sex. It must be something in the air. ;)


hahaha, seriously mate?
He was a totalitarian dictator, so its not like he could even say that he was saying it to the people's elected representative: on behalf of the people.

It seems quite clear in the video who he was saluting.

He could have made it dam clear if he'd meant the iraqi people. You didn't see Benn making such an arse out of himself when he went to iterview saddam:

Yeah he probably was saluting Saddam, but hey, so did Rumsfeld.

Tony Benn would never make an arse of himself, hes to clever. Plus he can walk on water. ;)


What do you mean by wierd though?

He seems to ally himself a bit too closely with extremists and rogue states.

[James]

Any Iraqi that chooses to fight against the Occupation has my full backing.


How do you define the occupation? The american soldiers?
Or do you also include the iraqi army?
The iraqi police?
Construction workers?
iraqi labourers?
iraqi's wanting jobs whilst the land is "occupied"?
(http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/01/19/galloway_resistance_does_not_target_its_own_civili ans.php)

GG for example stated:
"These poor Iraqis, ragged people with their sandals, with their Kalashnikovs, with the lightest most basic weapons-are writing the names of their cities and towns in the stars, with 145 military operations every day which has made the country ungovernable."

And who suffers from the country being ungovernable?
It means the coalition will be there for much longer.
It means people can't get jobs.
It means people die more.


I strongly suggest you read this socialist open letter:
http://www.labourfriendsofiraq.org.uk/archives/000155.html



Anyway, James, many people already believe that you are "certainly not a Socialist."

I agree that i do not engage in the personality cult of george galloway. Neither do i, nor ever have supported the iraqi fascist dictator, baathist gurrillas, or islamic militants. No, i don't think the coalition should pull out tomorrow: because i realise this would result in more suffering.
Oh, and nor do i think a revolution is possible in the UK in the forseeable future.

So yes, to many "socialists" on this board, i'm not "one of the gang".

Indeed, i'm extremely happy to not be in that gang.

[James]

i didn't know about this site before. Its actually really good!


See:
http://www.labourfriendsofiraq.org.uk/archives/000181.html


Develops some great points regarding GG and his type of "support of the resistance".

[James]

This blog (http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/2005/09/galloway_slugs.html) puts it well:

"Hitchens points out the fact that Galloway has praised one dictator after the other, first buddying up to Saddam's regime, and now that he is gone, he is praising Assad in Syria.

Galloway's retort? Hitchens is a slug! Worse than a chimney sweep!

That was more or less how things went down. Hitchens caught Galloway with his pants around his ankles numerous times, and Galloway spat out his trademark smokescreens with irrelevant nonsense. The crowd cheered Galloway on when he launched ad hominem attacks on Hitchens, and booed Hitchens for exposing Galloway's support of killers in Iraq, and the dictator in Syria and Saddam Hussein."



You will find here (http://www.labourfriendsofiraq.org.uk/archives/000579.html) an interview with hitchens, some others, and most importantly an anarchist who seems to symbolise the thinking of many on this board.

[bolshevik butcher]

I have to say intifada that seems a rather obnoxious statement. I dont support terror attacks on civillian attacks. I view 'Coalition forces' as viable targets.

[coda]

CSPAN2 running it Saturday 8:00 CST
as is CSPAN BookTV Saturday, September 17 at 9:00 pm EST and Sunday, September 18 at 12:00 pm and Monday, September 19 at 5:30 am

http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp


Debate on the War in Iraq
George Galloway and Christopher Hitchens

Description: From the City University of New York, authors George Galloway and Christopher Hitchens debate the war in Iraq. George Galloway, opposed to the Iraq War, is a member of the British Parliment and the author of "Mr. Galloway Goes to Washington: The Brit Who Set Congress Straight About Iraq." The book tells the story of his recent appearance before the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, where he verbally attacked U.S. Senators while responding to charges related to Iraq's oil-for-food program. Christopher Hitchens, in favor of the Iraq War, is the author of "Love, Poverty, and War: Journeys and Essays" and "Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship." "Democracy Now!" radio host Amy Goodman moderates. She is the author of "The Exception to the Rulers: Exposing Oily Politicians, War Profiteers, and the Media That Love Them."

Author Bio: George Galloway is the Respect Party's Member of Parliament for Bethnal Green and Bow in London. He won the seat after his expulsion from the Labour Party for his opposition to the Iraq War. Christopher Hitchens is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair and a visiting professor of liberal studies at the New School in New York.

[coda]

If anybody wants to see it.. it is on t.v. now

on C-span 2. Will be on for 2 hours.

[Des]

ha that was very entertaining... :lol:

hitchens took quite a huff towards the end it seems..

[Intifada]

(James)

How do you define the occupation?

Any troop from the "Coalition of the Killing", the many mercenaries and anybody that aids the oppression of the Iraqi people.

In regards to the Iraqi police force and other workers, I feel for them because they have no choice in the matter. They are unemployed and need the money to help feed their starving families.


And who suffers from the country being ungovernable?
It means the coalition will be there for much longer.
It means people can't get jobs.
It means people die more.


The chaotic situation in Iraq must be expected.

The US and its allies invaded Iraq not to liberate the people, but to advance their position in the region. Do you think they care that Iraqis are dying everyday? They certainly have had absolutely no problem in harming them, having done so for more than a decade.


I agree that i do not engage in the personality cult of george galloway. Neither do i, nor ever have supported the iraqi fascist dictator, baathist gurrillas, or islamic militants.

I was thinking more along the lines of you being an apologist for imperialism.


No, i don't think the coalition should pull out tomorrow: because i realise this would result in more suffering.


The occupation is the root of all the problems.


Oh, and nor do i think a revolution is possible in the UK in the forseeable future.


Nor do I to be honest.

I, however, unlike you it seems, do support a violent popular uprising against the capitalist system.


Indeed, i'm extremely happy to not be in that gang.

As am I.

(Clenched Fist)

I have to say intifada that seems a rather obnoxious statement.

What was "obnoxious" about my statement?

Please, do tell.

[coda]

That was freaking entertaining-- just got done watching it. Thanks to whoever started the thread. it will re-air one more time tonight--early this morning at 5 am same channel.

Galloway pretty much ate him up. the memorable remark for me is when Galloway said we were witnessing the metamorphous of a butterfly into a slug who trailed slime behind him. Indeed!!!


here is the Chomsky-Hitchens 9-11 debate if anyone's interested.

http://humanities.psydeshow.org/political/chomsky-1.htm

[coda]

<<< "As you said "don&#39;t butterflys come from caterpillars? Maybe its different in Scotland".>>>

what he said exactly, was that we were witnessing for the first time in history of a butterfly who turned into a slug...

[James]

A.S:
I&#39;ve finally listened, well actually watched, the whole thing.

Sadly, I think your comments are without basis. His use of the word comrade toward the end was totally justified, as he was talking about his comrades in kurdistan.
It is justified in basic terms because he formed a bond with them. Indeed, at 1:50 mins he explained how American Prospect described/explained his "motive" behind his "betrayal of the left". Basically, the journalist explained it as being "his old friendship and solidarity with secular leftist Iraqi Kurdish forces". Hitchens explained that he made new friends, and didn&#39;t loose others unless they deserted him. He also stated that it was "Well worth loosing them" for the "comrades" he has made.

Here we see the word comrade being justly used in the soldier/brotherhood manner, and left wing sence.

I totally agree with him. Lets face it, the secular iraqi left is more important (and def more worthy of friendship) than the demagouge galloway, who prefers to support fascist dictators (note the plural).

Also AS, what right wing comments were you refering to AS?
Simily,
Yeah I&#39;ll give him credit, Hitchens was pretty good early on, its just later in the debate, like I said, he seemed to completely lose it.

I strongly disagree. I don&#39;t even see how you could think this.

It seemed to me that hitchens succeeded in achieving the higher quality of debate throughout the debate. Look at galloway: the first thing he does is insults hitchens. The general quality of what galloway said, and the manner with which he presented it, was substantially lower than hitchen&#39;s. It is also worth remembering that the crowd was 2/3 galloway supporters. On several occasions they tried to shout him down.

[h&s]

The chaotic situation in Iraq must be expected.

The US and its allies invaded Iraq not to liberate the people, but to advance their position in the region. Do you think they care that Iraqis are dying everyday? They certainly have had absolutely no problem in harming them, having done so for more than a decade.

Do you actually think that the &#39;resistance&#39; will liberate the people though? Do you think that they care that Iraqis are dying every day? Do they have a problem in harming them?
I think the answer is no on all counts - the resistance may &#39;liberate&#39; the people from the occupation, but what they will replace it with will be no better. They don&#39;t give a shit that Iraqi people are dying every day - they are killing them, and enjoying it.
Where is the base of this &#39;resistance&#39; that you blindly support all parts of? Is it based on the people, the workers of Iraq? Do the people of Iraq have any say in what the resistance does?
The resistance is not on the side of Iraq - it is on the side of sectarian division, conflict and theocracy.
Support the Iraqi people, their communities, and their unions, not the &#39;Islamic&#39; terrorists living as parasites off a genuine struggle.


I was thinking more along the lines of you being an apologist for imperialism.
Aren&#39;t you an apoligist for terrorism? Is that any different?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Also AS, what right wing comments were you refering to AS?

I&#39;m thinking of, in particular, his comments regarding Hurricane Katrina. They seemed out of sync with what any Lefty or even Liberal would say. He just seemed to go a bit nutty towards the end in my opinion. Like Galloway with his tirades of insults, had worn Hitchens down.


The general quality of what galloway said, and the manner with which he presented it, was substantially lower than hitchen&#39;s.

Hitchens arguments were more coherent and intelligent, however, Galloways sheer presence "on the stump". Swung it for me. I know style over substance isn&#39;t a good way to judge political debates. Its just I find Galloway a great orator, capable of rousing passion in me, something which you don&#39;t see in mainstream politics any more.

[Intifada]

Do you actually think that the &#39;resistance&#39; will liberate the people though?

At the moment, no.

It needs to be more organised.


Do you think that they care that Iraqis are dying every day?

I doubt the likes of "Al Qaeda in Iraq" care, though I do not support them, and nor have I ever considered them to be a part of a resistance against the Occupation.

Like I have already stated, any Iraqi who picks up a gun or any other weapon and uses it against Occupation Forces or their lackeys, has my full support. That resistance does not include terrorists who harm Iraqi civilians.


the resistance may &#39;liberate&#39; the people from the occupation, but what they will replace it with will be no better.

You are mixing what I see as the resistance with the terrorists that harm innocent people. I do not support those who harm Iraqi civilians.


Where is the base of this &#39;resistance&#39; that you blindly support all parts of?

I do not "blindly" support "all parts" of the insurgency.


The resistance is not on the side of Iraq - it is on the side of sectarian division, conflict and theocracy.


That is not the resistance I support.


Support the Iraqi people, their communities, and their unions, not the &#39;Islamic&#39; terrorists living as parasites off a genuine struggle.


Exactly.


Aren&#39;t you an apoligist for terrorism?

Um... no.

[James]

Any troop from the "Coalition of the Killing",

Genious&#33; Wish i could think of such witty slogans.

So, sofar you include coalition troops (what about engineers, repairing iraq&#39;s infrastructure?).



the many mercenaries

Like?


and anybody that aids the oppression of the Iraqi people.

