France's Just Desserts

[Capitalist Imperial]

This is absolutely fucking poetic. Not only did they not allow us to use their airspace to hit Quaddafi's place, not only did they not help us with the libertion of a now constiututional Iraq or the related terrorist insurgenccy, or in Afghanistan for that matter, but they in fact tried to shake us up and hinder us every step of the way.

Now look. The truly peaceful and benevolent Islam is coming back to bite them.

And, of course, in the French tradition, they are soft as hell on the matter. They can't even quell what is basically an unarmed insurgency from the suburbs. I would expect nothing less from the spineless twits.

With this situation spreading now to belgium and even Germany, it looks like this incredible socialist dream is once again crumbling into futility. I would say that I hope this uprising spreads to all of socialist Europe, but unlike the French, I have a spine, and am consistent, so I still hope that these islamo-fascists are defeated soon. I suppose England is the only nation over there with the werewithal to do anything.

Thanks, socialism, for creating a permanent underclass that has no chance for upward mobility.

How does the crow taste, pinkos?

By the way, if France needs help from a nation that actually has a pair, I suppose they can still call the good old U.S. What the hell? Lets continue the tradition of the U.S helping them without an ounce of reciprocation.


LOL, LOL, LMAO, ROFL

[cubist]

only one thing to say

http://www.nataliedee.com/032003/dinosaur.jpg

[kingbee]

well done. riots happen. and its all the socialist's fault.

how about the l.a riots. whose fault was that?

how about bradford, birmingham?


and please, its britain, not england. do your research.

[Livetrueordie]

go kiss Reagan's cold dead ass.

[Intifada]

Contrary to your naive understanding of the riots/protests, this situation has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.

[PRC-UTE]

Like Intifada said, the two are unrelated. It's not logical to explain every violent conflict in the world involving those of Muslim/North African/ Arab heritage as being Islamist. Especially as this is more obviously a class war about employment, poverty, etc that happens to overlap with issues of identity because of discrimination in French society.

If anything's coming back to bite France in anyway, it would be their former empire haunting them.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:48 PM


and please, its britain, not england. do your research.
Oh, come on, are you really going to focus on semantics here?

[Intifada]

I think CI's idiotic comments stem from plain Islamophobia, the type espoused by the fuckers on Fox News.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Considering everything going on in the world, if you are not going to acknowledge that the fact that these quasi-tererorists are Muslim have something to do with this, then you are in fact even more blind that I even originally thought.

I believe I remember a post regarding the Katrina disaster, when one of you leftists so confidently asserted that civil unrest like that experienced during Katrina would "never happen in socialist Europe" due to your beloved and gargantuan socialist government.

Well well, how quickly fate emerges to refute this assertion.

I await a retraction on behalf of the left at your convenience.

[Intifada]

Considering everything going on in the world, if you are not going to acknowledge that the fact that these quasi-tererorists are Muslim have something to do with this, then you are in fact even more blind that I even originally thought.


Bullshit.

Provide evidence that backs up this ridiculous claim.

The events that have unfolded are a direct result of years and years of exploitation, poverty, unemployment and racism. So what if the majority of the rioters are of Islamic faith.


I believe I remember a post regarding the Katrina disaster, when one of you leftists so confidently asserted that civil unrest like that experienced during Katrina would "never happen in socialist Europe" due to your beloved and gargantuan socialist government.


I do not know who stated what you have claimed, but whoever it was is quite simply an idiot. There is no "socialist Europe".

[viva le revolution]

As i remeber it, wasn't the islamic fundamentalist movement birthed by american capitalists. I seem to remember afghanistan, where religious mujahideen were given weapons and cash to wage 'jihad' against the evil communists.
Didn't the west cry for the muslim brotherhood in nasser's egypt?
Didn't the west ally itself with osama bin laden?
Didn't the west ally itself with saddam hussein and arm it to the teeth against iran?
Didn't the west prop up zia-ul-haq in pakistan who was crushing the communist movement in pakistan and basically islamazing pakistan?
Gee..looks more like the U.S getting it's just desserts.
Welcome to reality sweetheart.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Considering everything going on in the world, if you are not going to acknowledge that the fact that these quasi-tererorists are Muslim have something to do with this, then you are in fact even more blind that I even originally thought.

yeah only muslims can riot you know? you know, there would never be such a thing as a riot in america, never. :lol:


I believe I remember a post regarding the Katrina disaster, when one of you leftists so confidently asserted that civil unrest like that experienced during Katrina would "never happen in socialist Europe" due to your beloved and gargantuan socialist government.


lets see, if it were truely socialist the rioters would control the means of production, they would be employed. so yes, under true socialism, people wouldnt be rioting over not having a job.


Well well, how quickly fate emerges to refute this assertion.

I await a retraction on behalf of the left at your convenience.

constantly fighting over this shit gets old. we arent gonna change eachothers minds. you are very set on your beliefs and we are on ours. so it will come a time to see who will win, but that isnt today.

also, according to your reagan quote, you understand marx. so i ask you, why do your arguements sound like a person who has no basic concept of far left ideas?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 09:05 PM
I think CI's idiotic comments stem from plain Islamophobia, the type espoused by the fuckers on Fox News.
Hmmm, islamophobia. That is a misnomer (I'll explain later).

However, lets review:

The marine barracks in beirut

The embassies in Africa

The hostage-taking in Iran

The Kidnappings in the phillipenes

Bombings in Indonesia and Bali

The bombing of the USS Cole

The train bombings in the UK

The train bombings in spain

The attacks on the world Trade Center and the Pentagn, and the failed attack on the Capital.

Intifada, do you really expect me or any reasonable person who stands-up to islamo-fascism to be considered an "Islamophobe"? How partisan are you? You're not even reasonable.

As for that term, I again assert that it is a misnomer. I am not scared of Islam. They have proven themselves to be pretty cowardly in the manner in which they conduct war and politics. They can't fight face-to-face, And when they do, they always lose.

I have no phobia, just a well-placed anger and defiance at people who follow a twisted version of an antiquated and oppressive religion, who have repeatedly attacked my people, nation, and assets.

Intifada, you are incredibly ignorant and rarely refer to facts in your ludicrous claims. Its no surprise to me that you are a leftist. I suggest that you put down the che cofefe mug and pick up some books you invalid.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 8 2005, 09:18 PM
As i remeber it, wasn't the islamic fundamentalist movement birthed by american capitalists. I seem to remember afghanistan, where religious mujahideen were given weapons and cash to wage 'jihad' against the evil communists.
Didn't the west cry for the muslim brotherhood in nasser's egypt?
Didn't the west ally itself with osama bin laden?
Didn't the west ally itself with saddam hussein and arm it to the teeth against iran?
Didn't the west prop up zia-ul-haq in pakistan who was crushing the communist movement in pakistan and basically islamazing pakistan?
Gee..looks more like the U.S getting it's just desserts.
Welcome to reality sweetheart.
We've been through all this, and I don;'t deny it. Just because you ally yourself with someone doesn't mean you are allied for life.

What is your ppoint?

Yes, we helped create them, so now we are helping to end them.

Its more than France is doing.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 8 2005, 09:25 PM
They have proven themselves to be pretty cowardly in the manner in which they conduct war and politics. They can't fight face-to-face

Now i dont stand up for terrorists but they seem to have more intestinal fortitude than most soldiers in your country (im guessing you live in the good old US of A)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 09:21 PM

also, according to your reagan quote, you understand marx. so i ask you, why do your arguements sound like a person who has no basic concept of far left ideas?
I have a very good understanding of far left ideas. However, I, unlike contemporary leftists, clearly understand the difference betweeen the utopian communism that exists on paper and the actual outcome of it in practical application throughout every single example in the world's history.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Skinz+Nov 8 2005, 09:37 PM--> (Skinz @ Nov 8 2005, 09:37 PM)
Capitalist [email protected] 8 2005, 09:25 PM
They have proven themselves to be pretty cowardly in the manner in which they conduct war and politics. They can't fight face-to-face

Now i dont stand up for terrorists but they seem to have more intestinal fortitude than most soldiers in your country (im guessing you live in the good old US of A) [/b]
Example please.

[Intifada]

Ignoring the fact that you, unsurprisingly, ignored all of my reply, apart from the "Islamophobia" part...


The marine barracks in beirut

The embassies in Africa

The hostage-taking in Iran

The Kidnappings in the phillipenes

Bombings in Indonesia and Bali

The bombing of the USS Cole

The train bombings in the UK

The train bombings in spain

The attacks on the world Trade Center and the Pentagn, and the failed attack on the Capital.


"Islamic" terrorism against the US, and it's allies, is simply a case of the chickens coming home to roost.

The shooting down of two Libyan planes in 1981.

Beirut bombings of 1983 and 1984.

Bombing of Libya in 1986.

The intervention in Iranian affairs since the US helped the British topple the democratically elected Mossadegh, and then replacing him with the Shah.

Shooting down of more Libyan planes in 1989.

Bombing and slaughter of the Iraqi people including and since the end of the First Gulf War.

The bombing of the only pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.

Continuing support of the terrorist state of Israel.

Support for dictatorial maniacs like Islam Karimov.

The list goes on and on.

Seeing as you know so much about "acts of terror" against the US, why don't you include the fact that the 1998 bombings of the two US embassies in Africa took place on the eighth anniversary of US troops first arriving in Saudi Arabia?

The attacks on Westerners in places Spain, London and Bali happened after the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and funnily enough, they targeted citizens of the nations which supported the US-led actions in Iraq.


I am not scared of Islam.

Your obsession with the "muslims" suggests to me otherwise.


They can't fight face-to-face

Haha!

Just keep dropping the bombs from the skies, and when there is "blowback", don't cry like you did on 9/11 about "why the hate us so much".


I have no phobia, just a well-placed anger and defiance at people who follow a twisted version of an antiquated and oppressive religion, who have repeatedly attacked my people, nation, and assets.


Islamophobia generally means hatred of Muslims and Islam, something which seems very recognisable in your ignorant statements.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Nov 8 2005, 09:41 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Nov 8 2005, 09:41 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 09:37 PM

Capitalist [email protected] 8 2005, 09:25 PM
They have proven themselves to be pretty cowardly in the manner in which they conduct war and politics. They can't fight face-to-face

Now i dont stand up for terrorists but they seem to have more intestinal fortitude than most soldiers in your country (im guessing you live in the good old US of A)
Example please. [/b]
The balls of steel you would need to commit suicide for your cause must be unbelivable, fighting for your cause and commiting suicide for it are completely differet. Were most soldiers soil themselfs at the prospect of death or come home mentaly traumatised. For example there was a thread on this board not so long ago about a few US soldiers coming home and murdering their whole family, now i think we can all agree thats just weak.

[black magick hustla]

hey guys most criminals are christians

therefore christianity makes people do crimes :lol:

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 09:45 PM



They can't fight face-to-face

Haha!

Just keep dropping the bombs from the skies, and when there is "blowback", don't cry like you did on 9/11 about "why the hate us so much".

lol exacly :lol: maybe CI may want to check this out before defending his country so ignorantly, or do you support this kind of thing?
A small village is destroyed (from a AC130 airplane) and everyone is murdered mercyless. (It is not possible to distinguish a man from a woman or a child): from that altittude you are only an infrared spot (http://www.thenausea.com/elements/usa/AC130_GunshipMed_a.wmv)

EDIT: Spelling

[Invader Zim]

Now children, don't feed the trolls, CI lives for this BS. If you choose to be an idiot and actually fall for his bait, then he will bring you down to his own level of ignorance and beat you from all the practise he's had.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 09:51 PM
The balls of steel you would need to commit suicide for your cause must be unbelivable, fighting for your cause and commiting suicide for it are completely differet. Were most soldiers soil themselfs at the prospect of death or come home mentaly traumatised. For example there was a thread on this board not so long ago about a few US soldiers coming home and murdering their whole family, now i think we can all agree thats just weak.
Of course that is weak, but that phenomenon occurs accross all wars, all nations, and all soldiers. However, our soldiers are willing to fight face to face, where most of the insurgents use roadside bombs against the US forces. As for the suicide bombers, they mostly target their own civilians.

And lets not kid ourselves, these guys are brainwashed by theri imams from a young age that upon death they will be greeted by 72 underage virgins in the aftelife!

