I Rest My Case

[rachstev]

I suppose my massive ego can take solice in the fact that I was WAY ahead of the National Review on this one: That while the U.S. role in Iraq is far from perfect, the national and Iraqi response is one that demonstrates the United States forces are appreciated more than hated, and that democracy is THE choice for Iraq.


Victor Hansen of the National Review wrote:

It is easy to be pessimistic about Iraq, given the media’s constant barrage of bad news. But why then are there not millions in the street as in the fashion of Vietnam-era moratoria? Why doesn’t the Senate move to cut off funds? Why don’t the Democrats bring forth another George McGovern?
Moveon.org, Cindy Sheehan, or Michael Moore in the short-term may be useful stilettos to the Democrats. But most keep their safe distance from such blood-stained rapiers, since few know how Iraq will turn out — or what such razor-sharp groups and firebrands will say or do next.


I rest my case. It's too bad that the same ol' same 0l' chorus of anti-American idiots that hang around here can't handle the truth.

Rachstev

P.S. I won't be able to respond until Tuesday, as I'll be in Las Vegas for a few days. Some of us have a life, and have a good time. R.

[bezdomni]

I can never tell if you are being dogmatic or seriously want to know the answers to these questions.

The National Review is a steaming pile of shit. What does a year subscription cost? 50 dollars? (They still send things to my grandfather, who died 5 years ago).

Iraq is a ton of bad news. Any war is nothing but bad news, no matter how justified the cause is. If this war continues much longer, we will start to see more protests with more people, protests like the Vietnam war enjoyed.

This is not a democrat-republican problem. There are plenty of pro-war democrats and anti-war republicans. This is a problem of the welfare of humanity and the profits of the elite. We can't have both.

The government isn't stopping the war because we have a pro-war congress, a pro-war senate, a pro-war president and his lapdogs on the Supreme Court. However, the majority of the American people oppose the war, and the vast majority of the international community oppose the war. This is not a representative government! This is a huge indictment of the capitalist system. Corporations that are making profit from this war are keeping their greedy hands in the government. The parties don't care about the people, they care about the money!

This is not about WMDs, this is not about liberating the people, this is not about bringing democracy to the middle east. It is completely, 100% about power and money at the cost of humanity.

Iraq will never rule itself under Imperialist American occupation. It is not unheard of that a country overthrows its own government and establishes democracy without the "help" of America. I don't understand why Americans believe that their revolution is the only democratic one in history and why their constitution is the only one that has always embraced freedom, liberty, justice, equality...and all of the other cliches.

The day the Iraq war is over will be a great day for the world.

[Xvall]

Why don’t the Democrats bring forth another George McGovern?

Because they are stuck-up pussies that bow down before their sponsors and benifactors.

[Hiero]

Why do you do this? You have some problems if you can't comprehend that the majority of people at this website do not take a liberal view of the war in Iraq. So there is nor point presenting views which are designed to counter the arguements on the democracts.

The democrats follow the same line when it comes to imperialism, the democrats just played the anti war card on one had, while at the same time they were playing the pro imperialist card on Venezeula. Communist reject both lines.

[Freedom Works]

Communist reject both lines.

As do capitalists and libertarians.

[Andy Bowden]

Isn't Iraqs new free-market reforms backed avidly by Capitalists and Libertarians?

[hippieofsorts]

the reason we dont have huge vietnam like demonstrations is because the war isnt far enough along yet. vietnam took like 5 to 7 years before real opposition began to rise iraq has only been going on for around 3ish years. Iraq will get worse and worse, all out civil war will come and the war has a real possibility to expand to other nations. This will bring about the reenstatement of the draft and after that all hell will break loose.

I hope im wrong but that is just where i see things going

[Zingu]

Its obvious.


The liberal leadership only really cares about winning the next election, after they fucked up this time.

They really don't give a shit about the suffering of the Iraqi people, and never will.


On the other hand, we Communists do, and are willing to be against the war not to "support our troops" or "be patriotic", but because our political goals are not restricted to such petty things.

[rachstev]

Hiero wrote:

Why do you do this? You have some problems if you can't comprehend that the majority of people at this website do not take a liberal view of the war in Iraq. So there is nor point presenting views which are designed to counter the arguements on the democracts.



Well, Heiro:

I'm at the Opposing Idologies forum, labeled and advertised as open to cappies, etc. so obviously you would expect to find differing views.

I am, overall, not happy about most apsects of the war in Iraq. But I believe that there is no world-wide anti-war movement; only an anti-American movement.

There have been COUNTLESS wars over the past decade, many having nothing to do with the United States, far more deadly and evil, where children have their hands cut off and mass rapes and genocides. If you pretend Iraq is of this kind, you have some prejudicial views that you alone have to address.

But the commentator has brought up an interesting point about the American Anti-War movement (spedcifically referring to Iraq, not Afganistan, which the majority of Americans found justified, as do I, as Al Queda was operating out of there and they attacked us.)


Clownpenisanarchy:

I of course agree that the day the war ends will be a great day. I just don't have the same attitude that many here have, that the Iraqi government must fail, because it was created during the occupation. This group (maybe you count yourself as one of them) ALSO doesn't want ANY constitution to succeed, whether it allow free enterprise or Islamic, or neutral, or whatever.

A formal constitution is the true enemy of socialist revolution, because it allows for subtle, instrumental changes and remedies.

You will recall that in the Declaration, Jefferson wrote that people are likely to suffer minor upsetness from government, than they are to throw off that to which they are accustomed, until such a government becomes abusive of the ends of protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So it is with a Constitution.