"anyone that aids": well what do you mean by aid?
The islamist fascists would argue that aiding the occupation is voting in the elections.

Where do you draw the line in the sand?

But please, tell me what you mean by aid.

Do you realise that your stance suggests that you think american capitalism is the only source of oppression in iraq?

Who oppressed iraqi&#39;s more: bush/blair: or saddam?

Who would oppress the people more: a fascist state, or a democratic capitalist iraq?
By the way, "democratic" would also not ensure capitalist certainty, there is still a left wing iraqi movement, although it is suffering great attacks from fascists, who no doubt come under your umberrela term "resistance".
Afterall, left wingers running in elections are "aiding the oppression of iraqis". Damn you and your logic: it is most repulsive. As well as aiding to fascists.



In regards to the Iraqi police force and other workers, I feel for them because they have no choice in the matter. They are unemployed and need the money to help feed their starving families.

I&#39;m sure the relatives and friends of those murdered by your noble "resistance" are over the moon to have you "feel for them".

The war happened, get over it.

The existing situation is that iraq is being rebuilt. Partly by the coalition. Iraq has no standing army: it needs the coalition.
It also needs the coalition to police iraq: because there is a shortage of policemen.
Why? Because the police are "aiding the oppression of the people"; thus are murdered by the resistance.

Don&#39;t you see the massive contradictions in your logic?
The only way the coalition is going to leave, is when the administration asks it to. It isn&#39;t going to do so, untill it can defend and police itself.
However, the resistance makes it hard for iraq to defend and police itself: which in turn reduces iraq&#39;s independence.

As hitchens (roughly) put it in his closing speech:
"You would have more to be proud of if u could after tonight point to something that you have done to help build up the new iraq: point to something you were doing to help the Iraqi women organizations – who have to combat fundamentalists, emancipation of kurdistan etc etc
Why don’t you think about the possible nobility of that alternative?
Because to offer your solidarity with the 154 operations that are sabotaguing that process is to be hopelessly covered in shame. It is something you will look back upon with real regret. Its not too late: there are many many outlets for your compassion, your internationalism: many iraqi’s are crying out for your help
do not appear to be deaf on a point as important as this."



The chaotic situation in Iraq must be expected.

The US and its allies invaded Iraq not to liberate the people, but to advance their position in the region. Do you think they care that Iraqis are dying everyday? They certainly have had absolutely no problem in harming them, having done so for more than a decade.



You said this in reply to my statement:
"And who suffers from the country being ungovernable?
It means the coalition will be there for much longer.
It means people can&#39;t get jobs.
It means people die more."


You do not address my comments at all. You merely mean to suggest that the "resistance" (killing aid workers, killing election workers, killing police men) is inoocent of the consequences of its murderous actions.

Of course they care iraqi&#39;s are dying. Remember: your insanely "definition" of the occupation also covers the various aid workers, and other "agents of the occupation". Of course they care on humanist grounds, even if bush doesn&#39;t.

More cynically, even if bush and blair don&#39;t (which i find a silly suggestion) care on humanist grounds: they sure as hell care for their own selfish political reasons.
Do you really think that they want iraqi&#39;s dying?

And you can&#39;t say "iraqi&#39;s" like that: for the past decade nato has provided a safe haven in the north of iraq. The mass murder carried out by the previous regieme was also a reason to topple saddam: this was an aspect of the coalitions argument/reasoning at the UN.


You are incredibly stupid if you really think the coalition want chaos in iraq.


I was thinking more along the lines of you being an apologist for imperialism

My gosh, this is further evidence which suggests you are "incredibly stupid".
On two grounds.


One, i am not an imperialism apologist.
(And even if i was...)
Two, get a dictionary and look up socialism/socialist. It does not mention imperialism in any shape or form. Therefore, your assumption is wrong that it is impossible for a imperialism apologist (which i am not) to also be a socialist.



The occupation is the root of all the problems.

what dogmatic nonsense is that?

You seriously think iraq would have been better off if america had overthrown the saddam regieme, and then left?

For that is what you are advocating.

Once the war (which was one between bush, blair and saddam) was over, i.e. saddam&#39;s regieme had fallen, the whole issue changed fundamentally. Compare it to pandoras box if you will.
I was with you before the war ended: i shouted with you "no you idiot, don&#39;t open it&#33;". But they did open it. Once it was open, by its very nature, it was impossible to close.

Just as you can&#39;t undo the war.


Now that the coalition have destroyed the iraqi political system, the least they can do is make sure a new one (democratic of course: i&#39;m sure thats what we all want?) is in place, and the inferstructure is repaired. i.e. a democracy is established, and the nation has the economic ability to make sure there is prosperity and stabililty.

Do you want another fascist in control of iraq: or a democracy?
That is what it comes down to.



Nor do I to be honest.

I, however, unlike you it seems, do support a violent popular uprising against the capitalist system.


Thus is further evidence of your stupidity.

Its impossible at the moment: so is irrelevent.

Gosh, its like us arguing whether the revolutionary government should all wear red hats or black/red hats.

Its irrelevant to the current situation&#33;
As well as this discussion.






The "stop the war coalition" and its various inbred relatives often quote the death statistics: indeed, on many occasions the mere recieting of such figures qualifies as a "justified statement": a "strong argument" for complete and immediate withdrawal.

Think how many more would have died if iraq was left with the massive political vacuum that existed, and still does to a lesser extent, post saddam. It would have been civil war; with either the result being fragementation, and/or the establishment of another totalitarian.
But fascism is better than (in this case democratic enforcing) capitalist imperialism to you?

I would rather see a democratic iraq emerge, than another fascist regieme.

The strongest chance of this happening, is with the aid of the coalition. This may see like heresy to many here: but it is simply the lesser of two evils.
I take the side of democacy.
You seem to take the side of chaos and fascism: anything but a liberal democracy&#33;&#33;

I think you have some serious problems with your priorities.

I would rather be an apologist for capitalism imperialism if it means democracy, rather than your altenative: fascism&#33; but at least no american presence.

bah, such a view makes me sick, and sad.



As stated though, the war is over. The rebuilding of iraq is now what is happening. As is well known, the coalition will leave as soon as the iraqi government asks it to do so.
The government were elected by the iraqi people: true some fascists tried to prevent this from happening: murdering those seen to be "aiding The Occupation". Or put another way: they murdered IRAQI&#39;s who were trying to improve their country, by starting the democratic process.

How socialists can actuall side with fascism is beyond me: supporting the fascist war on the iraqi democratic movement is sickening.
As was supporting those who murdered UN workers.
As was supporting those who mudered AID workers. Christ sake, THINK for a second.
Ideology is often refered to as the "lense" with which someone views the world. Your "anti imperialism" lense blinds you. You view all American and co action as being imperialist: therefore, by narrow thinking, all anti coalition work is anti imperialism.

For all its faults, the coalition IS trying to establish a democratic process in iraq.
It isn&#39;t "placing a friendly admin" in saddams place: the iraqi people have their say. The constitution (drawn up by iraqis) has to agreed to by the vast majority, across the nation. Chances are the current cons&#39;t will not pass the referendum, because the minority ethnic group which had power under saddam refused to vote. Therefore the cons&#39;t does not possibly reflect their wishes. Ironically, the only way the cons&#39;t will fail, is if these people now vote in the referendum (THUS participating in the democractic process, THUS "aiding the occupation", by giving it legitiamacy).

This is what ammuses me most about your idiotic "logic". Once the vast majority of iraqi&#39;s vote in the referendum (which is bound to happen), they have all aided "The Evil Capitalist Occupation". Thus you shall have to support your small band of left over "resistance" fighters (as no doubt some will loose the way and end up aiding the occupation by voting) systematically murder the vast majority of the iraqi population.

[James]

AS

ah ha, well i must confess i skipped a section when they got on the hurricane subject because i was short of time. I think i rejoined when hitchens was saying something like the army has learnt some skills in iraq which are relevant to new orleans.


But please, beyond that (or include it if you wish), please give me some specific comments he made? I agree that he clearly got tired toward the end, but i honestly don&#39;t see where you are coming from with your earlier statement.



Hitchens arguments were more coherent and intelligent, however, Galloways sheer presence "on the stump". Swung it for me. I know style over substance isn&#39;t a good way to judge political debates. Its just I find Galloway a great orator, capable of rousing passion in me, something which you don&#39;t see in mainstream politics any more.


the guy supports dictators.

essentially what you are saying is that hitchens argument was more coherent and intelligent: but you prefer galloway because of his "skill"?

You prefered his style (which i thought was awful - i liked it when he repeated "do you want me to list the dictatorships hitchens supports" several times, and then hitchens said "yes yes, get on with it". He then listen them, and hitchens demonstrated in turn how he did not support the dictatorships at all: indeed, he supported the democratic movements fighting these regiemes)??

[James]

i hope h and s doesn&#39;t mind, but i feel i must comment:

"Like I have already stated, any Iraqi who picks up a gun or any other weapon and uses it against Occupation Forces or their lackeys, has my full support. That resistance does not include terrorists who harm Iraqi civilians."


BAH
Your logic justifies the islamist fascist actions.
Its possible to argue using your logic that any target is justified.

Sadly for you, the "resistance" don&#39;t all leave calling cards after an attack (or murder). Therefore, you don&#39;t know whether you are supporting the next saddam clone, the next religious verison of saddam, a religious fundamentalist seeking to cause civil war, or simply a nationalist who doesn&#39;t want americans and brits in iraq.

That is your problem.


You are mixing what I see as the resistance with the terrorists that harm innocent people. I do not support those who harm Iraqi civilians

No he didn&#39;t. The problem is that you don&#39;t actually have a stance. You are simply "against america". You therefore, metaphorically speaking, get into bed with anyone who is against america. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Even if we accept your argument though that you only support murderers who don&#39;t have a religion (an interesting theory in that part of the world): you still ignore hands&#39;s question.

What do you think will emerge in place of the coalition favoured democratic process?
Considering that the "resistance" tried to murder anyone involved in democratic elections.... and also that your "resistance" is, as you admited, not a coherent body.


I think the answer is that you simply don&#39;t care, as long as it isn&#39;t a liberal capitalist democracy.


That is not the resistance I support.

again this is your problem.
You support the resistance.
The resitance is anyone resisting the coalition and anyone who aids them.

You then pick and mix which elements of the resistance you like.

You need to be more precise with what you call the resistance. Problem is, you can&#39;t be sure who and what makes up the resistance.
From where i&#39;m sitting, it seems like a bunch of murderers who simply don&#39;t want a democracy.

Instead of causing so many problems for yourself why not support the democratic left in iraq? Or even the hungry people of iraq who want to work, to feed their families (who you think should be shot)



um... no.

actually you are.
You support the murdering of civilians if they support "The Occupation". This means anyone who votes.

[Amusing Scrotum]

That was freaking entertaining-- just got done watching it. Thanks to whoever started the thread.

My pleasure comrade. :)


But please, beyond that (or include it if you wish), please give me some specific comments he made? I agree that he clearly got tired toward the end, but i honestly don&#39;t see where you are coming from with your earlier statement.