Not only are they cowardly, but they are pedophiles!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 09:55 PM
hey guys most criminals are christians

therefore christianity makes people do crimes :lol:
Your analogy is inaccurate.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Nov 8 2005, 05:41 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Nov 8 2005, 05:41 PM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 09:21 PM

also, according to your reagan quote, you understand marx. so i ask you, why do your arguements sound like a person who has no basic concept of far left ideas?
I have a very good understanding of far left ideas. However, I, unlike contemporary leftists, clearly understand the difference betweeen the utopian communism that exists on paper and the actual outcome of it in practical application throughout every single example in the world's history. [/b]
well if thats the case, you have the ability to read our arguements. if you do you will clearly see that lots of us dont support these "socialists states" you speak of, nor do we allow them to be called socialism, because they dont meet the deffinition.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Nov 8 2005, 05:48 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Nov 8 2005, 05:48 PM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 09:51 PM
The balls of steel you would need to commit suicide for your cause must be unbelivable, fighting for your cause and commiting suicide for it are completely differet. Were most soldiers soil themselfs at the prospect of death or come home mentaly traumatised. For example there was a thread on this board not so long ago about a few US soldiers coming home and murdering their whole family, now i think we can all agree thats just weak.
Of course that is weak, but that phenomenon occurs accross all wars, all nations, and all soldiers. However, our soldiers are willing to fight face to face, where most of the insurgents use roadside bombs against the US forces. As for the suicide bombers, they mostly target their own civilians.

And lets not kid ourselves, these guys are brainwashed by theri imams from a young age that upon death they will be greeted by 72 underage virgins in the aftelife!

Not only are they cowardly, but they are pedophiles! [/b]
Not only are they defending their invaded countries, but they are actually justified in doing so!


Fucking moron.

[Xvall]

I don't think you've done anything other than make yourself look like a complete idiot / jackass.

1) The riots weren't started on any religious pretense; they started because two kids got killed. Religion played little, if any, role in the initiation of the riots, which now consist of people who aren't even Muslim.

2) Most of the people here are in favor or the riots. When you say "RIOTS LOL" you're not really doing anything other than agreeing with us "commie pukes".

3) Right-wingers are probably appauled by the riots, so if you laugh about it, you just make yourself look like a heartless dick, in their eyes.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Plus all the religious leaders in the rioting communities have been calling for an end to the riots, it hasn't happen. So I think its fair to say that if you were to ask a rioter if they were doing it for religious reasons, they would say "Why? What the fuck has (God/Allah/some other superior being) done for me?"

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 8 2005, 09:25 PM



The attacks on the world Trade Center and the Pentagn, and the failed attack on the Capital.

They can't fight face-to-face,

Both world trade center attacks were inside jobs. Shit the FBI gave them the bomb in the first attack for Christs sake. A fool such as yourself probably believes any fairytail the government tells you.

I suppose you believe dropping bombs and shooting missels is fighting face to face. Keep listening to Rush you brain washed flag waving moron.

[Capitalist Imperial]

. [/QUOTE]

"Islamic" terrorism against the US, and it's allies, is simply a case of the chickens coming home to roost.

Yeah, of course, because islam has never been oppressive or confrontational in years past, jeez, get serious.

Please, be realistic, from the Moors 'til today, they are absolutely open about saying that they want a total islamic state on earth and they want all americans dead!!! Not because of political or economic reasons, but because we are infidels!!! This is not a political consideration, it is a religious one.


The shooting down of two Libyan planes in 1981.

Do you mean the libyan Migs that were trying to intercept a US patrol? Oh, sorry, our bad, I guess we should have let them shoot us down.


Bombing of Libya in 1986.

Oh please, lets not kid ourselves, Quaddafi had it coming, or maybe you condoned the bombing of the Pan AM airliner.


Shooting down of more Libyan planes in 1989.

Again, they are warplanes


Bombing and slaughter of the Iraqi people including and since the end of the First Gulf War.


The only one responible for those atrocities is Saddam Hussein

Alleged... it may have been a chemical weapons plant



Continuing support of the terrorist state of Israel.

You truly are liberal scum


Seeing as you know so much about "acts of terror" against the US, why don't you include the fact that the 1998 bombings of the two US embassies in Africa took place on the eighth anniversary of US troops first arriving in Saudi Arabia?

Oh, so muslims in Africa will dictate what the policy of Sovereign Saudi Arabia and who they chose to have as welcome and legal guests?


The attacks on Westerners in places Spain, London and Bali happened after the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and funnily enough, they targeted citizens of the nations which supported the US-led actions in Iraq.

Which again supports my notion that the islamist terrorists are cowardly, having to attack western civilians because they can't legitimately carry out their jihad on the battlefield against someone who will stand up to their religious fascism.


Your obsession with the "muslims" suggests to me otherwise.

If you call being at war with a people who have consistently bombed US interests over the last 25 years and then killed 3000+ of my people on 9/11 "obsession", then I suggest you purchase a dictionary.


Just keep dropping the bombs from the skies, and when there is "blowback", don't cry like you did on 9/11 about "why the hate us so much".


Just keep dropping the bombs from the skies, and when there is "blowback", don't cry like you did on 9/11 about "why the hate us so much".

Hey, lets not kid ourselves, we do use airpower of course. However, this is all part of an overall strategy, including thousands of ground troops who fight up close and personal with the islamic scum.


Islamophobia generally means hatred of Muslims and Islam, something which seems very recognisable in your ignorant statements

from dictionary.com:

islamophobia

n : prejudice against Muslims; "Muslim intellectuals are afraid of growing Islamophobia in the West" [syn: Islamophobia]

I am not "prejudiced". Prejuudice stems from "prejudge". I have not "prejudged". I have judged. I hav judged agfter the world has bore witness to the hatred and fascism perpetrated by these cowardly terrorists.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 10:55 PM
Not only are they defending their invaded countries, but they are actually justified in doing so!


Fucking moron.
Mostly foreign Muslims bombing secular civilians in Iraq marketplaces are defending their country?

You are ther fucking moron, you logicless imbecile.

Tyr critical thinking sometime, you might like it.

[Free Palestine]

Which French "desserts" are you refering to in the title of the thread? Are we talking crêpes here or perhaps mousse? You're making me hungry, man.


.. the libertion of a now constiututional Iraq or the related terrorist insurgenccy

Hm.. When early American revolutionaries throw off the yoke of imperialism and gain independence they become heroes of our textbooks. When Iraqi nationalists try to do the same thing and dedicate their lives to independence, they're called "terrorist insurgents." You know that's what the British called the American revolutionaries, right?


Considering everything going on in the world, if you are not going to acknowledge that the fact that these quasi-tererorists are Muslim have something to do with this, then you are in fact even more blind that I even originally thought.

Yeah, it's not poverty or despair or the terrible economic and political conditions under which rioters have lived in for decades fueling the unrest in France, it's all "Islam." :rolleyes: I knew it wouldn't be long before the idiots started analyzing the disturbances in France from the standpoint of an Islamic world conspiracy.


..but unlike the French, I have a spine, and am consistent, so I still hope that these islamo-fascists are defeated soon.

Then why don't you grab your deer rifle and catch the next plane to Iraq and be a good little Republican cretin and storm the palaces of Baghdad in the name of all that is just, and Republican, and profitable? May I call you a chicken-hawk coward?


..any reasonable person who stands-up to islamo-fascism

I think it's cute that he calls them "islamo-fascists." Otherwise, he wouldn't know the difference between himself and their kind of fascism.


They have proven themselves to be pretty cowardly in the manner in which they conduct war and politics. They can't fight face-to-face

Sacrificing one’s own life for a cause has never been called cowardice.


I am not scared of Islam.

Keep telling yourself that.


I have no phobia, just a well-placed anger and defiance at people who follow a twisted version of an antiquated and oppressive religion, who have repeatedly attacked my people, nation, and assets.

Yeah right, it’s no damn fucking surprise you were attacked and you know it. It was just extra special because the bombs were pointed the other way and hitting Westerners this time. Your hypocrisy is nauseating, as you constantly seek to seize the moral high ground in relation to violence and destruction that your country themselves helped unleash.

At the end of the day, you can enjoy your pint of beer in the sun and ignore the murderous actions of your so-called democratic government in far-away lands, but don’t go complaining when someone comes looking for some justice in the form of a bomb under your ass. Imperialist prick.

;)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Atlas [email protected] 8 2005, 11:31 PM

Both world trade center attacks were inside jobs. Shit the FBI gave them the bomb in the first attack for Christs sake.

LOL,LOL, ROFL, LMAO

This says everything about leftist intellect.

Fucking idiot kool-aid drinker.

[Amusing Scrotum]

If you call being at war with a people who have consistently bombed US interests over the last 25 years and then killed 3000+ of my people on 9/11 "obsession", then I suggest you purchase a dictionary.

So when 3000 American civilians die you are allowed to be so angry that a war is justified, but when America murders 10,000+ Iraqi civilians, (So many they (the army) didn't even do a proper count) the Iraqi population is not allowed to fight back and demand retribution. Are you saying that only dead Americans can be avenged?

[Xvall]

Jesus fucking christ, CI, you've fallen pretty damn far. What is this shit? Kool-aid? Scum? Shame on you, man.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 8 2005, 11:58 PM












Hm.. When early American revolutionaries throw off the yoke of imperialism and gain independence they become heroes of our textbooks. When Iraqi nationalists try to do the same thing and dedicate their lives to independence, they're called "terrorist insurgents." You know that's what the British called the American revolutionaries, right?


You really think that these insurgents are Iraqi nationalists? They are foreign terrorists with one interest: A total islamic state in the middle east and eventually the world. Get real, dude.


Then why don't you grab your deer rifle and catch the next plane to Iraq and be a good little Republican cretin and storm the palaces of Baghdad in the name of all that is just, and Republican, and profitable? May I call you a chicken-hawk coward?

Because its already been done, and you can call me that if you wish, but you would be wrong.

I
think it's cute that he calls them "islamo-fascists." Otherwise, he wouldn't know the difference between himself and their kind of fascism.

Explain to me in specific, concrete terms how the United states is fascist.



I am not scared of Islam.

Keep telling yourself that.

I don't have to tell myself that. I'm telling you. Its called the "second person" in english grammar. Learn it.


Imperialist prick.

communist-puke

[Amusing Scrotum]

You really think that these insurgents are Iraqi nationalists? They are foreign terrorists with one interest: A total islamic state in the middle east and eventually the world. Get real, dude.

British and American Government studies have concluded that foreign fighters constitute around 3% of the insurgency. To borrow your phrase - "Get real, dude."

Also its written Islamic you retard, not islamic. :angry:

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 9 2005, 12:10 AM

If you call being at war with a people who have consistently bombed US interests over the last 25 years and then killed 3000+ of my people on 9/11 "obsession", then I suggest you purchase a dictionary.

So when 3000 American civilians die you are allowed to be so angry that a war is justified, but when America murders 10,000+ Iraqi civilians, (So many they (the army) didn't even do a proper count) the Iraqi population is not allowed to fight back and demand retribution. Are you saying that only dead Americans can be avenged?
There is only one person responsible for dead Iraqis, and that is Saddam.

Again, I've tried to explain to you leftists that the people fighting in Iraq are not Iraqi nationalists. Iraq is mostly secular. The fighters are mostly foreign islamo-fascists interested in a total islamic state in Iraq and the middle east as a whole.

Iraqi nationalists were the ones voting on the new constitution, thank you.

Please get it right before you argue.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 9 2005, 12:31 AM

You really think that these insurgents are Iraqi nationalists? They are foreign terrorists with one interest: A total islamic state in the middle east and eventually the world. Get real, dude.

British and American Government studies have concluded that foreign fighters constitute around 3% of the insurgency. To borrow your phrase - "Get real, dude."

Also its written Islamic you retard, not islamic. :angry:
I want to see this study. How can they tell? I've read studies to the contrary.

Don't shaklke me up because I didn't cap my I. It shows that you are detracting from your actual argument, and that is weak.

[KC]

There is only one person responsible for dead Iraqis, and that is Saddam.


Sanctions were the number one killer of Iraqis during the Saddam days. Not Saddam. Sanctions imposed by the United States.

[Free Palestine]

As I predicted, you casually ignored the vast majority of my post.