Where it allows for changes and redress of grievance, there is far likely a less reason for revolution.

Now, regarding this "the world doesn't want the Iraq War nonsense"...

No shit. No one wants ANY war, overall. But how who cares how many millions entered the streets of London or wherever. They didn't do it for any other war, ONLY A WAR INVOLVING THE UNITED STATES. What a crock! That isn't an anti-war movement. A real one moves into streets where innocents are PUROPOSFULLY AND INTENTIONALLY killed, maimed and raped.

I will never again trust Europe. I want people in the streets for EVERY war. The anti-American war feavor in Europe is 110% fake. It's part of the socialist-revolutionary machine.

But thank you for your sincere argumnets. If you're interested, my comments that sound humorous (like "10 things you won't have after the revolution") are humorous. The one's that cite and discuss commentary, such as this one, are serious.

I'll repeat my final thesis:

Whether or not the majority of Iraqis want the Americans in Iraq is not my point; it is that the VAST majority want some type of Constitutional Democracy. Of this there is no argument, accept given by people at this forum who don't want a Constitution for fear that such a structure would make socialist revolution damn near difficult.

Rachstev

Rachstev

[Amusing Scrotum]

rachstev, I really can't be bothered to get into the whole was the war a good thing debate, I've debated it a number of times and it gets tedious.

However I would just like to pick you up on a couple of errors -


I am, overall, not happy about most apsects of the war in Iraq. But I believe that there is no world-wide anti-war movement; only an anti-American movement.

There have been COUNTLESS wars over the past decade, many having nothing to do with the United States, far more deadly and evil, where children have their hands cut off and mass rapes and genocides. If you pretend Iraq is of this kind, you have some prejudicial views that you alone have to address.


In terms of those countless wars you talk about, there is a figure that I can't remember off hand, that shows the USA since World War 2 has conducted more aggressive military actions in foreign countries, than all of the other countries in the world combined. Why else do you think America spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined?


Now, regarding this "the world doesn't want the Iraq War nonsense"...

No shit. No one wants ANY war, overall. But how who cares how many millions entered the streets of London or wherever. They didn't do it for any other war, ONLY A WAR INVOLVING THE UNITED STATES. What a crock! That isn't an anti-war movement. A real one moves into streets where innocents are PUROPOSFULLY AND INTENTIONALLY killed, maimed and raped.

I will never again trust Europe. I want people in the streets for EVERY war. The anti-American war feavor in Europe is 110% fake. It's part of the socialist-revolutionary machine

The majority of protesters demonstrated on the streets of London not because they were anti American, but because they did not want British forces in Iraq. Add to this that people in Europe protest most wars and take to the streets, not on the same scale, but they still protest about these things more than Americans.

Don't be such a fuck-wit and think that Europeans who are anti war, are only anti war because they are anti America. Like your Fuhrer tells you. The people who protested, protested because they realise aggressive action in other countries is not the solution, its the problem.

Europeans also realise that September 11th wasn't that big a deal. Its not the end of the world and does not warrant the blanket bombing of two other countries. Terrorism happens either because it is being supported by a country (The Contras' in Nicaragua), or because a country is brutalising the people of its country or the people of another country (The IRA in Northern Ireland), September 11th involved both these things. Both of which can be easily fixed.

[rachstev]

Armchair wrote:

rachstev, I really can't be bothered to get into the whole was the war a good thing debate, I've debated it a number of times and it gets tedious.


Well, then who's askng you to get into this if you can't be bothered?

On top of this, everything you wrote about was a bunch of incoherant babble. You didn't discuss my points what-so-ever.

Finally, There have been MILLIONS of people killed in MANY NON U.S. military actions since 1945. Do you remember millions in the streets when the Soviets took over nations by rolling tanks in? No, don't think so. Do you remember millions in Paris, Athens or Rome when African campaigns killed whole klans and genocides of entire peoples? No, don't think so.

You are the fuckwit.

Rachstev

[Amusing Scrotum]

Well, then who's askng you to get into this if you can't be bothered?


I wasn't getting involved in the debate in a broad sense, I was merely pointing out that you had made a couple erroneous statements.

I did not offer any substantial comment on Iraq, the build up to the war in Iraq, or the current situation in Iraq.


On top of this, everything you wrote about was a bunch of incoherant babble. You didn't discuss my points what-so-ever.


You what?

I corrected erroneous statements in your argument. Making valid points. If you disagree with my statements, offer a counter argument. Calling my argument "incoherant babble"[sic], only lowers the standard of your argument, not mine.


Finally, There have been MILLIONS of people killed in MANY NON U.S. military actions since 1945. Do you remember millions in the streets when the Soviets took over nations by rolling tanks in? No, don't think so. Do you remember millions in Paris, Athens or Rome when African campaigns killed whole klans and genocides of entire peoples? No, don't think so.


Did you read what I wrote, British people marched on London, because they opposed British involvement in Iraq. Was there British involvement with the other wars you mention? No.
Add to this, when Russia did invade Czechoslovakia there were massive student protests in Europe.

Also please name these wars without US military involvement, it would be interesting to see which wars they are.


You are the fuckwit.


Coming from you, that is a great compliment

[Rasta Sapian]

yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaa!

[Ownthink]

^ Nothing like good ol 'MeriKKKan boys going hunting. Oh yeah, and "thier" allies.

"Getta" shoot first if you're from NYC! I mean, because you MUST have been more affected by 9/11 than anyone else! Come on now, shoot!

Morons.