At the moment I&#39;m a bit strapped for time, got alot on over the next few days, so I&#39;ll try to get round to listening to the debate again, within the next week or so. Once I&#39;ve done this, I&#39;ll give you the segments and quotes regarding the parts of the debate I was referring to. Just so you know I&#39;m not avoiding the issue.


the guy supports dictators.

Not something I agree with, in any way or for any reason.


essentially what you are saying is that hitchens argument was more coherent and intelligent: but you prefer galloway because of his "skill"?

I know its a somewhat superficial argument, its just I find Galloway a very good and convincing speaker. Who, in my opinion, manages to dominate debates and win them, even with sometimes flawed arguments.


You prefered his style (which i thought was awful - i liked it when he repeated "do you want me to list the dictatorships hitchens supports" several times, and then hitchens said "yes yes, get on with it". He then listen them, and hitchens demonstrated in turn how he did not support the dictatorships at all: indeed, he supported the democratic movements fighting these regiemes)??

From a personal perspective, I don&#39;t particually like the politics of either of the men. So from my view, which isn&#39;t really that biased towards one or the other, I thought Galloway shaded the debate. Hitchens started the stronger, however, I feel in the end Galloway pegged him back and deflated Hitchens.
Add to that Galloways supreme control at the end of the debate, basically making himself the chair and ending the battle, somewhat cheekily. It all adds up to Galloway, in my opinion, being the more effective of the two.


here is the Chomsky-Hitchens 9-11 debate if anyone&#39;s interested.

A very good debate. Both of these towering intellects, make some very good points. However, I couldn&#39;t help getting the feeling that Chomsky was somewhat disgusted that Hitchens took it upon himself, to challenge Chomskys opinions out of the blue, almost trying to goad Chomsky into a full blown, hostile battle.

[h&s]

I doubt the likes of "Al Qaeda in Iraq" care, though I do not support them, and nor have I ever considered them to be a part of a resistance against the Occupation.

Sorry, I misunderstood your position.


Like I have already stated, any Iraqi who picks up a gun or any other weapon and uses it against Occupation Forces or their lackeys, has my full support
But doesn&#39;t that mean that you (indirectly) support the organisations that they are part of? As all organisations like the ones in Iraq, be they good or bad, are made up of ordianary Iraqis who have picked up guns to oppose the occupation. Most of these organisations promote sectarian conflict, homophobia, and oppress women.
And how do you differentiate between the elements you support and the ones you don&#39;t?



the resistance may &#39;liberate&#39; the people from the occupation, but what they will replace it with will be no better.



You are mixing what I see as the resistance with the terrorists that harm innocent people. I do not support those who harm Iraqi civilians.

No I am not. I am talking about the parts of the resistance such as the Mehdi Army, which make up a very large proportion of the resistance in many areas. If these elements of the resistance are successful we will see an &#39;Islamic Republic&#39; of Iraq, a theocracy like Iran.
Would that be better than an imperialist-run Iraq?

[citizen_snips]

George Galloway isn&#39;t an evil man, I&#39;m pretty sure of that, though he has managed to annoy probably everyone on earth by now, he did shake hands with Saddam Hussein and he does tend towards shouting insults as a style of argument.

The reason I can&#39;t HATE him as such is because I think its great when people in politics actually have a bit of passion, rather than the dull, overly-cautious career politicians we&#39;re overrun with round here. Nobody will complain much about what they say because their sole purpose in politics is maintenance of the status quo and saying nothing to offend anyone. If Anne McGuire (not heard of her? not surprised...) were to leap to her feet and shout down her opposition round here, possibly calling them gin-sodden Trotskyists*, or slugs, or just getting angry about something, then I might have been able to dredge up a tiny bit of respect for her. She&#39;d have shown that she is actually a human being, rather than just another of Blair&#39;s spiritless drones.

As far as the war goes, I think that the people in Iraq who wanted Saddam out should have been assisted in overthrowing him themselves, there should not have been an invasion, and the prolonged occupation is completely unjustifiable.




*Personally I wouldn&#39;t have been that insulted - I do like gin, almost as much as I like Trotsky&#33;

[h&s]

The reason I can&#39;t HATE him as such is because I think its great when people in politics actually have a bit of passion, rather than the dull, overly-cautious career politicians we&#39;re overrun with round here.
Its just a shame that he never attends parliament, isn&#39;t it?
Regardless of what they say, any MP that does not do his job (for which he is payed over £50,000) is never going to get my support.


there should not have been an invasion, and the prolonged occupation is completely unjustifiable.
Just to make it clear, I do not in any way support any part of the occupation.

[Intifada]

(James)

Genious&#33; Wish i could think of such witty slogans

I cannot take credit for that "slogan."


Like?

Dirty Warriors (http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/notebook/2004/11/11_200.html)

The former Serbian paramilitaries, Chilean soldiers that worked for Pinochet and former apartheid security agents from South Africa.


The islamist fascists would argue that aiding the occupation is voting in the elections.


I disagree with those "Islamist fascists."


Where do you draw the line in the sand?


Like I have said, the civilians of Iraq are not legitimate targets, in my opinion. There is no justification in tarring those who have no choice but to work, with those who are actively supporting the occupation.


Do you realise that your stance suggests that you think american capitalism is the only source of oppression in iraq?


No, my stance is that American imperialism is the root of all the problems in Iraq.


Who oppressed iraqi&#39;s more: bush/blair: or saddam?


America and Britain have probably caused just about the same amount of suffering, if not more, in Iraq than their ex-pal Saddam Hussein did.

When Saddam was in power during the 80s, it was Britain and America that aided him in his merciless slaughter of his own people, as well as Iranians.

When Saddam Hussein annoyed his friends in the West by invading Kuwait, however, the US stopped helping Saddam kill innocent people, letting him do it himself, whilst themselves killing tens of thousands of more Iraqi innocents as well.

Then came the brutal sanctions, with which the US and UK murdered over a million innocent Iraqi civilians, most of whom were children. Estimates do vary, but they agree on the fact that hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed.

After more than ten years of such suffering, the Americans and British decided to invade and occupy the country, which has resulted in thousands of more deaths. Again, estimates vary from around 30000 to around 100000 innocent deaths.


Who would oppress the people more: a fascist state, or a democratic capitalist iraq?


Since when was a "Capitalist Democracy" set up in Iraq?

All I can see is a Puppet Government that serves US interests, something worse than the "Capitalist Democracy" we see in places such as the US itself.

In fact, the "new" Iraq still contains the fascist elements that one could see during Saddam&#39;s reign of terror.

Iraq police accused of torture (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4718999.stm)


there is still a left wing iraqi movement, although it is suffering great attacks from fascists, who no doubt come under your umberrela term "resistance".


Yes, the Bush Administration made sure that the Iraqi Labour movement would be supressed the day it gained control of Iraq.

When Paul Bremer began his tenure as head of the occupation in Iraq, and after he fired half a million state workers, he passed a series of laws that were intended to entice multinational companies to invest in Iraq.

Funnily enough, the only thing that remained of Saddam Hussein&#39;s economic policies was a law restricting trade unions and collective bargaining.

Moreover:

The ITF has slammed new Iraqi crackdown on unions (http://www.iraqitradeunions.org/archives/000375.html)

And no, contrary to your bullshit accusation, the terrorists who kill Iraqi workers do not have my backing.


I&#39;m sure the relatives and friends of those murdered by your noble "resistance" are over the moon to have you "feel for them".


I&#39;m sure the Iraqi people, of which a majority are against the occupation (I can provide the polls if you wish), love your backing of the imperialist takeover of their country.


The war happened, get over it.

No.


The existing situation is that iraq is being rebuilt. Partly by the coalition. Iraq has no standing army: it needs the coalition.


The occupation forces are not in Iraq to help the people, they are there in order to make sure that there is no threat to the interests of Washington.


It also needs the coalition to police iraq: because there is a shortage of policemen.


The same policemen that were shot dead by British troops in Basra?

The occupation, like I have stated, is not a benevolent entity.


Don&#39;t you see the massive contradictions in your logic?


No.

Can&#39;t you understand that I am against the murder of innocent Iraqis, but support any resistance that strikes a blow at the US/UK occupation itself?


The only way the coalition is going to leave, is when the administration asks it to. It isn&#39;t going to do so, untill it can defend and police itself.

Puppet Governments are not going to ask their masters to leave, even when the majority of the population want an end to the presence of foreign troops in their country.


You said this in reply to my statement:
"And who suffers from the country being ungovernable?
It means the coalition will be there for much longer.
It means people can&#39;t get jobs.
It means people die more."


You do not address my comments at all.

Yes I did.

And I repeat:

The chaotic situation in Iraq must be expected.

The US and its allies invaded Iraq not to liberate the people, but to advance their position in the region. Do you think they care that Iraqis are dying everyday? They certainly have had absolutely no problem in harming them, having done so for more than a decade.

All they care about is their specific interests. It doesn&#39;t matter to them that people are suffering daily, because at the end of the day, it is them who effectively rule the country.


Remember: your insanely "definition" of the occupation also covers the various aid workers

No it doesn&#39;t.

I&#39;d appreciate it if you stopped conjuring up ridiculous accusations that are simply untrue.



More cynically, even if bush and blair don&#39;t (which i find a silly suggestion) care on humanist grounds: they sure as hell care for their own selfish political reasons.
Do you really think that they want iraqi&#39;s dying?

Bush and Blair do not give a squirt of piss about the innocent Iraqis dying, let alone their own troops dying.

They don&#39;t care&#33;

Please show me evidence that they do.

Remember, these are the same bastards that murdered thousands and thousands to invade and killed may more with their criminal sanctions.

You are incredibly stupid if you think that these murders care about the innocents that are dying every day in Iraq.


One, i am not an imperialism apologist.
(And even if i was...)
Two, get a dictionary and look up socialism/socialist. It does not mention imperialism in any shape or form. Therefore, your assumption is wrong that it is impossible for a imperialism apologist (which i am not) to also be a socialist.


One who supports the continuing occupation of Iraq is considered by me to also be an imperialist apologist.


You seriously think iraq would have been better off if america had overthrown the saddam regieme, and then left?

For that is what you are advocating.

The withdrawal of the US military could have come hand-in-hand with the entry of an independent UN mission, backed by the Arab League, to provide political assistance in arranging elections, humanitarian assistance, and a peacekeeping contingent to bring about stability while Iraq is reclaiming it&#39;s sovereignty.

Meanwhile, the US could pay compensation for the destruction it has caused, which could go towards the rebuilding of the country.

I believe this would be a more acceptable alternative to the preservation of US occupation in Iraq.


Now that the coalition have destroyed the iraqi political system, the least they can do is make sure a new one (democratic of course: i&#39;m sure thats what we all want?) is in place, and the inferstructure is repaired. i.e. a democracy is established, and the nation has the economic ability to make sure there is prosperity and stabililty.

Do you want another fascist in control of iraq: or a democracy?

Why are you under the illusion that the US/UK will actually build a democracy in Iraq, that would represent the people, instead of doing what all imperialist invaders do and set up a Puppet Government that will provide the first step to US hegemony over Iraq in the long-term?

You have to be seriously deluded to think that the West actually cares about the people of Iraq.

Look at what happened when Iran had democratically elected Mosaddeq.

Look at Latin America and then tell me that the US gives a damn about democracy.

As long as the US is in Iraq, there will be no hope of creating "democracy."

This is the problem with this debate: You are truly deluded.