They are foreign terrorists with one interest


Foreigners account for perhaps 2% of the suspected guerrillas who have been captured or killed.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout...1106254,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1106254,00.html)


Foreign militants - mainly from Algeria, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia - account for less than 10% of the estimated 30,000 insurgents, according to the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1576666,00.html


A total islamic state in the middle east and eventually the world.

I think that's total bullshit. The Iraqis who Bush lied to and promised liberation and are now openly resisting the occupation don't want to convert anyone to their religion, they are simply against foreign control of their homeland and what's more, they represent the will of the overwhelming majority. They are an oppressed people who refuse to be vanquished and are now facing the ugly reality of another American imperialist venture which is compelled to vanquish them.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 9 2005, 12:44 AM
As I predicted, you casually ignored the vast majority of my
I think that's total bullshit. The Iraqis who Bush lied to and promised liberation and are now openly resisting the occupation don't want to convert anyone to their religion, they are simply against foreign control of their homeland and what's more, they represent the will of the overwhelming majority. They are an oppressed people who refuse to be vanquished and are now facing the ugly reality of another American imperialist venture which is compelled to vanquish them.
even if this is true, it is still not the vast manjority of Iraqis. Most Iraqis are for peace, and want an end to the insurgency. This was expressed when the vast majority of Iraq voted t ratify the new iraqi constitution.

Stop lying, Free palestine. The majority of Iraq is not against the US!!! Stop believing your liberal pundits and their agnda-driven bullshit!

[Amusing Scrotum]

There is only one person responsible for dead Iraqis, and that is Saddam.

Huh? :unsure:

Did American forces drop no bombs, kill no civilians?


Again, I've tried to explain to you leftists that the people fighting in Iraq are not Iraqi nationalists. Iraq is mostly secular. The fighters are mostly foreign islamo-fascists interested in a total islamic state in Iraq and the middle east as a whole.

So every insurgent is a foreign Islamic fundamentalist?

To borrow another of your phrases - "Please get it right before you argue."


I want to see this study. How can they tell? I've read studies to the contrary


There is little agreement on the numbers involved. Estimates vary from 30,000 to some 200,000 fighters - a figure cited by Iraqi intelligence in 2005.

Central Iraq's Sunni Muslim heartland is regarded as the crucible of the insurgency - scene of the bloodiest attacks and source of most of the fighters.

Iraq has also seen an influx of foreign "jihadi" fighters, most of whom have joined the Sunni Muslim insurgency.

Their number is small - estimated at no more than 3,000 - but their profile is high.


Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4268904.stm).

Thats anywhere from 10% to 1.5%, hardly a majority.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 12:17 AM
Jesus fucking christ, CI, you've fallen pretty damn far. What is this shit? Kool-aid? Scum? Shame on you, man.
Oh come on, Xvall, look at what I'm being called!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 12:43 AM


There is only one person responsible for dead Iraqis, and that is Saddam.


Sanctions were the number one killer of Iraqis during the Saddam days. Not Saddam. Sanctions imposed by the United States.
Those sanctions allowed certain food/water/medicine provisions for the citizens, however, Saddam illegally usurped those for Baa'th party use.

Besides, the sanctions were in response to Saddams lack of cooperation with the US in the 1st place.

Again, he is responsible.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 9 2005, 12:53 AM

There is only one person responsible for dead Iraqis, and that is Saddam.

Huh? :unsure:

Did American forces drop no bombs, kill no civilians?


Again, I've tried to explain to you leftists that the people fighting in Iraq are not Iraqi nationalists. Iraq is mostly secular. The fighters are mostly foreign islamo-fascists interested in a total islamic state in Iraq and the middle east as a whole.

So every insurgent is a foreign Islamic fundamentalist?

To borrow another of your phrases - "Please get it right before you argue."


I want to see this study. How can they tell? I've read studies to the contrary


There is little agreement on the numbers involved. Estimates vary from 30,000 to some 200,000 fighters - a figure cited by Iraqi intelligence in 2005.

Central Iraq's Sunni Muslim heartland is regarded as the crucible of the insurgency - scene of the bloodiest attacks and source of most of the fighters.

Iraq has also seen an influx of foreign "jihadi" fighters, most of whom have joined the Sunni Muslim insurgency.

Their number is small - estimated at no more than 3,000 - but their profile is high.


Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4268904.stm).

Thats anywhere from 10% to 1.5%, hardly a majority.

I've read to the contrary.

But hey, I'll take a step that you leftists never would. I'll conced the point.

Either way, even if the insurgents are in-house, they are still islamic fundamentalists and not Iraqi nationalists.

They do not have the interest of Iraq at heart.

Osama Bin laden himself has stated that he has a vision for a total islamist state in the middle east, and Islamic fundamentalism is in fact fighting to that end.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Besides, the sanctions were in response to Saddams lack of cooperation with the US in the 1st place.

Again, he is responsible.

So what you are saying is that either you do what the USA wants or you will be punished. Hitler had similar ideas about other sovereign nations.


Iv'e read to the contrary.

Source?


Either way, even iof the insurgents are in-house, they are still islamic fundamentalists and not Iraqi nationalists.

What defines a nationalist? and what defines a fundamentalist?

Also read the linked article, the insurgency is a mixed bag.


They do not have the interest of Iraq at heart.


And Halliburton do?


Osama Bin laden himself has stated that he has a vision for a total islamist state in the middle east, and Islamic fundamentalism is in fact fighting to that end.

I want a Communist Middle East, it is my "vision," are the insurgents now Communists?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 9 2005, 01:10 AM











So what you are saying is that either you do what the USA wants or you will be punished. Hitler had similar ideas about other sovereign nations.

No, I am saying that the sanctions were imposed by the U.N. after Saddam invaded Kuwait. He created this situation by forcing the U.S.' hand in Kuwait. We just didn't impose sanctions out of nowhere.



Iv'e read to the contrary.Source?

I can't find it now. However, like I said, I am reasnonable, so I conceded the point, something I have yet to see any of you do, even on reasonable issues.


What defines a nationalist? and what defines a fundamentalist?

Come on, aren't these semantics? I suppose that a fundamentalist is typically a religious reference, whaile a nationalist is a political alignment.


And Halliburton do?

Halliburton is working for profit, of course, but their recontruction objectives in fact are alaigned with the interests of Iraq, yes. Don't you think new, well engineered infrastructure is good for Iraq? I do.


I want a Communist Middle East, it is my "vision," are the insurgents now Communists?

No, the insurgents are still Islamic, like they always have been. What are you talking about? Isn't it reasonable to believe that the islamic insurgents are in fact well aligned with the objectives and philosophy of Osama Bin Laden? They are islamic fighters, thats not even a dispute.

By the way, while your link does call the insurgency a mixed bag, it even admits Al-Queda is the most successful faction and even the different groups, while not totally homogonized, are still islamic thocracies, and being lauded by al-queda as harbingers of a total pan-islamic state, just as I said earlier!!!

From your article:


Organisations such as al-Qaeda meanwhile praise the foreign fighters as ideal recruits, the vanguard of a global, pan-Islamic uprising.

and


Al-Qaeda is Iraq's most successful insurgent group, blamed for many of the country's bloodiest bombings and beheadings.


Every group profiled in that article except the ex-saddam loyalists were some sort of islamic group, sir.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Another hit and run attack eh CI? You're getting sloppy as well.


Now look. The truly peaceful and benevolent Islam is coming back to bite them.

This is your first mistake. not all the rioters are muslims.


And, of course, in the French tradition, they are soft as hell on the matter. They can't even quell what is basically an unarmed insurgency from the suburbs. I would expect nothing less from the spineless twits.

Yeah, shooting unarmed civilians is so manly :rolleyes:


With this situation spreading now to belgium and even Germany, it looks like this incredible socialist dream is once again crumbling into futility.

Non sequiter. Civil unrest in capitalist society does not equal a failure of socialism.


I would say that I hope this uprising spreads to all of socialist Europe, but unlike the French, I have a spine, and am consistent, so I still hope that these islamo-fascists are defeated soon.

What exactly do these riots have to do with Islam?


I suppose England is the only nation over there with the werewithal to do anything.

We aren't having riots, so there's no reason to "do anything"


Thanks, socialism, for creating a permanent underclass that has no chance for upward mobility.

Another non sequiter. Please explain how socialist policies have anything to do with the rioting.


I believe I remember a post regarding the Katrina disaster, when one of you leftists so confidently asserted that civil unrest like that experienced during Katrina would "never happen in socialist Europe" due to your beloved and gargantuan socialist government.

Yeah, because natural disasters and civil unrest are the same thing :rolleyes:


And lets not kid ourselves, these guys are brainwashed by theri imams from a young age that upon death they will be greeted by 72 underage virgins in the aftelife!

Not only are they cowardly, but they are pedophiles!

Please provide the chapter and verse in the Koran that says this. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

[KC]

Some info on the sanctions for you, as you obviously haven't read much about them and know next to nothing of them:


Originally posted by Effects of The Sanctions+--> (Effects of The Sanctions)The sanctions literally crippled the Iraqi economy during the time they were imposed, much of Iraq’s infrastructure ran into disrepair from lack of materials and Iraq's power to be an aggressor was all but destroyed. The initial purpose of the sanctions, and of all diplomatic sanctions, was to force Iraq's hand in cooperation with the United Nations and possibly cause a change in it's previously historic aggressive foreign policies and alleged abuse of human rights. The sanctions continued until the United Nations saw the growing humanitarian crisis and initiated the Oil-for-Food Programme.

According to UN estimates, a million children died during the trade embargo, due to malnutrition or lack of medical supplies. Among other things, chlorine, needed for disinfecting water supplies, was banned as having a "dual use" in potential weapons manufacture. A 1998 UNICEF report found that the sanctions had resulted in an additional 90,000 Iraqi children dying per year since 1991. On May 10, 1996, appearing on 60 Minutes, Madeleine Albright (then Clinton's Ambassador to the United Nations) was presented with a figure of half a million children under five having died from the sanctions: Albright, not challenging this figure, infamously replied: "We think the price is worth it."

Denis Halliday was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq as of 1 September 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level. In October 1998 he resigned after a 34 year career with the UN in order to have the freedom to criticise the sanctions regime, saying "I don't want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide". Halliday's successor, Hans von Sponeck, subsequently also resigned in protest. Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Program in Iraq, followed them. According to von Sponeck, the sanctions restricted Iraqis to living on $100 each of imports per year.[/b]


Originally posted by Oil For Food+--> (Oil For Food)The Oil-for-Food Programme started in October 1997, and the first shipments of food arrived in March 1998. Some 60 percent of Iraq's 26 million people were solely dependent on rations from the oil-for-food plan.

The program used an escrow system: oil exported from Iraq was paid for by the recipient into an escrow account rather than to the Iraqi government. The money was then apportioned to pay for war reparations to Kuwait and ongoing coalition and United Nations operations within Iraq, with the remainder (and majority of the revenue) available to the Iraqi government for use in purchasing regulated items.

The Iraqi government was then permitted to purchase items that were not embargoed under the economic sanctions. Certain items, such as raw foodstuffs, were expedited for immediate shipment, but requests for most items, including such simple things as pencils and folic acid [this happened with the majority of items requested; if the security council could find a way to implicate an item in weapons of mass destruction, they weren't sent], were reviewed in a process that typically took about six months before shipment was authorized. Items deemed to have any potential application in chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons systems development were not available to the regime, regardless of what their stated purpose was....

the Oil-for-Food Programme was responsible, under the blockage of dual-use equipment, for preventing Iraq from repairing the water purification and medical systems destroyed by the initial sanctions and in the 1991 Gulf War, and others challenged the program on the grounds that it would not permit Iraq to import the food and medicine necessary to prevent millions of easily preventable deaths. Former program heads such as Hans von Sponeck questioned whether the sanctions should exist at all. Von Sponeck, speaking in Berkeley in late 2001, decried the proposed "Smart Sanctions", stating "What is proposed at this point in fact amounts to a tightening of the rope around the neck of the average Iraqi citizen"; claimed that the sanctions were causing the death of 150 Iraqi children per day; and accused the US and Britain of arrogance toward Iraq, such as refusing to let it pay its UN and OPEC dues and blocking Iraqi attempts at negotiation.[/b]

Kuwait Invasion:

Pre-Invasion [email protected]
Due to fears that revolutionary Iran would defeat Iraq and export its Islamic Revolution to other Middle Eastern nations, the U.S. began giving aid to Iraq. From 1983 to 1990, the U.S. government approved around $200 million in arms sales to Iraq, according to the Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI)...
An investigation by the Senate Banking Committee in 1994 determined that the U.S. Department of Commerce had approved, for the purpose of research, the shipping of dual use biological agents to Iraq during the mid 1980s, including Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), later identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program, as well as Clostridium botulinum, Histoplasma capsulatum, Brucella melitensis, and Clostridium perfringens. The Committee report noted that each of these had been "considered by various nations for use in war."...
Following the war, however, there were moves within the Congress of the United States to isolate Iraq diplomatically and economically over concerns about human rights violations, its dramatic military build-up, and hostility to Israel. Specifically, the Senate in 1988 unanimously passed the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988," which would have imposed sanctions on Iraq. The legislation died when the House balked as a result of intense lobbying against it by the Reagan administration...
The relationship between Iraq and the United States remained unhindered until the day Iraq invaded Kuwait. On October 2, 1989, President George H.W. Bush signed secret National Security Directive 26, which begins, "Access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key friendly states in the area are vital to U.S. national security." With respect to Iraq, the directive stated, "Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East."


The Go-Ahead
In late July, 1990, as negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait stalled, Iraq massed troops on Kuwait's borders and summoned American ambassador April Glaspie for an unanticipated meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Two transcripts of that meeting have been produced, both of them controversial. According to the transcripts, Saddam outlined his grievances against Kuwait, while promising that he would not invade Kuwait before one more round of negotiations. In the version published by The New York Times on September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup, but went on to say:

"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."


Within hours of the initial invasion, the Kuwaiti and United States of America delegations requested a meeting of the UN Security Council, which passed Resolution 660, condemning the invasion and demanding a withdrawal of Iraqi troops.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Nov 8 2005, 08:53 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Nov 8 2005, 08:53 PM)
Free [email protected] 9 2005, 12:44 AM
As I predicted, you casually ignored the vast majority of my
I think that's total bullshit. The Iraqis who Bush lied to and promised liberation and are now openly resisting the occupation don't want to convert anyone to their religion, they are simply against foreign control of their homeland and what's more, they represent the will of the overwhelming majority. They are an oppressed people who refuse to be vanquished and are now facing the ugly reality of another American imperialist venture which is compelled to vanquish them.
even if this is true, it is still not the vast manjority of Iraqis. Most Iraqis are for peace, and want an end to the insurgency. This was expressed when the vast majority of Iraq voted t ratify the new iraqi constitution.

Stop lying, Free palestine. The majority of Iraq is not against the US!!! Stop believing your liberal pundits and their agnda-driven bullshit! [/b]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4369350.stm


what? liberal media? naw, wont work this time

[Zingu]

You realize we support the rioters, don't you? :D

[Free Palestine]

Those sanctions allowed certain food/water/medicine provisions for the citizens

Saddam was not free to buy Iraq's non-military needs on the world market. The country's requirements had to be submitted to the UN Security Council 661 Committee and, often after bureaucratic delay, a judgement was handed down on what Iraq could and could not buy. Andy Kershaw once obtained a copy of the 661 rulings and the decisions were completely daft. "Dual use" was the most common reason to refuse a purchase, meaning the item requested could be put to military use. So how did 661 expect Saddam to wage war with "beef extract powder and broth," which they denied. Did 661 expect Saddam to turn on the Kurds again by spraying them with "malt extract"? Or to send his presidential guard back into Kuwait armed to the teeth with "pencils"? Pencils, you see, according to 661, contain graphite and therefore could be put to military use. Medication, life-saving machinery deep X-ray equipment, blood component separators, even needles for biopsies. You name it, 661 said it could have military use.

[FleasTheLemur]

I recommend you study the attachment in detail. Maybe it's a little harsh, but I think it merits. You're not even well-researched reactionary. Hell, you're BARELY worth replying to (mainly for me needing to vent). Your ideology is so absolutely fixated on one particular poltical dogma, I could have almost sweared you was a automaton programmed by Neocons and Capitalists.

We're obviously not going to change your mind and you're definately no going to change our minds with this shotty, half-witt, straight from Bill O'Relly's ass reply. So, just read the damn picture and maybe do some research that doesn't invole reading the National Review or turning your car radio to the AM stations.

[kingbee]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Nov 8 2005, 09:02 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Nov 8 2005, 09:02 PM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 07:48 PM


and please, its britain, not england. do your research.
Oh, come on, are you really going to focus on semantics here? [/b]
well, as i'm welsh i find it quite offensive that you don't consider us part of the uk. or do you know where or what wales is?

it's just that i thought you would at least know that.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 10:59 AM
[QUOTE=kingbee,Nov 8 2005, 07:48 PM]
well, as i'm welsh i find it quite offensive that you don't consider us part of the uk. or do you know where or what wales is?

it's just that i thought you would at least know that.
i chi gallu siarad cymraeg?

[Dark Exodus]

By the way, if France needs help from a nation that actually has a pair, I suppose they can still call the good old U.S. What the hell? Lets continue the tradition of the U.S helping them without an ounce of reciprocation.

France played a vital role in the creation of America, unless you think fighting a war without weapons is viable.

[ack]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Nov 8 2005, 05:25 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Nov 8 2005, 05:25 PM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 09:05 PM
I think CI's idiotic comments stem from plain Islamophobia, the type espoused by the fuckers on Fox News.
Hmmm, islamophobia. That is a misnomer (I'll explain later).

However, lets review:

The marine barracks in beirut

The embassies in Africa

The hostage-taking in Iran

The Kidnappings in the phillipenes

Bombings in Indonesia and Bali

The bombing of the USS Cole

The train bombings in the UK

The train bombings in spain

The attacks on the world Trade Center and the Pentagn, and the failed attack on the Capital.

Intifada, do you really expect me or any reasonable person who stands-up to islamo-fascism to be considered an "Islamophobe"? How partisan are you? You're not even reasonable.

As for that term, I again assert that it is a misnomer. I am not scared of Islam. They have proven themselves to be pretty cowardly in the manner in which they conduct war and politics. They can't fight face-to-face, And when they do, they always lose.

I have no phobia, just a well-placed anger and defiance at people who follow a twisted version of an antiquated and oppressive religion, who have repeatedly attacked my people, nation, and assets.

Intifada, you are incredibly ignorant and rarely refer to facts in your ludicrous claims. Its no surprise to me that you are a leftist. I suggest that you put down the che cofefe mug and pick up some books you invalid. [/b]
Are you really one to talk about others being unreasonable?
Its obvious that you support the most unreasonable human, George W. Bush.
Is it reasonable to invade a country because the inspectors couldn't find any weapons there?
Is it reasonable to sacrifice 2,000 lives for the removal of one man as dictator?
Is it reasonable to lower taxes for the wealthy more than for the poor?
Is it reasonable to destroy our environment?
Is it reasonable to deny women their basic rights, that to choose?
Is it reasonable to say you would fire someone, then realize who it was, and not do it?
Is it reasonable to not think for yourself, but rather to have your aides think for you?
I think not.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 8 2005, 05:18 PM
This is absolutely fucking poetic. Not only did they not allow us to use their airspace to hit Quaddafi's place, not only did they not help us with the libertion of a now constiututional Iraq or the related terrorist insurgenccy, or in Afghanistan for that matter, but they in fact tried to shake us up and hinder us every step of the way.

Now look. The truly peaceful and benevolent Islam is coming back to bite them.

And, of course, in the French tradition, they are soft as hell on the matter. They can't even quell what is basically an unarmed insurgency from the suburbs. I would expect nothing less from the spineless twits.

With this situation spreading now to belgium and even Germany, it looks like this incredible socialist dream is once again crumbling into futility. I would say that I hope this uprising spreads to all of socialist Europe, but unlike the French, I have a spine, and am consistent, so I still hope that these islamo-fascists are defeated soon. I suppose England is the only nation over there with the werewithal to do anything.

Thanks, socialism, for creating a permanent underclass that has no chance for upward mobility.

How does the crow taste, pinkos?

By the way, if France needs help from a nation that actually has a pair, I suppose they can still call the good old U.S. What the hell? Lets continue the tradition of the U.S helping them without an ounce of reciprocation.


LOL, LOL, LMAO, ROFL
Please tell me you're suffering from severe brain damage.

[kingbee]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 12:19 PM

[QUOTE=kingbee,Nov 8 2005, 07:48 PM]
well, as i'm welsh i find it quite offensive that you don't consider us part of the uk. or do you know where or what wales is?

it's just that i thought you would at least know that.
i chi gallu siarad cymraeg?
ydw. wyt ti?

[Socialistpenguin]

Ooh, I love a good troll roasting!
Tell me, Capitalist Imperial, if you're such a hawk for this war, have you signed up yet? Have you joined the other "numerous" misled Republicans in dealing with "dem durty A-Rabs?" and "Spreading democracty across the middle-east".

I would advise you, capitalist imperial, to call the following number:

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 04:55 PM
well, as i'm welsh i find it quite offensive that you don't consider us part of the uk. or do you know where or what wales is?

it's just that i thought you would at least know that.
i chi gallu siarad cymraeg? [/QUOTE]
ydw. wyt ti? [/quote]
ydw.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by kingbee+Nov 9 2005, 11:59 AM--> (kingbee @ Nov 9 2005, 11:59 AM)
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 8 2005, 09:02 PM

[email protected] 8 2005, 07:48 PM


and please, its britain, not england. do your research.
Oh, come on, are you really going to focus on semantics here?
well, as i'm welsh i find it quite offensive that you don't consider us part of the uk. or do you know where or what wales is?

it's just that i thought you would at least know that. [/b]
Where abouts?

I live in Aberystwyth at the moment, my Grandad was Welsh, unfortunatly he never taught me or my mum the language.

Where abouts are you guys from?

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 07:52 PM
unfortunatly he never taught me or my mum the language.
dont worry your not missing out on much.

[kingbee]

oh yes he is.

balchder yn y iaith! ble wyt ti o?

im from just outside cardiff. currently residing in brighton as a tax dodger/student.

[Amusing Scrotum]

No, I am saying that the sanctions were imposed by the U.N. after Saddam invaded Kuwait. He created this situation by forcing the U.S.' hand in Kuwait. We just didn't impose sanctions out of nowhere.

So what you are saying is that it is perfectly reasonable to impose sanctions on a country which went to war without UN approval. Therefore are you now advocating sanctions against the US and Britain?


I can't find it now. However, like I said, I am reasnonable, so I conceded the point, something I have yet to see any of you do, even on reasonable issues.

What reasonable issues? Your assertion that radical Islam is the driving force behind the French riots?


Come on, aren't these semantics? I suppose that a fundamentalist is typically a religious reference, whaile a nationalist is a political alignment.


So if American was invaded and a resistance was formed, you would denounce that resistance because it was religious, which it would be considering the amount of Christians in America.

You have to show clearly that the resistance is religious in nature and that it is not a nationalist resistance by people who are religious. I await your evidence.


Halliburton is working for profit, of course, but their recontruction objectives in fact are alaigned with the interests of Iraq, yes. Don't you think new, well engineered infrastructure is good for Iraq? I do.


A flat tax and developing industries which will overwhelmingly profit American capitalists is helping Iraqis?


No, the insurgents are still Islamic, like they always have been. What are you talking about? Isn't it reasonable to believe that the islamic insurgents are in fact well aligned with the objectives and philosophy of Osama Bin Laden? They are islamic fighters, thats not even a dispute.

By the way, while your link does call the insurgency a mixed bag, it even admits Al-Queda is the most successful faction and even the different groups, while not totally homogonized, are still islamic thocracies, and being lauded by al-queda as harbingers of a total pan-islamic state, just as I said earlier!!!

From your article:



Organisations such as al-Qaeda meanwhile praise the foreign fighters as ideal recruits, the vanguard of a global, pan-Islamic uprising.

and



Al-Qaeda is Iraq's most successful insurgent group, blamed for many of the country's bloodiest bombings and beheadings.

Every group profiled in that article except the ex-saddam loyalists were some sort of islamic group, sir.


Are they Islamic fighters or fighters who are Islamic?