[Intifada]

(h&s)

But doesn&#39;t that mean that you (indirectly) support the organisations that they are part of?

Maybe so.

The situation is this, however: Either Iraqis rule Iraq, or US interests rule Iraq.

I would rather an Iraq free of outside interference from Western imperialism, an Iraq that can truly progress towards a Socialist society in the only way it can, and that way is through the people of an Iraq free of imperialism.

The US-led occupation is what needs to be put to death first and foremost.


And how do you differentiate between the elements you support and the ones you don&#39;t?

I can&#39;t really.

All I know is that if a foreign occupier is attacked by Iraqis, I back that form of resistance.


I am talking about the parts of the resistance such as the Mehdi Army, which make up a very large proportion of the resistance in many areas. If these elements of the resistance are successful we will see an &#39;Islamic Republic&#39; of Iraq, a theocracy like Iran.
Would that be better than an imperialist-run Iraq?

In my opinion that would be better than an imperialist-run Iraq, because without the imperialist forces, the emancipation of the working-class will be a more realistic aim.

[h&s]

I can see I&#39;m never going to agree with you on this...


The situation is this, however: Either Iraqis rule Iraq, or US interests rule Iraq.

No, that is not the situation in my eyes. Either the workers of Iraq run the country, or some oppressive ruling class does. US imperialism, radical clerics, and capitalism all come under the latter category, and they are all detestable.


I would rather an Iraq free of outside interference from Western imperialism, an Iraq that can truly progress towards a Socialist society in the only way it can, and that way is through the people of an Iraq free of imperialism.
But if Iraq becomes an Islamo-fascist Republic, the prgession towards socialism will be taken back in a brutal way.
its much easir to build socialism under imperialism than under a police state.


All I know is that if a foreign occupier is attacked by Iraqis, I back that form of resistance.

I know where you&#39;re coming from - I don&#39;t condemn it, but then again I won&#39;t condone it either.


In my opinion that would be better than an imperialist-run Iraq, because without the imperialist forces, the emancipation of the working-class will be a more realistic aim.
Seriously? You think the workers movement will be better off under a police state than it is now?

[Intifada]

No, that is not the situation in my eyes. Either the workers of Iraq run the country, or some oppressive ruling class does. US imperialism, radical clerics, and capitalism all come under the latter category, and they are all detestable.


Be specific.

Which opprsseive ruling class rules Iraq at the present moment in time?

US imperialism is as detestable as radical clerics, I agree.


But if Iraq becomes an Islamo-fascist Republic, the prgession towards socialism will be taken back in a brutal way.
its much easir to build socialism under imperialism than under a police state.


I find it hard to see a Socialist state being born out of the current situation in Iraq. I would love to see it happen, I just can&#39;t see it happening.



Seriously? You think the workers movement will be better off under a police state than it is now?

What makes you think that a real working-class movement - arising in Iraq - will not simply be crushed by the US?

[James]

Do you consider it ok to murder "coalition troops" like engineers, repairing iraq&#39;s infrastructure?

I stated:
"anyone that aids": what do you mean by aid? The islamist fascists would argue that aiding the occupation is voting in the elections. Where do you draw the line in the sand? But please, tell me what you mean by aid. "

To which you replied
"I disagree with those "Islamist fascists."... Like I have said, the civilians of Iraq are not legitimate targets, in my opinion. There is no justification in tarring those who have no choice but to work, with those who are actively supporting the occupation."

So can you please tell me what you mean by your over all stance regarding who it is ok to murder, as it stands you stated: "anyone that aids the occupation"

So i ask again, what do you mean by aid?
Also, what do you class as the occupation exactly, i&#39;m not asking this as a defensive method of debate, i&#39;m interested in what you class as "The Occupation". Obviously, this then makes it clearer to me exactly who and what "aids" this. But please, do clarify what you mean by "aiding the occupation".


I&#39;ve ran out of time, so shall reply fully a bit later on. Probably tonight.
Feel free to answer the above though in the mean time.

[James]

No, my stance is that American imperialism is the root of all the problems in Iraq.[/

You do not think that this statement is slightly narrow minded?
You honestly think all the "problems" in iraq have their roots in american imperialism?


America and Britain have probably caused just about the same amount of suffering, if not more, in Iraq than their ex-pal Saddam Hussein did

This is a shocking opinion. Indeed, it isn&#39;t worth talking to you if you actually think this.
Still, lets see your reasoning...


When Saddam was in power during the 80s, it was Britain and America that aided him in his merciless slaughter of his own people, as well as Iranians.

True.
It could be argued that therefore these two countries had a responsibility to go back and amend the problems their nations had in part help cause.


When Saddam Hussein annoyed his friends in the West by invading Kuwait, however, the US stopped helping Saddam kill innocent people, letting him do it himself, whilst themselves killing tens of thousands of more Iraqi innocents as well

This is all very interesting.


Then came the brutal sanctions, with which the US and UK murdered over a million innocent Iraqi civilians

Oh come on&#33;
What would you have had the nations do (put yourself in their shoes for a second for the purpose of this exercise)?
Invade? Clearly not.
Support rival groups? Certainly not.
UN route? Apparantly not.

Sanctions were established by the UN as a collective body.

It is frankly absurd to think that saddam did not exploit the oil for food program and the sanctions.



After more than ten years of such suffering, the Americans and British decided to invade

Yes.

and occupy the country

You must expand upon this definition of yours.
Again: it is absurd to argue that the coalition want to spend a day longer in the country than they have to.


which has resulted in thousands of more deaths. Again, estimates vary from around 30000 to around 100000 innocent deaths.

True. many have died during the war

although the number is debatable and often politicalised:
http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/2005/0...al_lancing.html (http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/2005/04/a_final_lancing.html)
http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/politi...tudy/index.html (http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/politics/lancet_study/index.html)



However, I did not support the war.

I think the coalition should stay as long as nesecary: as long as it takes for a democratic government to emerge (the process is going on) and for iraq to be able to defend itself. So let me just make that clear: i never supported the action which led to the majority of the deaths. I opposed it deeply. Heck i even ended up eventually getting letters from the home office, my mp, the police, and even a detective came around to interview me.
Believe me: i opposed the war.

The single highest death toll post saddam was just recently, when civilians were murdered by a man blowing himself up after getting iraqi&#39;s to gather around in the hope of getting jobs.
This was not the fault of the coalition: the coalition have tried to hunt these people down (to the protests from people like you).

Another high death toll followed an ethnic attack of mortors and then rumours of suicide bombers. Innocents died on that bridge.
Again: not the faul of the coalition.

When was another incredibly high frequency of murders? In the feb run up to the election.
Justified by your argument of "anyone who aids the occupation".

God knows how many policemen have also been murderd. Many when attempting to become policemen.

The only way you can argue the above (and the thousands of similar cases) is the fault of the coalition, is if you argue that it is their fault, because they removed the dictator who kept such ethnic and religious hatred silent. I&#39;ve acknowledged this though: my pandora&#39;s box comparison. Remember?

I was asking however how they are post saddam: i.e. under this elected government with coalition firepower in iraq.

Your argument is basically that the coalition is as oppressive as Saddam, because the coalition were responsible for iraqi&#39;s killing their fellow iraqi&#39;s: because they removed their oppressor.

You must accept situations for what they are. Saddam was in power (despite the ins and outs of us/uk involvement) and was oppressing his people horrifically. Thats a fact. The war took place, despite our protests, and over threw the dictator. Thats a fact. After this, iraq was not the same place: it was post saddam, with a huge political vaccuum. Its not the fault of the coalition if people decide to fight to fill this vaccuum with their own leadership.



The question is whether they suffered more oppression before under saddam, than they do now under the coalition. Oppression post saddam is mainly caused by the various bodies fighting for power: not the coalition, who are in effect doing a peacekeeping/police action (although of course the coalition are no angels, no one is pretending that they are).

Who oppresses the iraqi&#39;s more: the coalition today, or saddam before?


I can&#39;t believe that you would prefer iraqi&#39;s to be under saddam, than at this political crossroads.


Since when was a "Capitalist Democracy" set up in Iraq?

All I can see is a Puppet Government that serves US interests, something worse than the "Capitalist Democracy" we see in places such as the US itself.

In fact, the "new" Iraq still contains the fascist elements that one could see during Saddam&#39;s reign of terror.


The system the coalition are trying to "establish over the iraqis" is one of democracy: and obviously capitalism. Thats why there were elections.

It isn&#39;t a puppet government (the americans "man" lost the presidency): true it doesn&#39;t reflect the whole population, because virtually an entire enthnic group boycotted the elections. They didn&#39;t want to "support the occupation". Individuals who opposed the occupation, yet advocated voting were targeted by the "resistance": sometimes murdered.


Crudely put, thats where major problems are now coming from. If they had "aided the occupation" earlier (i.e. voted: which they don&#39;t seem to have any problem with now - indeed, voting is quite the opposite to aiding the occupation: it aids the process of withdrawal. This simple fact demonstrates how many in the resistance simply don&#39;t want to see a democracy emerge), the constitution would have most likely been more to their liking. However now months are added till a constitution will be drawn up and agreed to by the majority.

Your twisted rhetoric regarding "aiding the occupation" is partly to blame.

It is ludricous to compare the current government with the fascist reign of saddam. Of course it isn&#39;t perfect, but it is a darn site better than it was. To argue otherwise is to delude yourself.


Yes, the Bush Administration made sure that the Iraqi Labour movement would be supressed the day it gained control of Iraq.

When Paul Bremer began his tenure as head of the occupation in Iraq, and after he fired half a million state workers, he passed a series of laws that were intended to entice multinational companies to invest in Iraq.

Funnily enough, the only thing that remained of Saddam Hussein&#39;s economic policies was a law restricting trade unions and collective bargaining.



oh of course: and there was i thinking the greatist problem the democratic left had in iraq was the "resistance" who want to murder them for "aiding the occupation" (which means voting and standing in elections, and not agreeing with the "resistance").

silly me&#33;


And no, contrary to your bullshit accusation, the terrorists who kill Iraqi workers do not have my backing

It is not a "bull shit accusation". It is indeed what you do.
To you, it is okay to murder anyone who aids the occupation (unless you have now changed your position, which would not surprise me. Your earlier position seems to have simply been a not too well thought out reaction to coalition action). If this debate means that you become more careful with whom you offer your support to, then we&#39;ve achieved at least something.



I&#39;m sure the Iraqi people, of which a majority are against the occupation (I can provide the polls if you wish), love your backing of the imperialist takeover of their country

You back "the resistance": who (you say "the resistance": you can&#39;t say resistance, and then say "oh but i don&#39;t support that part of the resistance - i suggest you change your stance to something more specific) murder those aiding the occupation. Those murdered in these attacks were murdered for aiding the occupation (wanting jobs: therefore wanting to support economically the occupation).

So my point was valid: you support the attacks (or rather the logic behind them, and the justification of them).

Now lets look at what you "replied" with:

I&#39;m sure the Iraqi people, of which a majority are against the occupation (I can provide the polls if you wish), love your backing of the imperialist takeover of their country.
I never stated that the iraqi&#39;s like the presence of the coalition: indeed i accept that they want them out: EVERYONE wants them out (except probably elements of your resistance who havn&#39;t quite achieved the foundations for a civil war yet: indeed, it is used as recuriting agent by the "resistance"). I want them out.