Also the article states that -


A September 2005 report released by US think-tank, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said foreign volunteers account at most for 10% - some 3,000 fighters - of the insurgency, the remainder being Iraqi Sunni Arabs.

...and that -


Iraq has also seen an influx of foreign "jihadi" fighters, most of whom have joined the Sunni Muslim insurgency.

Their number is small - estimated at no more than 3,000 - but their profile is high.


So the question is - a) is the insurgency Religiously motivated in nature or, b) is the part of the insurgency that receives most attention Religiously driven and is this part of the insurgency receiving more coverage than it deserves?

I think the answer is b, which means your notions of the resistance being the living incarnation of Religious fundamentalism are at best, wrong.


Where abouts?

I live in Aberystwyth at the moment, my Grandad was Welsh, unfortunatly he never taught me or my mum the language.

Where abouts are you guys from?

I'm from Swansea.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Nov 8 2005, 11:59 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Nov 8 2005, 11:59 PM)
Atlas [email protected] 8 2005, 11:31 PM

Both world trade center attacks were inside jobs. Shit the FBI gave them the bomb in the first attack for Christs sake.

LOL,LOL, ROFL, LMAO

This says everything about leftist intellect.

Fucking idiot kool-aid drinker. [/b]
Keep buying the governments lies little obey monkey. Wave your flag and be a good citizen. The government fucks you in the ass, you say thankyou and then blow him.

[Loknar]

The whole problem with these people is that they come to a place with a culture that isn’t flexible like the American culture is.

These people are fucking crazy. They want the government to create jobs for them. Well, they have access to social programs and as bad as they have it, it's better than the shit hole they came from

[fukuoka_yakuza]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 8 2005, 11:38 PM
Please, be realistic, from the Moors 'til today, they are absolutely open about saying that they want a total islamic state on earth and they want all americans dead!!! Not because of political or economic reasons, but because we are infidels!!! This is not a political consideration, it is a religious one.

oh yeah, the moors hated the us so much. the moors hated the us so much, they hated the us before the us before the us existed.
is that all you think of muslims? if a muslim killed you, it wouldnt be because youre an infidel, it would be because youre saying that muslims are all insane, intolerant, cowardly pedophiles.
and i hope a muslim does kill you. i hope tonight, a random muslin breaks into your house and blows your brains out, you piece of fascist scum.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 10:34 PM





is that all you think of muslims? if a muslim killed you, it wouldnt be because youre an infidel, it would be because youre saying that muslims are all insane, intolerant, cowardly pedophiles.



Funny, I don’t see Christians threatening to kill you if you criticize Christianity in a foul manner.

I hope a gay man splits your asshole into 10 pieces with an enormous cock. We all know how the Muslims regard the gays.

[kingbee]

and we all know how right wingers generalise.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 10:34 PM
is that all you think of muslims? if a muslim killed you, it wouldnt be because youre an infidel, it would be because youre saying that muslims are all insane, intolerant, cowardly pedophiles.
and i hope a muslim does kill you. i hope tonight, a random muslin breaks into your house and blows your brains out, you piece of fascist scum.

oh yeah, the moors hated the us so much. the moors hated the us so much, they hated the us before the us before the us existed.

I wasn't referring to the US with respect to the moors. I was speaking of the moors within the context of historic religious fundamentalism. Of course the moors existed before the US did.



if a muslim killed you, it wouldnt be because youre an infidel, it would be because youre saying that muslims are all insane, intolerant, cowardly pedophiles.

Where in the fuck have you been during the last 4 years? THEY WANT TO KILL US BECAUSE THEY VIEW US AND EVERY OTHER WESTERNER AS AN INFIDEL!!! This idea is broadcast by islamic fundamentalists daily!!! What in the fuck are you talking abut, dude? If you pussy liberals would get your heads out of the sand and realize that we are on the verge of WWWIII, maybe you can prevent your own beheading, rather than trying to so futilly to "understand" , "sympothize", and appease these fundamentalist fucks who would just as soon behead your pinko ass!

For fucks sake you libs are fucking pussy sycophants to an extreme fault!

[Led Zeppelin]

For fucks sake you libs are fucking pussy sycophants to an extreme fault!

Take it easy you Capitalist sub-human piece of shit.

You think you're "cool" or "all knowing" because you oppose liberals? Well guess what, I do too, and the best part is, I oppose you too, in fact all Communists do.

This proves it, Communists oppose pieces of shit.

[LSD]

Where in the fuck have you been during the last 4 years? THEY WANT TO KILL US BECAUSE THEY VIEW US AND EVERY OTHER WESTERNER AS AN INFIDEL!!!

It's kind of funny, then, how specific they've been in their targets.

By your reckoning, I live in a city of 2 million "infidels", but we've yet to be attacked.

A couple hundred miles to the west, there's a city of just over 4 million that can say the same. Keep going and you hit the Pacific Coast, just chock full of non-Muslims, lot's of whites, lot's of Asians, ....but no terror.

In fact my entire country, over 35 million ripe western "infidels", has still not been attacked by these "ruthless killers" who you claim are so determined to cause us all harm.

hmm... maybe there's some flaw in your grand theory.

Do fundamentalist Muslims hate western culture and everything it stands for? Yes.
Are they willing to kill us over that hate? No.

What they are willing to kill, and die, for is the "liberation" of their countries. The removal of "apostate" regimes, and foreign imperial domination.

I am not saying that their "cause" is justified or even honourable. They are radical lunatics trying to bumblingly recreate an empire dead a thousand years. They are reactionary and they are biggoted and they are dangerous, but they are not random.

They are targeting you because you targeted them.

Because the US has a half-century long tradition of creating, supporting, and enforcing the most vicious and brutal regimes in the region. Because US foreign policy in the middle-east is best described as a rape and plunder and F-117s.

Why does the world hate you? Because you drove them to it.

Now stop *****ing and take your fucking lumps.


If you pussy liberals would get your heads out of the sand and realize that we are on the verge of WWWIII

Yes, because Saddam's "WMDs" were such a terrifying match for the US' 10,000 nukes.

:rolleyes:

Do you know why these "radical Islamists" are so damn angry all the time? It's because they've been left behind by history and they know it.

Despite all the "holy war" rhetoric from both sides, the simple truth here is that, if she really wanted to, the US could wipe out the entire Arab world without batting an eye and without losing a man. Hell she could wipe our most of Asia and Africa while she was at it.

The US military is, at this point, unequivically overwhelmingly dominant. It is the singly greatest destructive force in the history of the world. And against that might is aligned ...what?

The "terror" part of the "war on terror" has what again? A couple of bucks and some dynamite?

"WWIII"!? This isn't even fucking Grenada.

But it makes for great TV, doesn&#39;t it. <_<

[RadicalLeft62]

i can&#39;t accept how your anti-french agenda stands. you say we use them to rid the Earth of "evil foes". for your information, its not like only the French let us use them for military purposes. hell, we gave the USSR, our sworn enemy wheat and food. don&#39;t act like just because of diplomatic choices in order to keep allies has to result in another country kissing our asses.

PS, the rioters arent muslim nationalists, or fascists, or whatever the hell you care to call them. they are simply the french working class, whose skin just happens not to have white pigmentation.

[Xvall]

WWWIII

What&#39;s the extra W stand for?

[FleasTheLemur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:05 AM

WWWIII

What&#39;s the extra W stand for?
WWWIII

Wicked Wiener War Inside an Inuit’s Igloo

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by kingbee+Nov 9 2005, 10:59 AM--> (kingbee @ Nov 9 2005, 10:59 AM)
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 8 2005, 09:02 PM

[email protected] 8 2005, 07:48 PM


and please, its britain, not england. do your research.
Oh, come on, are you really going to focus on semantics here?
well, as i&#39;m welsh i find it quite offensive that you don&#39;t consider us part of the uk. or do you know where or what wales is?

it&#39;s just that i thought you would at least know that. [/b]
Yes, I know where Wales is. I am pretty familiar with the geography of the UK, thank you.

[Atlas Swallowed]

http://www.idleworm.com/tww/2004/ep0004-041123.shtml

I saw this cartoon and it reminded me of Capitalist Imperial and other government cheerleading warmonger assclowns that should just stick to posting on free republic.

[kingbee]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Nov 10 2005, 03:43 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Nov 10 2005, 03:43 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 8 2005, 09:02 PM

[email protected] 8 2005, 07:48 PM


and please, its britain, not england. do your research.
Oh, come on, are you really going to focus on semantics here?
well, as i&#39;m welsh i find it quite offensive that you don&#39;t consider us part of the uk. or do you know where or what wales is?

it&#39;s just that i thought you would at least know that.
Yes, I know where Wales is. I am pretty familiar with the geography of the UK, thank you. [/b]
ok. its just you didnt show it this time.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:05 AM

WWWIII

What&#39;s the extra W stand for?
Wanker

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Atlas [email protected] 10 2005, 02:13 PM
http://www.idleworm.com/tww/2004/ep0004-041123.shtml

I saw this cartoon and it reminded me of Capitalist Imperial and other government cheerleading warmonger assclowns that should just stick to posting on free republic.
That was a very clever cartoon... really.

Do you always make such assumtons about people on the internet without knowledge of their current or past contributions to their ideals??

By the same logic, why aren&#39;t you staging an invasion of all democratic states yourself?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 02:29 AM
You realize we support the rioters, don&#39;t you? :D
Of couse I do, and I&#39;m not surprised at all.

[Loknar]

So you support people who drag old women from a bus, douse her and light her on fire?

The damn pigs....all of them should be shot. If the police get shot guns and charge a whole crow of them, the spread radius from the shot gun will take a shit load of em down.

[Intifada]

So you support people who drag old women from a bus, douse her and light her on fire?


No.

But from your above statements, it seems that you advocate killing a whole bunch of people for the actions of a minority.

Now you are showing your true colours.

[Maynard]

Just because you support a movement or support an uprising, doesn&#39;t mean you support every single individual action of it. I could just as easily say that if you supported the Iraq war, you support torture in Abu Ghraib or you support the deaths of 2,000 Americans but its not that simple. I support the uprising, as a manifest of the horrible social conditions suffered by the mainly immigrant population. French governments both on the left and right have ignored their plight for 30 or so years and if this is the only way they&#39;ll listen, then so be it.


all of them should be shot Apparantly it is morally okay then to wipe out a significant portion of the immigrant population of France, involving the deaths of thousands but not okay to light an old woman on fire. The "policy" you advocate would go down really well, especially in North African countries.

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 10:15 PM

So you support people who drag old women from a bus, douse her and light her on fire?


No.

But from your above statements, it seems that you advocate killing a whole bunch of people for the actions of a minority.

Now you are showing your true colours.
Yes, shoot them.

I value my property over the lives of rioters who are intent on pulling me from my car, beating the shit out of me, and finally torching my car.

Aside from that the dumbasses are burning their own shit.

[Columbia]

Any person, riot or not, bent on harming you for a nickle has forfeited their right to life. Period.

Ironicall, I can accept a revolution or rebellion that tries to kill a head of state or corporate official (may not agree with it, but I can accept it), but the very idea of attacking someone who has never harmed you for ANY REASON (other than, "My wife is dying and I need your car&#33;") is disgusting. Kill that person on the spot.

Property, when I&#39;m using it, is not a crime, but an extention of my person.

[KC]

Property, when I&#39;m using it, is not a crime, but an extention of my person.

I&#39;d love to see you explain this one.

[Columbia]

Property, when I&#39;m using it, is not a crime, but an extention of my person.

That&#39;s an easy one comrade:

Try:

Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc., 424 S.W.2d 627, 1967

and

Morgan v. Loyacomo, 190 Miss. 656, 1941

In fact, every state in the Union has ruled that while you wear your shirt, glasses, are driving your car, holding anything, and someone offensively takes hold of that thing, they are battering your person, as, at that moment, the property is "an extension of your person."

Of course, you could change all of this by getting a ruling that property is a crime in the first place. Good luck.

:lol:

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 10 2005, 06:37 PM


Do you always make such assumtons about people on the internet without knowledge of their current or past contributions to their ideals??

By the same logic, why aren&#39;t you staging an invasion of all democratic states yourself?
Oh, boo-hoo. You make assumtions about all the worlds Muslims (wrong in most cases) and you expect people not to make assumtions about you. Have you ever met, been friends with or worked with any Moslems? You like to bring up Frances past to discredit them. If it was not for France the US would not have won the revolutionary war.