As the ex-brit commander Colonel Tim Colins (a fierce critic of the way the situation has been allowed to develop by bush and blair) stated in the mirror:
"it&#39;s now a conflict that, having become involved in, we must stay with. We can&#39;t just cut and run. It would be nice to have our troops out tomorrow but if we leave too quickly it would stay with us for generations and create another Lebanon….The only way that can be done is by giving the Iraqis the ability to defend themselves - which is very important. And we need to give the middle-class, middle-of-the-road educated Iraqis the incentive to get involved in their own politics. The danger is, as in Northern Ireland, that the politics is left to the extremists.So we need to make sure there is security for normal Iraqis to become involved in politics without being murdered.
"

But clearly you are all for the murders and the murderers. Infact you seem to be rather the advocate of violence (you even managed to bring the subject of violence into this thread before, when you were explaining how i&#39;m not a real socialist : "I, however, unlike you it seems, do support a violent popular uprising against the capitalist system.").

I do not support any "imperialist takeover of their country". (What do you actually think is this "imperialist takeover of their country."?) Like i said: i want them out as soon as possible.
I back the coalition staying in iraq to train the iraqi security forces, and to help police iraq, and to make sure that they actually do set up a democratic political framework.
They would be out alot faster if the police stopped getting murdered so fast etc. (another example of how the resistance you support actually increases the length of time those they "resist" (the coalition) will be in iraq)

That is all.
In short, i back the coalitions efforts to get iraq back up and running independently (which of course requires its ability to defend itself, and police itself). You on the other hand think the coalition should have ran off after they got rid of saddam (i only adopted this stance of mine once saddam had gone along with the army etc).


Please tell me how you think it is ok you to say "i support the resistance: but i don&#39;t support "that" aspect of the resistance": yet impossible for me to say "i support the coalition staying in iraq to set up iraqi national security and democratic foundations: but i don&#39;t support imperialism, or any coalition action in iraq which can be described as such"?




No.

Oh i see&#33; So you actually argue the war didn&#39;t happen?
yikes...


The occupation forces are not in Iraq to help the people, they are there in order to make sure that there is no threat to the interests of Washington.

Of course there is a degree of self interest.
But your imputation is stupid.
The coalition are trying to make iraq independent and secure as fast as possible: partly BECAUSE it is in their self interest. It is also in the interest of the average iraqi (although not of course to elements of your resistance).


The same policemen that were shot dead by British troops in Basra?

The occupation, like I have stated, is not a benevolent entity

Thus you proceed to ignore the hundreds killed by your glorious resistance: murdered because they aided the Occupation.
Laughable that you try to ignore the hundreds murdered by pointing to the (as of yet unconfirmed, in unconfirmed cicumstances) single (not plural, as you stated) shooting (the death of whom has been denied) of a policeman by 2 british soldiers.

Yes your answer is to my statement ("It also needs the coalition to police iraq: because there is a shortage of policemen.") is indeed, a crap cheep shot, which exposes the shakey ground you have chosen to stand upon.


Can&#39;t you understand that I am against the murder of innocent Iraqis, but support any resistance that strikes a blow at the US/UK occupation itself

I&#39;ll take it that you didn&#39;t understand your contradiction.
Let me spell it out for you:
You support those who murder those who are "aiding the occupation"
Those targeted by such murderers include those "aiding", by participating in elections: by helping to police iraq: by wanting a job.

The sooner iraqi&#39;s get to do this: there will not be the need for the coalitions firepower. Once this becomes so - the coalition will be asked to leave: and will do so (to think they don&#39;t want to be out is stupid: it is economically and politically VERY expensive).

However, the "resistance" targets those who will make this situation possible.

Hence your contradiction.

The logic you use (murder all who aid the occupation) is pathetically contradictory to what you desire to happen (the coalition to get out, and for iraq to prosper economically, and develop into a free and fair democracy).

This is sadly the case, despite your more recent attempts to get me to stop pointing this out. I&#39;m not the only one who has sussed you out: hands has too.


One who supports the continuing occupation of Iraq is considered by me to also be an imperialist apologist

And thus not a socialist&#33;

I love your logic. Its kind of cute in a pathetic way.


The withdrawal of the US military could have come hand-in-hand with the entry of an independent UN mission, backed by the Arab League, to provide political assistance in arranging elections, humanitarian assistance, and a peacekeeping contingent to bring about stability while Iraq is reclaiming it&#39;s sovereignty.

Meanwhile, the US could pay compensation for the destruction it has caused, which could go towards the rebuilding of the country.

I believe this would be a more acceptable alternative to the preservation of US occupation in Iraq.



Sadly one of the first targets of your resistance was the UN.

Again this demonstrates you refusal to live in the real situation: as IF the UN will go in there.
You might as well propose:
" erm well james, you see what i thinks should be happning is that we all sit down and play twister and then people will laugh and be happy and then no one will hurt each other and then everyone can leave iraq apart from iraq people who will then live in peace and happiness"

regarding wider internationalism in iraq: these ideas have actually been thought of before. No one wants in though&#33; I wonder why... (hint... resistance... hint)


Why are you under the illusion that the US/UK will actually build a democracy in Iraq, that would represent the people, instead of doing what all imperialist invaders do and set up a Puppet Government that will provide the first step to US hegemony over Iraq in the long-term?

You have to be seriously deluded to think that the West actually cares about the people of Iraq.

Look at what happened when Iran had democratically elected Mosaddeq.

Look at Latin America and then tell me that the US gives a damn about democracy.

As long as the US is in Iraq, there will be no hope of creating "democracy."

This is the problem with this debate: You are truly deluded.


this entire "argument" of yours falls down on the fact that elections have been held in iraq.
The ONLY ones who don&#39;t want a democracy in iraq are those who murdered those trying to make it happen (i believe that would be... the resistance&#33; oh no sorry, i mean the resistance part of the resistance that you don&#39;t support [to clarify, you support those who resist the coalition: i.e. you do actually support the anti democratic fascists]).

[h&s]

Be specific.

Which opprsseive ruling class rules Iraq at the present moment in time?

American Imperialism.


US imperialism is as detestable as radical clerics, I agree.
So how can you support those who fight for radical clerics?


I find it hard to see a Socialist state being born out of the current situation in Iraq. I would love to see it happen, I just can&#39;t see it happening.

I find it a lot harder to see a socialist state being born from a post-US cleric-run Iraq.


What makes you think that a real working-class movement - arising in Iraq - will not simply be crushed by the US?
Nothing - I think we all expect counter-revolution, wherever revolution happens in the world - its a fact of life. It doesn&#39;t mean that we should not try though, and I find that idea far better than offering support to people that will never help the people of Iraq.

*Edit*
Yay, 1917 posts&#33; :hammer:

[Intifada]

I will respond to James and h&s in due time.

I&#39;m a bit busy at the moment.

[Intifada]

(James)

Do you consider it ok to murder "coalition troops" like engineers, repairing iraq&#39;s infrastructure?


No.


So can you please tell me what you mean by your over all stance regarding who it is ok to murder, as it stands you stated: "anyone that aids the occupation"

Troops, mercenaries and security personnel of politicians that support the occupation.


You do not think that this statement is slightly narrow minded?

No.


You honestly think all the "problems" in iraq have their roots in american imperialism?


Yes.

Look at the situation in Iraq.

How can anybody state that the US-led invasion is not the root of such a chaotic and insecure Iraq?

Even Jack Straw has conceded that the occupation is causing more harm than good.


This is a shocking opinion.

No not really.


It could be argued that therefore these two countries had a responsibility to go back and amend the problems their nations had in part help cause.


I do not believe that is the intention of such an invasion.


This is all very interesting.

Do you deny it?


Oh come on&#33;
What would you have had the nations do (put yourself in their shoes for a second for the purpose of this exercise)?
Invade? Clearly not.
Support rival groups? Certainly not.
UN route? Apparantly not.


So you condone the sanctions that were imposed upon the Iraqi people?

Now that truly is a "shocking opinion" to have.


Sanctions were established by the UN as a collective body.


Former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, Hans Van Sponeck, addressed this "point" head on:

The UN doesn&#39;t impose sanctions. It&#39;s the UN Security Council member governments who come together and impose sanctions... I don&#39;t see the distinction between US sanctions, in broad terms, and what is done and coming out of the Security Council of the UN. The leader in the discussion for the sanctions is the US side and they are the ones, together with the British, that have devised many of the special provisions that govern the implementation of the 986 [oil-for-food] program. They are coming together, in that Security Council of 15 nations and work as a team, and that&#39;s the outcome, but I don&#39;t see a separate US sanction regime that is markedly different from the UN Security Council regime

Have you even heard of the UN Security Council 661 Committee?

Moreover, the US Government knew, before sanctions were implemented, that the effects of sanctions would worsen the situation for normal Iraqi people, as shown by several US DIA documents.

That didn&#39;t matter, however, because they went ahead with the implementation of the sanctions anyway.

They believed such suffering would be "worth it", as Albright proudly declared.


It is frankly absurd to think that saddam did not exploit the oil for food program and the sanctions.


You obviously do not possess a very good grasp of the US/UK imposed sanctions against the Iraqi people.

The UN sanctions were levied against Iraq in August 1990 and the oil-for-food program began in December 1996. It is therefore impossible to attribute the suffering of the Iraqi people to the obstruction of a programme, which did not exist until six years after the sanctions were imposed.

As Denis Halliday (who resigned from his post in September 1998 in protest of the sanctions against Iraq, after working for the UN for 34 years) explained, the oil-for-food programme was set up by the UN Security Council as a response to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq created by the impact of the sanctions. The creation of the programme demonstrates that the suffering of the Iraqi people preceded any possible interference.


You must expand upon this definition of yours.


Why?

Don&#39;t you know what an occupation looks like?


Again: it is absurd to argue that the coalition want to spend a day longer in the country than they have to.


Oh... of course&#33;

That must be the reason why the US has already begun building military bases that will ensure a long-term presence in Iraq&#33;

You really do crack me up James&#33;


True. many have died during the war

although the number is debatable and often politicalised:


Yes, because the Johns Hopkins University and the Lancet (the official journal of the BMA) are liars.


However, I did not support the war.


Yes, you support the occupation.


I think the coalition should stay as long as nesecary: as long as it takes for a democratic government to emerge (the process is going on) and for iraq to be able to defend itself.

The US and UK are not interested in creating a democratic system in Iraq, because if they did, that democratic system would bring about a government that represents the interests of the Iraqi people, and we all know how the Iraqi people feel about the occupation of their country.

There is no "democratisation" going on in Iraq.

The Americans can try to fool the world with their joke of an "election" if they want, they won&#39;t fool me.

The fact is that Iraq has not been "liberated", unless liberation means overthrowing a dictator and replacing it with a puppet government which continues to brutalise the Iraqi people.

The "new" Iraq is still involved in the "abuse of detainees by the [US-recruited] Iraqi police and intelligence forces has become routine and commonplace" as a Human Rights Watch report stated.


The single highest death toll post saddam was just recently, when civilians were murdered by a man blowing himself up after getting iraqi&#39;s to gather around in the hope of getting jobs.
This was not the fault of the coalition: the coalition have tried to hunt these people down (to the protests from people like you).