I am going to start my personal invasion of all capitalist nations as soon as my psychic and super powers come back :rolleyes:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Property, when I&#39;m using it, is not a crime, but an extention of my person.

I&#39;d love to see you explain this one.

Well you know what they say about some men and their cars, the bigger the car, the smaller the ......... :lol:

[kingbee]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 04:14 AM

Property, when I&#39;m using it, is not a crime, but an extention of my person.

That&#39;s an easy one comrade:

Try:

Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc., 424 S.W.2d 627, 1967

and

Morgan v. Loyacomo, 190 Miss. 656, 1941

In fact, every state in the Union has ruled that while you wear your shirt, glasses, are driving your car, holding anything, and someone offensively takes hold of that thing, they are battering your person, as, at that moment, the property is "an extension of your person."

Of course, you could change all of this by getting a ruling that property is a crime in the first place. Good luck.

:lol:
without trying to get into this one, putting a few american law cases as examples doesnt really prove a point.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 12:43 AM


There is only one person responsible for dead Iraqis, and that is Saddam.


Sanctions were the number one killer of Iraqis during the Saddam days. Not Saddam. Sanctions imposed by the United States.
As a result of Saddam&#39;s actions, after he was given ample opportunity to concede to US requests.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 11:05 PM



I don&#39;t think you&#39;ve done anything other than make yourself look like a complete idiot / jackass.

This conmment is more indicative of your lack of reading comprehension skills than anything.


1) The riots weren&#39;t started on any religious pretense; they started because two kids got killed. Religion played little, if any, role in the initiation of the riots, which now consist of people who aren&#39;t even Muslim.

If you notice, the post was more about France than the rioters. I was simply noting that it seems poetic and humorously ironic that while france is soft and appeasing to muslim terrorist states, they are in fact still being terrorised by muslims, whatever the reason. Again, a reading comprehension calss would do you some good.


2) Most of the people here are in favor or the riots. When you say "RIOTS LOL" you&#39;re not really doing anything other than agreeing with us "commie pukes".

Next class: critical thinking. I figured that most of you support these trash molotov chuckers. I don&#39;t necessarily support them (again, as my post indicated), but I can still see the humor in it, asd I certainly don&#39;t support most of France, either.



3) Right-wingers are probably appauled by the riots, so if you laugh about it, you just make yourself look like a heartless dick, in their eyes.

Most right wingers I have spoken with share my view of the situation as humorous and poetic at best.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 9 2005, 12:31 AM

Also its written Islamic you retard, not islamic. :angry:
Are we going to shake each other up on ticky-tack edits? I know that Islam is capitalized. I thought that pace of debate in this forum dictates that we don&#39;t take cheap shots like this.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Also its written Islamic you retard, not islamic.

Are we going to shake each other up on ticky-tack edits? I know that Islam is capitalized. I thought that pace of debate in this forum dictates that we don&#39;t take cheap shots like this.

You&#39;ve already responded to this -


Don&#39;t shaklke me up because I didn&#39;t cap my I. It shows that you are detracting from your actual argument, and that is weak.

Link (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42524&st=25).

Idiot.

[KC]

As a result of Saddam&#39;s actions, after he was given ample opportunity to concede to US requests.


Too bad you didn&#39;t read my post in response to your response. Some people are just idiots :lol:

[Capitalist Imperial]

Another hit and run attack eh CI? You&#39;re getting sloppy as well.

Good to see you again too, NoXion


This is your first mistake. not all the rioters are muslims.

And you first mistake was to not realize that my post was mopre about France than the rioters themselves. However, NoXion, lets not kid ourselves, the vast majority of the rioters are in fact muslims.


Yeah, shooting unarmed civilians is so manly

I&#39;m not speaking in terms of maculinity or lack thereof. I am talking about rioters throwing firebombs and other projectiles at authories and destroying property, they also killed an individual, by the way, or did you conveniently miss that? I don&#39;t consider someone who is burning down a neigborhood and throwing firebombs "unarmed", but I suppose that is just my crazy logic. People uising fire against personal property and other people need top be put down, period, even if non-lethally. However, this is not being done. Again, I&#39;m not surprised.


Non sequiter. Civil unrest in capitalist society does not equal a failure of socialism.

LOL, get real, sir. France is not a capitalist society. Non sequiter to you.



We aren&#39;t having riots, so there&#39;s no reason to "do anything"

Again, more a commentary on French complacancy than Britain


Another non sequiter. Please explain how socialist policies have anything to do with the rioting.

Come on, Noxion, why are you busting my chops over the obvious? The French socialist elelment has clearly created a permanent under class and an ad-hoc caste system with few if any opportunities for the impoverished and disenfranchised to exercise any upward mobility, it is in fact what the riots are about&#33; Again, your application of non-sequitur is a stretch at best.


Yeah, because natural disasters and civil unrest are the same thing.

False inference fallacy. Come on, Noxion, you know better. No, they are not the same thing. However, the civil unrest as a result of Katrina and the civil unrest in France are pretty much the same thing.

Additionally, it appears that while the European press, many of it French, was scoffing at America&#39;s handling of the civil disobediance in the wake of a natural disaster, the reality is that America quelled what was a much larger civil problem that what France is facing, in a much shorter time frame. :D


Please provide the chapter and verse in the Koran that says this. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

I never mentioned the Koran. To be quite honest, I don&#39;t believe that the Koran has any more to do with Islamic fundamentalism that the Bible has to do woth Christian fundamentalism. All religion is simple mythology.

However, you cannot argue that this is what these religios terrorist zealots believe, it is well published and documented.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 12 2005, 07:11 PM

Idiot.
Good argument, armchair, good argument indeed. This is the 1st time a leftist has ever called me this name on this board.

Absolutely devastating.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Lazar+Nov 9 2005, 02:16 AM--> (Lazar @ Nov 9 2005, 02:16 AM) Some info on the sanctions for you, as you obviously haven&#39;t read much about them and know next to nothing of them:


Originally posted by Effects of The Sanctions+--> (Effects of The Sanctions)The sanctions literally crippled the Iraqi economy during the time they were imposed, much of Iraq’s infrastructure ran into disrepair from lack of materials and Iraq&#39;s power to be an aggressor was all but destroyed. The initial purpose of the sanctions, and of all diplomatic sanctions, was to force Iraq&#39;s hand in cooperation with the United Nations and possibly cause a change in it&#39;s previously historic aggressive foreign policies and alleged abuse of human rights. The sanctions continued until the United Nations saw the growing humanitarian crisis and initiated the Oil-for-Food Programme.

According to UN estimates, a million children died during the trade embargo, due to malnutrition or lack of medical supplies. Among other things, chlorine, needed for disinfecting water supplies, was banned as having a "dual use" in potential weapons manufacture. A 1998 UNICEF report found that the sanctions had resulted in an additional 90,000 Iraqi children dying per year since 1991. On May 10, 1996, appearing on 60 Minutes, Madeleine Albright (then Clinton&#39;s Ambassador to the United Nations) was presented with a figure of half a million children under five having died from the sanctions: Albright, not challenging this figure, infamously replied: "We think the price is worth it."

Denis Halliday was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq as of 1 September 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level. In October 1998 he resigned after a 34 year career with the UN in order to have the freedom to criticise the sanctions regime, saying "I don&#39;t want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide". Halliday&#39;s successor, Hans von Sponeck, subsequently also resigned in protest. Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Program in Iraq, followed them. According to von Sponeck, the sanctions restricted Iraqis to living on &#036;100 each of imports per year.[/b]


Originally posted by Oil For Food
The Oil-for-Food Programme started in October 1997, and the first shipments of food arrived in March 1998. Some 60 percent of Iraq&#39;s 26 million people were solely dependent on rations from the oil-for-food plan.

The program used an escrow system: oil exported from Iraq was paid for by the recipient into an escrow account rather than to the Iraqi government. The money was then apportioned to pay for war reparations to Kuwait and ongoing coalition and United Nations operations within Iraq, with the remainder (and majority of the revenue) available to the Iraqi government for use in purchasing regulated items.

The Iraqi government was then permitted to purchase items that were not embargoed under the economic sanctions. Certain items, such as raw foodstuffs, were expedited for immediate shipment, but requests for most items, including such simple things as pencils and folic acid [this happened with the majority of items requested; if the security council could find a way to implicate an item in weapons of mass destruction, they weren&#39;t sent], were reviewed in a process that typically took about six months before shipment was authorized. Items deemed to have any potential application in chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons systems development were not available to the regime, regardless of what their stated purpose was....

the Oil-for-Food Programme was responsible, under the blockage of dual-use equipment, for preventing Iraq from repairing the water purification and medical systems destroyed by the initial sanctions and in the 1991 Gulf War, and others challenged the program on the grounds that it would not permit Iraq to import the food and medicine necessary to prevent millions of easily preventable deaths. Former program heads such as Hans von Sponeck questioned whether the sanctions should exist at all. Von Sponeck, speaking in Berkeley in late 2001, decried the proposed "Smart Sanctions", stating "What is proposed at this point in fact amounts to a tightening of the rope around the neck of the average Iraqi citizen"; claimed that the sanctions were causing the death of 150 Iraqi children per day; and accused the US and Britain of arrogance toward Iraq, such as refusing to let it pay its UN and OPEC dues and blocking Iraqi attempts at negotiation.

Kuwait Invasion:

Pre&#045;Invasion [email protected]
Due to fears that revolutionary Iran would defeat Iraq and export its Islamic Revolution to other Middle Eastern nations, the U.S. began giving aid to Iraq. From 1983 to 1990, the U.S. government approved around &#036;200 million in arms sales to Iraq, according to the Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI)...
An investigation by the Senate Banking Committee in 1994 determined that the U.S. Department of Commerce had approved, for the purpose of research, the shipping of dual use biological agents to Iraq during the mid 1980s, including Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), later identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program, as well as Clostridium botulinum, Histoplasma capsulatum, Brucella melitensis, and Clostridium perfringens. The Committee report noted that each of these had been "considered by various nations for use in war."...
Following the war, however, there were moves within the Congress of the United States to isolate Iraq diplomatically and economically over concerns about human rights violations, its dramatic military build-up, and hostility to Israel. Specifically, the Senate in 1988 unanimously passed the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988," which would have imposed sanctions on Iraq. The legislation died when the House balked as a result of intense lobbying against it by the Reagan administration...
The relationship between Iraq and the United States remained unhindered until the day Iraq invaded Kuwait. On October 2, 1989, President George H.W. Bush signed secret National Security Directive 26, which begins, "Access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key friendly states in the area are vital to U.S. national security." With respect to Iraq, the directive stated, "Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East."


The Go&#045;Ahead
In late July, 1990, as negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait stalled, Iraq massed troops on Kuwait&#39;s borders and summoned American ambassador April Glaspie for an unanticipated meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Two transcripts of that meeting have been produced, both of them controversial. According to the transcripts, Saddam outlined his grievances against Kuwait, while promising that he would not invade Kuwait before one more round of negotiations. In the version published by The New York Times on September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup, but went on to say:

"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late &#39;60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."


Within hours of the initial invasion, the Kuwaiti and United States of America delegations requested a meeting of the UN Security Council, which passed Resolution 660, condemning the invasion and demanding a withdrawal of Iraqi troops. [/b]
Lazar, I&#39;ve read this rehashed crap on the sanctions. It doesn&#39;t, in any way, take away from my original point:

Saddam brought this onto his people, he could have lifted the sanctions at any time by complying with the UN mandates.