The US-led occupiers have done nothing to protect the Iraqi people from such attacks, probably because it serves their own interests.

The coalition&#39;s "hunting down" of such suspects, has only resulted in the taking of innocents as prisoner, who are arrested arbitrarily and also tortured.


Your argument is basically that the coalition is as oppressive as Saddam, because the coalition were responsible for iraqi&#39;s killing their fellow iraqi&#39;s: because they removed their oppressor.


Jeez, you certainly are an idiot.

I stated that the UK and US, judging by their history in Iraqi affairs, have caused as much, if not more, suffering as Saddam Hussein did.

Please, I&#39;ve had enough of your ridiculous lies about what I believe.


I can&#39;t believe that you would prefer iraqi&#39;s to be under saddam, than at this political crossroads.

You are now beginning to simply piss me off.

Stop putting words into my mouth.

I never stated such a thing, you idiot.

I would rather Iraq be free from Saddam and the US-led occupation of the country. Any anti-imperialist would state the same.


The system the coalition are trying to "establish over the iraqis" is one of democracy: and obviously capitalism. Thats why there were elections.


The US and UK do not care about democracy, as is proven by their infamous history with countries like Uzbekistan. All they care about is their own interests.

The elections were a joke.

Vietnam had elections in 1967, it didn&#39;t mean that there was "democracy."

Tell me, how many Iraqis had a say in the building of US bases in their country?

How many Iraqis had a say in the US decision to dismantle the state control of the oil industry?


oh of course: and there was i thinking the greatist problem the democratic left had in iraq was the "resistance" who want to murder them for "aiding the occupation" (which means voting and standing in elections, and not agreeing with the "resistance").

silly me&#33;

Nice to see you ignore the fact that the occupiers and the puppet government you support also actively suppress the Iraqi labour movement.

I have already acknowledged that terrorists have targeted Iraqi workers, and I duly condemned such atrocities.


It is not a "bull shit accusation". It is indeed what you do.

If you cannot admit that you are pulling accusations against me from out of the thin air, then fuck off, because I couldn&#39;t care less about what you think.


You back "the resistance": who (you say "the resistance": you can&#39;t say resistance, and then say "oh but i don&#39;t support that part of the resistance - i suggest you change your stance to something more specific) murder those aiding the occupation. Those murdered in these attacks were murdered for aiding the occupation (wanting jobs: therefore wanting to support economically the occupation).

So my point was valid: you support the attacks (or rather the logic behind them, and the justification of them).

I have never regarded the people who kill innocent Iraqi civilians as a legitimate "resistance", contrary to your false accusations.

Get that into your thick head.


I want them out.


Hmm... First you want them to stay and "finish the job", but you now state that you "want them out."

Make up your mind.


As the ex-brit commander Colonel Tim Colins (a fierce critic of the way the situation has been allowed to develop by bush and blair) stated in the mirror:
"it&#39;s now a conflict that, having become involved in, we must stay with. We can&#39;t just cut and run. It would be nice to have our troops out tomorrow but if we leave too quickly it would stay with us for generations and create another Lebanon….The only way that can be done is by giving the Iraqis the ability to defend themselves - which is very important. And we need to give the middle-class, middle-of-the-road educated Iraqis the incentive to get involved in their own politics. The danger is, as in Northern Ireland, that the politics is left to the extremists.So we need to make sure there is security for normal Iraqis to become involved in politics without being murdered.


The US and UK do not wish to provide security for Iraqis, they only wish to have their own interests secured.

The fact that Tim Collins has the opinion that "the occupation has to stay so Iraq doesn&#39;t descend into chaos (as if it hasn&#39;t already)" does not mean that the US and UK actually care about providing security in Iraq.

I don&#39;t see the relevance of his opinion in this debate.


They would be out alot faster if the police stopped getting murdered so fast

It does not help that the police is being trained to torture prisoners does it?


Please tell me how you think it is ok you to say "i support the resistance: but i don&#39;t support "that" aspect of the resistance": yet impossible for me to say "i support the coalition staying in iraq to set up iraqi national security and democratic foundations: but i don&#39;t support imperialism, or any coalition action in iraq which can be described as such"?


I don&#39;t know, you tell me&#33;

You were the one who thinks it is wrong to support the resistance that attacks legitimate targets, while condemning those who target innocent Iraqis, as I do&#33;

That is why we are now having this argument&#33;

The fact that you believe the occupiers are going to try to set up a true democracy is what I cannot agree with, as I do not believe that the US and UK is in Iraq to do such a thing.

There is nothing wrong in you having that opinion, I just believe that you are blind to the fact that the invasion and occupation was done in the interests of Western imperialism.


Oh i see&#33; So you actually argue the war didn&#39;t happen?

No.

You told me to "get over" the war.

Why should I "get over" the war?


The coalition are trying to make iraq independent

I stopped reading that part of your argument there.

Iraq will never be "independent" as long as there is US presence in the country. The fact that the US is building military bases in the country, gives me reason enough to believe that the US is not interested in an "independent" Iraq.


Thus you proceed to ignore the hundreds killed by your glorious resistance

Again, I would appreciate it if you stoppped making idiotic accusation against my support for legitimate resistance.


Laughable that you try to ignore the hundreds murdered by pointing to the (as of yet unconfirmed, in unconfirmed cicumstances) single (not plural, as you stated) shooting (the death of whom has been denied) of a policeman by 2 british soldiers.

Yes your answer is to my statement ("It also needs the coalition to police iraq: because there is a shortage of policemen.") is indeed, a crap cheep shot, which exposes the shakey ground you have chosen to stand upon.


I&#39;m sorry, but the mere fact that the British Army has the authority to free civilian-clothed soldiers arrested by Iraqi police shows that the Iraqis do not possess an ounce of sovereignty.

In fact, the anti-British protests were organised by local policemen, ironically.

One officer called the two UK soldiers "British terrorists" and claimed they should still be under arrest.

That is the kind of guy I support&#33;


You support those who murder those who are "aiding the occupation"
Those targeted by such murderers include those "aiding", by participating in elections: by helping to police iraq: by wanting a job.


Fucking hell&#33;

I&#39;ll say it for the last bloody time.

I do not support the people who target innocent Iarqi civilians. I do not regard them as a legitmate resistance movement which I back.


I&#39;m not the only one who has sussed you out: hands has too.

Actually, h&s has stated that he "misunderstood" my position. Maybe you should also acknowledge that you have done the same.


Sadly one of the first targets of your resistance was the UN.


Stop trying to copy Hitchens.

I have never condoned the targeting of UN officials in Iraq.


Again this demonstrates you refusal to live in the real situation: as IF the UN will go in there.

My suggestion was merely a proposal.

I would rather the US-led occupiers be kicked out by the Iraqi people.


this entire "argument" of yours falls down on the fact that elections have been held in iraq.


Your entire "argument" falls down on the fact that the elctions were a joke.

To claim a free election can and has taken place in Iraq is no different to asserting that the French people could have elected a representative government in 1942 while living under the rule of Nazi occupiers.

This debate is between someone who wants Iraq to be free of US occupation, and another who wishes the same but believes (in my opinion rather naively) that the same occupiers aim to bring democracy to the Iraqi people, and therefore must stay in the country.

[Intifada]

(h&s)

American Imperialism.

I believe that presently, this is what needs to be targeted first and foremost in Iraq.


So how can you support those who fight for radical clerics?

Those people are, as Marx declared, high on religion because they have been oppressed.

They are, however, still the people of Iraq and I support their target of getting rid of the imperialist occupation of their country.

Once they do that, maybe they will be more aware of the idiocy of their clerics.


I find it a lot harder to see a socialist state being born from a post-US cleric-run Iraq.


I can understand your position, I just disagree.

[James]

just to let you know i will reply soonish, i have to go back to uni now though. May take sometime to get on the net.


I will say this though: i think you misunderstand an element of US foreign policy. Even though they have been seen to support dictators on many occasions, there is a policy of attempting to spark off democracy in the middle east.
I know you won&#39;t admit that, but it is thought to be the case (the economist recently had an article on this, i&#39;ll try and find which issue).


I will reply&#33;

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 03:12 PM
I will say this though: i think you misunderstand an element of US foreign policy. Even though they have been seen to support dictators on many occasions, there is a policy of attempting to spark off democracy in the middle east.

The US would support only a "democracy" that played by the rules of Washington, and that to me is not "democracy."

As soon as the Iraqis want to do something contrary to US interests, such as maybe nationalising their oil industry, the US will quickly act against it.

I am sure of that.

[Korol Aferist]

George Galloway is so cliche.
He think he knows but he doesn&#39;t.
THE WAR IN IRAQ IS THE RIGHT THING ON THE STEP TOWARDS all freedom.
Look at GERMANY AND JAPAN &#33;
SEE WHAT THE F*CK WAR DOES ?

[citizen_snips]

THE WAR IN IRAQ IS THE RIGHT THING ON THE STEP TOWARDS all freedom.

Bah, here was me thinking that by coming here I&#39;d at least escape the pro-bush/blair shite&#33;

[James]

Troops, mercenaries and security personnel of politicians that support the occupation.

So not just those who aid the occupation?



Yes.

Look at the situation in Iraq.

How can anybody state that the US-led invasion is not the root of such a chaotic and insecure Iraq?

Even Jack Straw has conceded that the occupation is causing more harm than good.


you are incredibly naive to think that all the problems stem from an event which happened only a few years ago.

By doing so, you ignore all that passed before the invasion.

True it has negative consequences, but it isn&#39;t the root cause of many of the problems put down to the occupation. Indeed, in some cases it seems very likely that existing issues and problems have been made to look like the result of the occupation.

I fail to see how the murder of aid workers is the fault of the occupation for example. However those who did this, and their supporters (or appologists) argue that it was all to do with foreign occupation.
Now we see the situation changing, into more ethnic themed issues and reasoning. For example the murder of the teachers.


I do not believe that is the intention of such an invasion.

I did not mean to imply that it was.
I simply said that it could be argued, that thse countries had a responsibility to remove the problem they partly created.


Also, i don&#39;t think the invasion had "one intention". I think it was a collection of interests and pressures.

Like with any political policy




So you condone the sanctions that were imposed upon the Iraqi people?

Now that truly is a "shocking opinion" to have.

No, not at all. I was stating their viewpoint.

I ask again, what would you have done it you had been president of america?



I think it is important to remember that this was a fascist who was murdering alot of people.


Former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, Hans Van Sponeck, addressed this "point" head on:

The UN doesn&#39;t impose sanctions. It&#39;s the UN Security Council member governments who come together and impose sanctions... I don&#39;t see the distinction between US sanctions, in broad terms, and what is done and coming out of the Security Council of the UN. The leader in the discussion for the sanctions is the US side and they are the ones, together with the British, that have devised many of the special provisions that govern the implementation of the 986 [oil-for-food] program. They are coming together, in that Security Council of 15 nations and work as a team, and that&#39;s the outcome, but I don&#39;t see a separate US sanction regime that is markedly different from the UN Security Council regime

Have you even heard of the UN Security Council 661 Committee?

Moreover, the US Government knew, before sanctions were implemented, that the effects of sanctions would worsen the situation for normal Iraqi people, as shown by several US DIA documents.

That didn&#39;t matter, however, because they went ahead with the implementation of the sanctions anyway.

They believed such suffering would be "worth it", as Albright proudly declared.


Like i said, it was the UN that did it.

Well it doesn&#39;t seem a radical policy to try and cause discontent in a state which has a leadership which is murdering its people.


Anyway, i&#39;m not going to even pretend that i&#39;m on "their side" on this issue.
I&#39;ve made it clear on numerous occasions that i was extremely anti war before the fall of saddam&#39;s regieme. So i&#39;m not going to even try and defend US and UK foreign policy; because i didn&#39;t agree with it.



You obviously do not possess a very good grasp of the US/UK imposed sanctions against the Iraqi people.

The UN sanctions were levied against Iraq in August 1990 and the oil-for-food program began in December 1996. It is therefore impossible to attribute the suffering of the Iraqi people to the obstruction of a programme, which did not exist until six years after the sanctions were imposed.

As Denis Halliday (who resigned from his post in September 1998 in protest of the sanctions against Iraq, after working for the UN for 34 years) explained, the oil-for-food programme was set up by the UN Security Council as a response to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq created by the impact of the sanctions. The creation of the programme demonstrates that the suffering of the Iraqi people preceded any possible interference.



as i said:

It is frankly absurd to think that saddam did not exploit the oil for food program and the sanctions.


Why?

Don&#39;t you know what an occupation looks like?

Because you through the term around lots.
I think you will class occupation as any situation whereby there is any western us/uk capitalism in iraq.
As such, you will never think the occupation has ended.

I just wanted you to say what you actually think the occupation is, its not an unreasonable request. It is quite common in debate and discourse in general. Otherwise we could both be using the same word, with different definitions, yet not be aware of it.


Oh... of course&#33;

That must be the reason why the US has already begun building military bases that will ensure a long-term presence in Iraq&#33;

You really do crack me up James&#33;


I know far more about the UK than the US; because i live in the UK.
I know that the UK want to pull out: it is deeply unpopular in this country. This means politicians want it to end, quickly and succesfully.
The general consensus seems to be that there are troop reductions underway and many more planned. Brits had hoped to hand over some regions completely, but recently the situation has become much more violent and unstable.

Britain has made it clear that they will leave when the iraqi government asks it to leave. Seeing as there is likely to be another election soon (if the referendum on the constitution fails); the politicians are not going to be running on a policy of occupation. Even if they do, they are unlikely to win.

So i think brit will be leaving reasonably soon.
What exactly do you think britain has gained out of this by the way?

On america, well again it is unpopular. They arn&#39;t in south vietnam anymore. History suggests the Us will have to pull out. They will be constructing big bases to keep themselves safe. They need to build better bases more and more, because they get shot at. they are hardly going to sleep in tents.

No, i think you are very wrong. But i suppose it is an issue we shall have to come back to in a year or so, and then decide who was right, and who was wrong. Untill then, bit pointless carrying on with this area of the debate.



Yes, because the Johns Hopkins University and the Lancet (the official journal of the BMA) are liars.

Well the links i provided didn&#39;t really say that, did they.

I can&#39;t believe you want to argue about this now. Ok, you win, the death toll is not at all debatable. Espeically because JHU and Lancet gave a figure.


Yes, you support the occupation.

this is incredibly tiring. No, i did not support the war.

The war can&#39;t be "undone" though.



The US and UK are not interested in creating a democratic system in Iraq, because if they did, that democratic system would bring about a government that represents the interests of the Iraqi people, and we all know how the Iraqi people feel about the occupation of their country.

There is no "democratisation" going on in Iraq.

The Americans can try to fool the world with their joke of an "election" if they want, they won&#39;t fool me.

The fact is that Iraq has not been "liberated", unless liberation means overthrowing a dictator and replacing it with a puppet government which continues to brutalise the Iraqi people.

The "new" Iraq is still involved in the "abuse of detainees by the [US-recruited] Iraqi police and intelligence forces has become routine and commonplace" as a Human Rights Watch report stated.


Well thats your opinion. Very cliche opinion at that.

There were elections though, and a constitution has been attempted. There will soon be a referendum on it. Then probably another election.

True, no election is fraud proof: the UK has trouble last election for example.

I&#39;d argue though that the biggest challenege to democracy in iraq at the last election, was the group of people who decided they would try and murder anyone who was in anyway involved in the election.

No doubt you will stand by them though with your pal flag, raise your fist and resist, simply because their stance is slightly anti american.

And that is my opinion.



The US-led occupiers have done nothing to protect the Iraqi people from such attacks, probably because it serves their own interests.

The coalition&#39;s "hunting down" of such suspects, has only resulted in the taking of innocents as prisoner, who are arrested arbitrarily and also tortured.



how does it serve their interests?
Your anti americanism is getting stupid now.

Road blocks are just one thing they have done, searching cars etc. They do pursue those who try to terrorise the people of iraq.

Its how many have got killed.



Jeez, you certainly are an idiot.

I stated that the UK and US, judging by their history in Iraqi affairs, have caused as much, if not more, suffering as Saddam Hussein did.

Please, I&#39;ve had enough of your ridiculous lies about what I believe.]


Well fair enough.
I think your anti americanism though is to blame for this stance of yours.


You are now beginning to simply piss me off.

Stop putting words into my mouth.

I never stated such a thing, you idiot.

I would rather Iraq be free from Saddam and the US-led occupation of the country. Any anti-imperialist would state the same.



But it is what you argue.
You wanted them out as soon as they destroyed iraqi&#39;s ability to defend and run itself.
Indeed, you argued against the war probably on principle: thinking intervention shouldn&#39;t be allowed in any circumstance (something which i disagree with).

You bask in your anti americanism which gives you a black and white way of seeing the world. Everything is in terms of america to you. You don&#39;t care about iraq, you just don&#39;t like america.

Thatswhy you support those who murder in the name of resistance.

Everything that you have argued has basically added up to a stance which suggests you would be a happier bunny if the invasion had never happened. i.e. you would prefer saddam to still be killing people, than for iraq to be at this polkitical crossroads. And it is a crossraods, sure it ain&#39;t great at the moment, but iraq does have a great chance of coming out well from all this.

Personally i simply want whats best for the normal iraqi&#39;s now. In my opinion, that means american and british involvment,.

Feel free to go off on another cliche filled rant, copied and pasted from some insignificant "revolutionary" party&#39;s website. I don&#39;t care. You can hold such opinions. I simply don&#39;t care.
You think what you want to think, and i&#39;ll think what i want to think.
We don&#39;t all have to agree with you.


Hmm... First you want them to stay and "finish the job", but you now state that you "want them out."

Make up your mind.


I&#39;ll end on this point, because quite frankly i&#39;m bored of this and don&#39;t have the time to talk to you, a person who strongly resembles a brick wall.


Are you mentally retarded?
Yes i want the coalition out: i don&#39;t want them there. But i want them to first finish the jobs which i stated in previous posts.

So, i do want them out, but not just to drop everything and run.


If you can&#39;t understand this, you require professional help. Help which i can not offer you.

[Intifada]

So not just those who aid the occupation?


No.

Though, those I mentioned do aid the occupation.


you are incredibly naive to think that all the problems stem from an event which happened only a few years ago.


Um... no.

You really have a problem with reading don&#39;t you?

You asked:

You honestly think all the "problems" in iraq have their roots in american imperialism?

I replied with the answer:

Yes.

Nowhere, did you, and then myself, mention the recent invasion.


By doing so, you ignore all that passed before the invasion.


But I didn&#39;t.

Initially. I stated that this whole shitstorm is a result of US imperialism, which has been interfering with the affairs of Iraq for more than just a couple of years, and even a decade.

But let&#39;s just examine the invasion and occupation, and other significant events. anyway.

If the US never invaded Iraq in 2003, would there have been civil war in Iraq?

Now, if the US had never helped Saddam Hussein get into power, and then fund his slaughter of innocent Iraqis, would there have been a "need" for sanctions?

Would Iraq be in the mess it is is now, if the US had not interfered with the country for the last over the past 30 odd years or so?

That is why I blame American, and Western imperialism in general, for what has happened to Iraq for the last few decades.


Also, i don&#39;t think the invasion had "one intention". I think it was a collection of interests and pressures.


I agree, and never have stated otherwise.


No, not at all. I was stating their viewpoint.

No you were not.

You wrote:

Oh come on&#33;
What would you have had the nations do (put yourself in their shoes for a second for the purpose of this exercise)?


As if sanctions were the only thing they could have done, and therefore should have done.


I ask again, what would you have done it you had been president of america?


This is a ridiculous hypothetical question, which ignores the previous historical events that were, to an extent, partly shaped by US Presidents themselves.

Let&#39;s just put it this way, I would not have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children.


I think it is important to remember that this was a fascist who was murdering alot of people.

US imperialism, something which allowed and actively made Saddam the butcher he was, is not the answer.

That is why I was against the invasion, and am against the occupation.


Like i said, it was the UN that did it.


Did you just ignore all that I wrote on this ridiculous excuse for US/UK involvement in the murder of innocent people through the Iraqi sanctions?

It wouldn&#39;t surprise me.

I&#39;ll write it again, and this time read it and attempt to refute it properly.

Former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, Hans Van Sponeck, a man who has more knowledge of how the Iraqi sanctions operated than idiots like Hitchens, stated:

The UN doesn&#39;t impose sanctions. It&#39;s the UN Security Council member governments who come together and impose sanctions... I don&#39;t see the distinction between US sanctions, in broad terms, and what is done and coming out of the Security Council of the UN. The leader in the discussion for the sanctions is the US side and they are the ones, together with the British, that have devised many of the special provisions that govern the implementation of the 986 [oil-for-food] program. They are coming together, in that Security Council of 15 nations and work as a team, and that&#39;s the outcome, but I don&#39;t see a separate US sanction regime that is markedly different from the UN Security Council regime

Moreover, it was US and UK members of the UN 661 Sanctions Committee who denied the Iraqi people&#39;s right to life-saving equipment, such as deep X-ray equipment, blood component separators, needles for biopsies and IV fluids, something that Western patients would take for granted.

Funnily enough, even bull&#39;s semen was on the "forbidden list" of the US and UK, which justified it&#39;s actions on the ridiculous argument that such objects had "dual use."

However, the occasion when the Americans blocked an application by Bulgaria, to ship baby food to Iraq, on the grounds that it could be "eaten by adults", was not quite so funny. At the time of this barbaric decision, Iraqi children were dying at a rate of one every six minutes of every day and night, as a result of the embargo.

This suffering of the Iraqi people was reiterated by UNICEF, Harvard medical school academics and by the Lancet (a magazine that was banned in Iraq, along with all trade, educational and scientific journals, under the embargo).

The politicians of the UK and US kept arguing that they had "no quarrel with the Iraqi people", while making their lives a misery and killing them in genocidal numbers. Even after death, the US would not stop the torment. An application to export shroud materials - so that a Muslim can be buried decently - was vetoed by the Americans. The would-be exporter appealed to the British Trade and Industry Department, but to no avail.

The British Civil Servant, Peter Mayne, said:

I refer to your application to export shroud cloth to Iraq. The application has been considered... I have to inform you that a license has not been granted under the current climate. The US representative on the UN Sanctions Committee are [sic] currently blocking the export of cloth to Iraq.