You are much more interested in finding fault with America for everything than the facts or critical/analytical thinking, sir. Stop with the emotional appeals about dead children, No one likes to see dead children. However, the United States will not risk her own children&#39;s lives with a tyranical dictator who not only kicked out UN weapons inspectors, which raised suspicion in it&#39;s own right, but in fact postured as if he had WMD&#39;s to maintain an "impression" with neigboring states, Not to mention the history of genocide and poor relations with the U.S.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 9 2005, 03:06 AM

Those sanctions allowed certain food/water/medicine provisions for the citizens

Saddam was not free to buy Iraq&#39;s non-military needs on the world market. The country&#39;s requirements had to be submitted to the UN Security Council 661 Committee and, often after bureaucratic delay, a judgement was handed down on what Iraq could and could not buy. Andy Kershaw once obtained a copy of the 661 rulings and the decisions were completely daft. "Dual use" was the most common reason to refuse a purchase, meaning the item requested could be put to military use. So how did 661 expect Saddam to wage war with "beef extract powder and broth," which they denied. Did 661 expect Saddam to turn on the Kurds again by spraying them with "malt extract"? Or to send his presidential guard back into Kuwait armed to the teeth with "pencils"? Pencils, you see, according to 661, contain graphite and therefore could be put to military use. Medication, life-saving machinery deep X-ray equipment, blood component separators, even needles for biopsies. You name it, 661 said it could have military use.
Again, all of this is negated by the fact that compliance with the mandated would have lifted the sanctions.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 05:12 AM

So, just read the damn picture and maybe do some research that doesn&#39;t invole reading the National Review or turning your car radio to the AM stations.

I recommend you study the attachment in detail. Maybe it&#39;s a little harsh, but I think it merits.

Yes, it&#39;s quite clever.


You&#39;re not even well-researched reactionary

I&#39;m not a reactionary at all. I consider myself somewhat of a "proactionary". Besides, reseach is heavily tied to the source. Your reseach and my reseach obviously yield two different opinions on most topics. I do more than simply read and believe based on leftist emotional appeals. I actually apply objective analysis and critical thinking sans emotional considerations, unlike leftist gadfly&#39;s such as yourself who rely on pictures and clipart, whiuch again are emotional appeals.


Your ideology is so absolutely fixated on one particular poltical dogma, I could have almost sweared you was a automaton programmed by Neocons and Capitalists.

I don&#39;t think that you have a very well rounded view of what my ideology is.


We&#39;re obviously not going to change your mind and you&#39;re definately no going to change our minds

For once we agree


with this shotty, half-witt, straight from Bill O&#39;Relly&#39;s ass reply.

compared with your shotty-half witt, straight from Al-Franken and you state-subsidized socialist media crap?


So, just read the damn picture and maybe do some research that doesn&#39;t invole reading the National Review or turning your car radio to the AM stations.

Ahhh, so your sources are legitimate but mine are note? Of course.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Good argument, armchair, good argument indeed. This is the 1st time a leftist has ever called me this name on this board.

Absolutely devastating.

If you notice you didn&#39;t present an argument for me to refute. You just replied to a comment you had already replied too. Theres a reason other people have called you an idiot, its because you are one.


LOL, get real, sir. France is not a capitalist society. Non sequiter to you.


cap·i·tal·ism
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.


Capitalism

n : an economic system based on private ownership of capital


Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Capitalism)

Are you denying that France&#39;s economy is "an economic system based on private ownership of capital?"

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 9 2005, 01:08 PM

By the way, if France needs help from a nation that actually has a pair, I suppose they can still call the good old U.S. What the hell? Lets continue the tradition of the U.S helping them without an ounce of reciprocation.

France played a vital role in the creation of America, unless you think fighting a war without weapons is viable.
We&#39;re in the 20th century now, sir. And there has not been reciprocal support for the US from France, when we&#39;ve demonstrated major support for them a myriad of times.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by ack+Nov 9 2005, 02:01 PM--> (ack @ Nov 9 2005, 02:01 PM)
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 8 2005, 05:25 PM

[email protected] 8 2005, 09:05 PM
I think CI&#39;s idiotic comments stem from plain Islamophobia, the type espoused by the fuckers on Fox News.
Hmmm, islamophobia. That is a misnomer (I&#39;ll explain later).

However, lets review:

The marine barracks in beirut

The embassies in Africa

The hostage-taking in Iran

The Kidnappings in the phillipenes

Bombings in Indonesia and Bali

The bombing of the USS Cole

The train bombings in the UK

The train bombings in spain

The attacks on the world Trade Center and the Pentagn, and the failed attack on the Capital.

Intifada, do you really expect me or any reasonable person who stands-up to islamo-fascism to be considered an "Islamophobe"? How partisan are you? You&#39;re not even reasonable.

As for that term, I again assert that it is a misnomer. I am not scared of Islam. They have proven themselves to be pretty cowardly in the manner in which they conduct war and politics. They can&#39;t fight face-to-face, And when they do, they always lose.

I have no phobia, just a well-placed anger and defiance at people who follow a twisted version of an antiquated and oppressive religion, who have repeatedly attacked my people, nation, and assets.

Intifada, you are incredibly ignorant and rarely refer to facts in your ludicrous claims. Its no surprise to me that you are a leftist. I suggest that you put down the che cofefe mug and pick up some books you invalid.
Are you really one to talk about others being unreasonable?
Its obvious that you support the most unreasonable human, George W. Bush.
Is it reasonable to invade a country because the inspectors couldn&#39;t find any weapons there?
Is it reasonable to sacrifice 2,000 lives for the removal of one man as dictator?
Is it reasonable to lower taxes for the wealthy more than for the poor?
Is it reasonable to destroy our environment?
Is it reasonable to deny women their basic rights, that to choose?
Is it reasonable to say you would fire someone, then realize who it was, and not do it?
Is it reasonable to not think for yourself, but rather to have your aides think for you?
I think not. [/b]
I gave Bush a chance, but I no longer support him. His brand of cronyism, his inability to prosecute the war to the full extend of our ability, and his out of control spending has caused me to lose faith in him. He is not a true conservative.

Additionally, the religious right, who I also oppose, seems to be hijacking the party.

Watch the assumptions, sir.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 9 2005, 11:55 PM

For fucks sake you libs are fucking pussy sycophants to an extreme fault&#33;

Take it easy you Capitalist sub-human piece of shit.

You think you&#39;re "cool" or "all knowing" because you oppose liberals? Well guess what, I do too, and the best part is, I oppose you too, in fact all Communists do.

This proves it, Communists oppose pieces of shit.
Great logic stream, really. :rolleyes:

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 05:36 PM


I would advise you, capitalist imperial, to call the following number:

Tell me, Capitalist Imperial, if you&#39;re such a hawk for this war, have you signed up yet? Have you joined the other "numerous" misled Republicans in dealing with "dem durty A-Rabs?" and "Spreading democracty across the middle-east".

That is the weakest, most canned, most rehased argument that exists on this board. No sir. Unlike in commie regimes, we have a volunteer army. I necessarily have to be in the military to support the idea. Tell me, have you started a leftist commune yet? Because by your logic, if you haven&#39;t, then your arguments are not valid.


I would advise you, capitalist imperial, to call the following number:

Yet another incredible leftist argument, resorting to funny pictures in lieu of analysis or attention to the facts. Strong, indeed.

[KC]

Saddam brought this onto his people, he could have lifted the sanctions at any time by complying with the UN mandates.



Again, all of this is negated by the fact that compliance with the mandated would have lifted the sanctions.



In April 1991, at the end of the Gulf War the United Nations Security Council linked the continuation on economic sanctions on Iraq to its compliance with weapons inspectors and in disarmament. Once Iraq had complied, "the prohibitions against the import of commodities and products originating in Iraq and the prohibitions against financial transactions .. shall have no further force or effect" (para.22 of Security Council Resolution 687, 3 April 1991). However, there was a rub: the determination that Iraq had complied was not to be made by an impartial institution or body of independent experts, but by the Security Council itself. Since the US and UK have a veto in the Security Council, either one of these states could block any attempt to lift the sanctions, whatever Iraq&#39;s stance towards the weapons inspectors.

From the end of the Gulf War, senior officials from the US in particular have repeatedly indicated that they will ensure that sanctions are kept in place regardless of weapons issues. Therefore, Iraq was deprived of any incentive to comply with the UN weapons inspectors. These are some of the statements made by the US and UK that have led Iraq to distrust the Security Council&#39;s arms control measures, and the value in complying with them.

* "My Government believes that it will in fact prove impossible for Iraq to rejoin the community of civilized nations while Saddam Hussein remains in power."
- David Hannay, the UK&#39;s permanent representative to UN, 3 April 1991, after voting for Security Council Resolution 687, to keep sanctions on Iraq. Full text here (http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/info/undocs/sc910403.pdf), p.37.

* "Do I think the answer is now for Saddam Hussein to be kicked out? Absolutely because there will not be - may I finish, please? - there will not be normalized relations with the United States, and I think this is true for most coalition partners, until Saddam Hussein is out of there. And we will continue the economic sanctions."
- President George H. Bush, 16 April 1991. White House Briefing. Full text here (http://middleeastreference.org.uk/bushlifting.html).

* "Saddam is discredited and cannot be redeemed. His leadership will never be accepted by the world community and, therefore, Iraqis will pay the price while he remains in power. All possible sanctions will be maintained until he is gone. Any easing of sanctions will be considered only when there is a new government."
- Robert M. Gates, Deputy National Security Adviser, on 7 May 1991. Quoted in "U.S. Sanctions Threat Takes U.N. by Surprise", Los Angeles Times (9 May 1991), emphasis added. The full text of the article is here (http://middleeastreference.org.uk/gateslifting.html).

* "President Bush said today that the United States would oppose the lifting of the worldwide ban against trading with Iraq until President Saddam Hussein is forced out of power in Baghdad".
- "Bush Links End Of Trading Ban To Hussein Exit", The New York Times, 21 May 1991.

* "We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted. Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must prove its peaceful intentions. It can only do that by complying with all of the Security Council resolutions to which it is subjected.

Is it possible to conceive of such a government under Saddam Hussein? When I was a professor, I taught that you have to consider all possibilities. As Secretary of State, I have to deal in the realm of reality and probability. And the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein&#39;s intentions will never be peaceful."
- Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State, 26 March 1997. This statement was made in her first major foreign policy address as Secretary of State, at Georgetown University, USA. The official text is here (http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/970326.html).

* Q Just to follow up on John&#39;s question. Did the President intend to kind of move the goalposts this morning when he said that the sanctions will be kept in place as long as Saddam is in power, as long as he lasts, as he put it? Is it his opinion that the sanctions will not be lifted ever as long as Saddam is in power, whatever he does, even if he were to comply?
MR. BERGER: Let Saddam Hussein come into compliance, and then we can discuss whether there are any circumstances.
Q But, Sandy, for the record, can you say from this podium that if he were --
MR. BERGER: It has been our position consistently that Saddam Hussein has to comply with all of the relevant Security Council resolutions for the sanctions.
Q But can you say for the record, that were he to comply -- I know that the point is moot for you at this point, but were he to comply with the sanctions, the U.S. would not block the U.N. from lifting the sanctions?
MR. BERGER: I don&#39;t think under these circumstances, when he is blatantly out of compliance it is the right time for us to talk about how we lift the sanctions. We&#39;re not going to negotiate lifting the sanctions at a time when he is in blatant disregard, not only of the sanctions, but also of the Security Council resolutions.
Q It&#39;s not a matter of negotiating, it&#39;s a point that we&#39;re asserting what is in the resolution. They said that if he complies -- that he has complied, the sanctions would be lifted. Is it the U.S. position right now that they would be lifted, or would you oppose such a move?
MR. BERGER: It has been the U.S. position since the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein has to comply with all of the relevant Security Council resolutions.
Q Not to belabor a quote, but what the President said is what he has just done is to ensure that the sanctions will be there until the end of time, or as long as he lasts.
MR. BERGER: Well, that&#39;s right. That&#39;s not inconsistent with what I&#39;ve said. In other words, there&#39;s no way --if he&#39;s got to be in compliance, he can&#39;t be in compliance if he&#39;s thrown the UNSCOM people out. So it&#39;s a necessary condition; it may not be a sufficient condition.
- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, 14 November 1997. The official text of the press conference is here (http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/11-1997/year.html).

* "As a second matter, strictly US policy, we believe that Iraq would be better served with a different leadership with a different regime so we have had a policy of regime change, which really has been there all along but was crystallised by President Clinton in 1998 at the time of Operation Desert Fox about that period, don&#39;t pin me down exactly but that was when it really began to be firmly articulated and became the policy of the US government.

It doesn&#39;t mean that an invasion is imminent. Sanctions and the pressure of sanctions are part of a strategy of regime change, support for the opposition, and reviewing additional options that might be available of a unilateral or multilateral nature."
Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, 12 February 2002. Interview with The Financial Times, here (http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3CMUGHNXC). Emphasis added.