The Iraqis couldn&#39;t even dress their dead.


Well it doesn&#39;t seem a radical policy to try and cause discontent in a state which has a leadership which is murdering its people.


The sanctions were not doing anything to undermine the Baathist regime, in fact, they simply facilitated Saddam&#39;s control over the population, partly because of the food rationing policy, and also because his regime was able to use sanctions as an excuse for its own shortcomings. They also enabled Saddam to appear as the elemental battler for Iraq against the West. The best way to have inflicted maximum damage on Saddam&#39;s regime would have been to lift the sanctions immediately, not continue them, as the US did.

The sanctions harmed only the Iraqi people, and the US and UK were fully aware of this, yet didn&#39;t bat an eyelid.


as i said:

It is frankly absurd to think that saddam did not exploit the oil for food program and the sanctions.


Fucking hell, it&#39;s like you don&#39;t even bother reading my arguments&#33;

The UN sanctions were levied against Iraq in August 1990 and the oil-for-food program began in December 1996. It is therefore impossible to attribute the suffering of the Iraqi people to the obstruction of a programme, which did not exist until six years after the sanctions were imposed.

As Denis Halliday (who resigned from his post in September 1998 in protest of the sanctions against Iraq, after working for the UN for 34 years) explained, the oil-for-food programme was set up by the UN Security Council as a response to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq created by the impact of the sanctions.

The creation of the programme clearly demonstrates that the suffering of the Iraqi people preceded any possible interference.


I just wanted you to say what you actually think the occupation is, its not an unreasonable request.

It is the military presence of a foreign army in a nation that is against such a presence.


I know that the UK want to pull out: it is deeply unpopular in this country. This means politicians want it to end, quickly and succesfully.


Just yesterday, on the BBC website, I read that Tony Blair stated that he will choose when the British troops will be withdrawn from Iraq. In fact, he has previously denied that there is a starting withdrawal date set for May 2006.


What exactly do you think britain has gained out of this by the way?


Blair, by supporting the US in their conquest of Iraq, has put British business interests in the best position to be in. The UK will get a reward for their help, though this will be smaller than the rewards that have been given to big US businesses like Halliburton and Bechtel.


History suggests the Us will have to pull out.

History suggests that imperialists want to stay as long as possible, but are eventually kicked out.


this is incredibly tiring. No, i did not support the war.


What has the war got to do with what I wrote?

I argued that you support the occupation.


There were elections though, and a constitution has been attempted.

The elections don&#39;t mean anything, and at best were a joke.

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.

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.

The 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&#39;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.

They mean as much as the 1967 Viet Nam elections: Zilch.

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&#39;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, who are basically the scum of the Earth.


True, no election is fraud proof: the UK has trouble last election for example.

The Iraqi elections were a tad more of a fraud than the British one.


No doubt you will stand by them though with your pal flag, raise your fist and resist, simply because their stance is slightly anti american.


What has the Palestinian flag got to do with any of this?

You have not properly addressed all the issues I have brought up, if you have at all, and continue to make idiotic and unsubstantiated accusations.


And that is my opinion.

Which is utter BS.


how does it serve their interests?


OK.

Now that really does make funny reading&#33;


Your anti americanism is getting stupid now.


Yes.

You cannot argue with facts, so you resort to blaming every opinion I hold on simple "Anti-Americanism."

You really do make me laugh&#33;


Road blocks are just one thing they have done, searching cars etc. They do pursue those who try to terrorise the people of iraq.

Its how many have got killed.


You forgot to mention how they arbitrarily arrest Iraqi people and then torture them in prisons like Abu Ghraib.

You also forgot to mention the brilliant method of laying seige to whole towns and villages, such as Fallujah and Tal Afar, whilst they pound the area with their bombs.

Of course, that ain&#39;t terrorism&#33;


I think your anti americanism though is to blame for this stance of yours.


Are you Tony Blair by any chance?

You sure do sound like him.


But it is what you argue.
You wanted them out as soon as they destroyed iraqi&#39;s ability to defend and run itself.
Indeed, you argued against the war probably on principle: thinking intervention shouldn&#39;t be allowed in any circumstance (something which i disagree with).

You bask in your anti americanism which gives you a black and white way of seeing the world. Everything is in terms of america to you. You don&#39;t care about iraq, you just don&#39;t like america.

Thatswhy you support those who murder in the name of resistance.


Your whole argument, and skipping of all the issues and facts I bring up, is based on a naive belief that the UK and US are in Iraq to "do a job" which entails bringing democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people.

You fail to refute my points, probably because you don&#39;t read them properly, and then jump into the "You&#39;re just an Anti-American" bandwagon that the likes of Blair and Howard (the idiot down-under) are blissfully riding, whilst wildly accusing me of supporting terrorists and not caring about the lives of the people who want an end to the occupation you (a self-proclaimed anti-imperialist) support.

The only person who is "mentally retarded" goes by the name of James.

[James]

Um... no.

You really have a problem with reading don&#39;t you?

You asked:

You honestly think all the "problems" in iraq have their roots in american imperialism?

I replied with the answer:

Yes.

Nowhere, did you, and then myself, mention the recent invasion.

I think you are splitting a hair.
Ok, you believe, if you want, that all iraq&#39;s problems are down to american imperialism.
Or even imperialism in general.

Its a very precise stance you are taking though. A stance which ignores other factors.

True, imperialism is a factor, indeed a major factor, but not by any means the only factor.


i agree, and never have stated otherwise.
Ok, well you perhaps unintentionally implied it before when you said; "I do not believe that is the intention of such an invasion."



No you were not.

You wrote:

Oh come on&#33;
What would you have had the nations do (put yourself in their shoes for a second for the purpose of this exercise)?


As if sanctions were the only thing they could have done, and therefore should have done.


The way this argument went then prompted me to ask you: what then would you have done?
I ask again.


This is a ridiculous hypothetical question, which ignores the previous historical events that were, to an extent, partly shaped by US Presidents themselves.

Let&#39;s just put it this way, I would not have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children

Perhaps, but thats the nature of most interent chat boards. Its mainly hypothetical stuff which is irrelevent to the world (you think your post will change anything?): hence, in a way, its all ridiculous.

But anyway, thats a given.

Please tell me precisly what you would have done.


US imperialism, something which allowed and actively made Saddam the butcher he was, is not the answer.

That is why I was against the invasion, and am against the occupation.



Fair enough.
But i would choose the side of both bush&#39;s rather than saddam, if its a case of having to choose one in a zero sum world.


It wouldn&#39;t surprise me.


you ythen continued at some length. I&#39;m wanting to finish this debate because iyts gone off on a tangent. I&#39;ve answered the main themes we&#39;ve already discussed, and i&#39;m not going to get roped into other areas. Especially defending a policy i never supported.


Fucking hell, it&#39;s like you don&#39;t even bother reading my arguments&#33;

Dito. Here layeth the problem.

You don&#39;t read mine either.

He abused the programme.


Just yesterday, on the BBC website, I read that Tony Blair stated that he will choose when the British troops will be withdrawn from Iraq.

Yes, and he&#39;s a politician. See my earlier points regarding pressures on elected officials and unpopular policies. Also, they will leave as soon as the president asks it.


Blair, by supporting the US in their conquest of Iraq, has put British business interests in the best position to be in. The UK will get a reward for their help, though this will be smaller than the rewards that have been given to big US businesses like Halliburton and Bechtel.


you are living in a dream world if you think that is why blair supported the war.
There have been complaints that this hasn&#39;t even happened (i.e. no contracts of substance going to brit companies).


History suggests that imperialists want to stay as long as possible, but are eventually kicked out.

well like i said:
History suggests the Us will have to pull out.

One way or another.


What has the war got to do with what I wrote?

I argued that you support the occupation.


You see the war and occupation as the same thing. There is adifference. There was a sort of "critical point" inbetween the two, which changed everything.

I don&#39;t think you understand this. Frankly, i don&#39;t care either.


The elections don&#39;t mean anything, and at best were a joke.

oh great come back old boy.

Nah you are right, in many areas they didn&#39;yt happen. Why>? because it would be aiding the occupation, so they were targeted by insurgents.


The Iraqi elections were a tad more of a fraud than the British one.

Exactly. But the principle applies. No doubt in your utopia up in your head, such fraud isn&#39;t an issue?


What has the Palestinian flag got to do with any of this?



Well put it in context, i.e. what else i wrote and thereby implied in the sentence. Then it shall become clear.


Which is utter BS.

ooo&#33; as is your&#39;s.



OK.

Now that really does make funny reading&#33;

yeah don&#39;t reply. Its eaiser for you that way .


Yes.

You cannot argue with facts, so you resort to blaming every opinion I hold on simple "Anti-Americanism."

You really do make me laugh&#33;


You arn&#39;t anti american?
Before you were putting all iraqi&#39;s problems down to america.


Your whole argument, and skipping of all the issues and facts I bring up, is based on a naive belief that the UK and US are in Iraq to "do a job" which entails bringing democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people.


Its part of the neo con dream in the middle east. I think even micheal moor covered this somewhere sometime.

Its def been covered by panarama a while back

[Intifada]

This argument is pointless, as you have your views and I have mine.

We just have to agree to disagree.

I will address a few points, however.


The way this argument went then prompted me to ask you: what then would you have done?
I ask again.


I stick to the answer I gave in my previous post, though I should add that the US should have funded and supported true Iraqi resistance to Saddam Hussein&#39;s regime, instead of imposing sanctions that harmed only the people of Iraq.


He abused the programme.


The sanctions were levied against Iraq in August 1990 and the oil-for-food program began in December 1996. It is therefore impossible to attribute the suffering of the Iraqi people to the obstruction of a programme, which did not exist until six years after the sanctions were imposed.

As Denis Halliday (who resigned from his post in September 1998 in protest of the sanctions against Iraq, after working for the UN for 34 years) explained, the oil-for-food programme was set up by the UN Security Council as a response to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq created by the impact of the sanctions.

The creation of the programme clearly demonstrates that the suffering of the Iraqi people preceded any possible interference.


you are living in a dream world if you think that is why blair supported the war.
There have been complaints that this hasn&#39;t even happened (i.e. no contracts of substance going to brit companies).


You are the one that foolishly believes that the US led occupation in Iraq is there to bring a liberal democracy to Iraq, so do not accuse me of "living in a dreamworld."

It shouldn&#39;t surprise anybody to see the Bush administration treat Blair like a poodle. In other words, use the troops he provides and then treat them like shit.

The Bush administration is in charge, not Blair.


You see the war and occupation as the same thing. There is adifference.

No, the invasion and occupation are simply two aspects of the main goal that is to gain strategic control over Iraq and have a strong influence in Iraqi political and economical policy in the very long run.

Any leftist must surely oppose both, instead of opposing one and supporting the other.


oh great come back old boy.


Nice to see you simply ignoring the relevant parts of my argument again.


You arn&#39;t anti american?
Before you were putting all iraqi&#39;s problems down to america.


I am Anti-American.

I do not think that your argument against me - that I hate the war and occupation just because I am Anti-American - is a poorly thought out, ad hominem excuse for not addressing the issues I have put to you.


Its part of the neo con dream in the middle east.

I think you are referring to the "Project for a New American Century." If so, then no socialist should support such crap.