Your opinion that "all Saddam had to do was comply" is a joke. You really don&#39;t know anything, do you?



You are much more interested in finding fault with America for everything than the facts or critical/analytical thinking, sir. Stop with the emotional appeals about dead children, No one likes to see dead children. However, the United States will not risk her own children&#39;s lives with a tyranical dictator who not only kicked out UN weapons inspectors, which raised suspicion in it&#39;s own right, but in fact postured as if he had WMD&#39;s to maintain an "impression" with neigboring states, Not to mention the history of genocide and poor relations with the U.S.

You are much more interested in defending America against everything than the facts or critical/analytical thinking, sir. Also, the "poor relations" with the US began when Saddam inquired about annexing Kuwait, and the US "had no opinion on the matter." Of course, that changed the moment the troops went in. Who is the one that started this mess? Well, if the United States was against the annexation of Kuwait into Iraq, Saddam never would have invaded. So who is responsible here?



I&#39;m not a reactionary at all. I consider myself somewhat of a "proactionary". Besides, reseach is heavily tied to the source. Your reseach and my reseach obviously yield two different opinions on most topics. I do more than simply read and believe based on leftist emotional appeals. I actually apply objective analysis and critical thinking sans emotional considerations, unlike leftist gadfly&#39;s such as yourself who rely on pictures and clipart, whiuch again are emotional appeals.

Well, if you ever did what you just said, you wouldn&#39;t have come to the conclusion that you have. Well, unless you&#39;re an idiot. :rolleyes:



compared with your shotty-half witt, straight from Al-Franken and you state-subsidized socialist media crap?


Because Al-Franken is a communist :lol:



Ahhh, so your sources are legitimate but mine are note? Of course.


You have to look at both sides to come to a conclusion. It is quite obvious that you haven&#39;t.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 07:12 PM


As a result of Saddam&#39;s actions, after he was given ample opportunity to concede to US requests.


Too bad you didn&#39;t read my post in response to your response. Some people are just idiots :lol:
Don&#39;t be so hard on yourself, Lazar

[Capitalist Imperial]

France has capitalist contituents to it, but there is a much greater socialist element than in truly capitalist nations. If there was true capitalism, the undercall would not feel as disenfranchise, becase opportunity abounds.


Theres a reason other people have called you an idiot, its because you are one.

Think just a little bit, I know its hard for you. They call me an idiot because the disagree with me. Youd could have an IQ of 190 and carry a nobel prize in physics, but if you go on this board and lean to the right, people will call you an idiot. I&#39;m surely not a stupid person, and am confident that anyone I know would vouch for that. By calling me an idiot, you really only expose yourself as an imbecile.

[Amusing Scrotum]

France has capitalist contituents to it, but there is a much greater socialist element than in truly capitalist nations. If there was true capitalism, the undercall would not feel as disenfranchise, becase opportunity abounds.

Oh the great "true" Capitalism argument. France is and has been for a long time a Capitalist economy. Sure it has some nationalised industries, but even these are Capitalist, because for it to be Socialist, it would require it to have socialised industries.

Plus have there not been riots in America? ......surely a Capitalist powerhouse like America would have plenty of opportunity, yet the last time I checked America had a huge underclass.


Think just a little bit, I know its hard for you. They call me an idiot because the disagree with me. Youd could have an IQ of 190 and carry a nobel prize in physics, but if you go on this board and lean to the right, people will call you an idiot. I&#39;m surely not a stupid person, and am confident that anyone I know would vouch for that. By calling me an idiot, you really only expose yourself as an imbecile.

There are plenty of restricted members who are not idiots, Publius is one of these members. These members are intelligent rational people capable of engaging themselves in coherent debate. You however do not show any signs of being one of these people. Your arguments are less than coherent, you fail to answer many points and when you do your answers in the main lack any substance. You are in my opinion, an idiot.

Plus, your levels of grammar, spelling and punctuation are atrocious.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Atlas Swallowed+Nov 11 2005, 02:50 PM--> (Atlas Swallowed @ Nov 11 2005, 02:50 PM)
Capitalist [email protected] 10 2005, 06:37 PM


Do you always make such assumtons about people on the internet without knowledge of their current or past contributions to their ideals??

By the same logic, why aren&#39;t you staging an invasion of all democratic states yourself?
Oh, boo-hoo. You make assumtions about all the worlds Muslims (wrong in most cases) and you expect people not to make assumtions about you. Have you ever met, been friends with or worked with any Moslems? You like to bring up Frances past to discredit them. If it was not for France the US would not have won the revolutionary war.

I am going to start my personal invasion of all capitalist nations as soon as my psychic and super powers come back :rolleyes: [/b]
When, in any of my posts, have I ever included "all the world&#39;s muslims", or even "most muslims"? I haven&#39;t.

Do you say "Boo-Hoo to reading comprehension, too?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Atlas Swallowed+Nov 9 2005, 10:21 PM--> (Atlas Swallowed @ Nov 9 2005, 10:21 PM)
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 8 2005, 11:59 PM

Atlas [email protected] 8 2005, 11:31 PM

Both world trade center attacks were inside jobs. Shit the FBI gave them the bomb in the first attack for Christs sake.

LOL,LOL, ROFL, LMAO

This says everything about leftist intellect.

Fucking idiot kool-aid drinker.
Keep buying the governments lies little obey monkey. Wave your flag and be a good citizen. The government fucks you in the ass, you say thankyou and then blow him. [/b]
1) put down the crack

2) speak for yourself. I live quite a good life and the government usually pays me back at least once per year.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 12 2005, 10:46 PM

France has capitalist contituents to it, but there is a much greater socialist element than in truly capitalist nations. If there was true capitalism, the undercall would not feel as disenfranchise, becase opportunity abounds.

Oh the great "true" Capitalism argument. France is and has been for a long time a Capitalist economy. Sure it has some nationalised industries, but even these are Capitalist, because for it to be Socialist, it would require it to have socialised industries.

Plus have there not been riots in America? ......surely a Capitalist powerhouse like America would have plenty of opportunity, yet the last time I checked America had a huge underclass.


Think just a little bit, I know its hard for you. They call me an idiot because the disagree with me. Youd could have an IQ of 190 and carry a nobel prize in physics, but if you go on this board and lean to the right, people will call you an idiot. I&#39;m surely not a stupid person, and am confident that anyone I know would vouch for that. By calling me an idiot, you really only expose yourself as an imbecile.

There are plenty of restricted members who are not idiots, Publius is one of these members. These members are intelligent rational people capable of engaging themselves in coherent debate. You however do not show any signs of being one of these people. Your arguments are less than coherent, you fail to answer many points and when you do your answers in the main lack any substance. You are in my opinion, an idiot.

Plus, your levels of grammar, spelling and punctuation are atrocious.
armchair, I&#39;d bet dollars to donuts that I heave better English skills than you across the board. Again, I am more interested in the pace of debate than fixing tacky-tack errors. Don&#39;t kid yourself, I would probably school you in most linguistic and writing measures.

Besides, if you think that I&#39;m an idiot, that actually vindicates me as a reasonable person. Your personal attacks merely detract from you attempts to argue, which are quite weak and devoid of logic.

[KC]

Opting to not respond to my post, CI?

[Amusing Scrotum]

armchair, I&#39;d bet dollars to donuts that I heave better English skills than you across the board. Again, I am more interested in the pace of debate than fixing tacky-tack errors. Don&#39;t kid yourself, I would probably school you in most linguistic and writing measures.

:lol:


Besides, if you think that I&#39;m an idiot, that actually vindicates me as a reasonable person. Your personal attacks merely detract from you attempts to argue, which are quite weak and devoid of logic.

Excuse me, you are the one has has in this thread and others skipped over valid points and generally given arguments that are "quite weak and devoid of logic." For instance I&#39;m still waiting for your response in the Hurricane Katrina thread, a thread in which you initially took a completely idiotic line of debate.

[KC]

Excuse me, you are the one has has in this thread and others skipped over valid points and generally given arguments that are "quite weak and devoid of logic." For instance I&#39;m still waiting for your response in the Hurricane Katrina thread, a thread in which you initially took a completely idiotic line of debate.


Not to mention the fact that he completely skipped over my post which ripped his pathetic argument to shreds.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Those who often use emoticons in lieu of prose prove my pint.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Those who often use emoticons in lieu of prose prove my point.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Those who often use emoticons in lieu of prose prove my pint.

I think this sentence more than any other, proves my point with regards your spelling, grammar and punctuation.

Why don&#39;t you instead of being so petty, counter the arguments waged against you in this and other threads. You were the one who derailed this thread and you are the one who is still derailing this thread.

[Capitalist Imperial]

1) I edited my post before your response

2) I can&#39;t he accused of derailing the thread, I started it.

[KC]

Respond to my post.

[Amusing Scrotum]

1) I edited my post before your response

No you made a new post. Editing it would require you to use the edit function. :rolleyes:


2) I can&#39;t he accused of derailing the thread, I started it.

It doesn&#39;t matter who started the thread, you are the one who is now derailing it.

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 12:15 AM
Respond to my post.

Obviously he is unable to put forth a convincing counter-argument.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

He didn&#39;t respond to my post either. You know what they call people who deliberately stir shit on internet forums? Trolls. And you know what happens to trolls? They get banned.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 01:06 AM
He didn&#39;t respond to my post either. You know what they call people who deliberately stir shit on internet forums? Trolls. And you know what happens to trolls? They get banned.
I did respond to you, Noxion, in full. Did you even look?

[KC]

You didn&#39;t respond to mine. Right now everyone&#39;s laughing at you.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 13 2005, 12:33 AM

1) I edited my post before your response

No you made a new post. Editing it would require you to use the edit function. :rolleyes:


2) I can&#39;t he accused of derailing the thread, I started it.

It doesn&#39;t matter who started the thread, you are the one who is now derailing it.
hair splitting, the last refuge of the inane

[KC]

hair splitting, the last refuge of the inane


Ignorance, the last refuge of the idiot.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 01:18 AM


hair splitting, the last refuge of the inane


Ignorance, the last refuge of the idiot.
Is mimicing the best you can come up with?

[KC]

Is mimicing the best you can come up with?


No. Actually, see my post earlier. You know, the one you ignored. Reply to my post or shut the fuck up.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 01:15 AM
You didn&#39;t respond to mine. Right now everyone&#39;s laughing at you.
Do you think I care if a bunch of armchair revolutionaries on their mommy&#39;s and daddy&#39;s capitalist computers and 2500 square foot bougueois house who just skated back from the co-op with some hummus are laughing at me?

The whole world laughs at you and yur antiquated ideology. We are laughing because as soon as the real world hits you will be working at Wal-Mart, McDonalds, or some other company because you can&#39;t spend all day playing mini-che if you actually have to pay your own rent.

Imbecile.

[KC]

Reply to my post. Or should I take that as a concession?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 01:38 AM
Reply to my post. Or should I take that as a concession?
I will never concede&#33; I will reply when I can give full attention to your post. That goes for everyone.

[KC]

I will never concede&#33; I will reply when I can give full attention to your post. That goes for everyone.


Then give full attention to my post. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42524&view=findpost&p=1291970696)

[Capitalist Imperial]

In April 1991, at the end of the Gulf War the United Nations Security Council linked the continuation on economic sanctions on Iraq to its compliance with weapons inspectors and in disarmament. Once Iraq had complied, "the prohibitions against the import of commodities and products originating in Iraq and the prohibitions against financial transactions .. shall have no further force or effect" (para.22 of Security Council Resolution 687, 3 April 1991). However, there was a rub: the determination that Iraq had complied was not to be made by an impartial institution or body of independent experts, but by the Security Council itself. Since the US and UK have a veto in the Security Council, either one of these states could block any attempt to lift the sanctions, whatever Iraq&#39;s stance towards the weapons inspectors.

From the end of the Gulf War, senior officials from the US in particular have repeatedly indicated that they will ensure that sanctions are kept in place regardless of weapons issues. Therefore, Iraq was deprived of any incentive to comply with the UN weapons inspectors. These are some of the statements made by the US and UK that have led Iraq to distrust the Security Council&#39;s arms control measures, and the value in complying with them.

* "My Government believes that it will in fact prove impossible for Iraq to rejoin the community of civilized nations while Saddam Hussein remains in power."
- David Hannay, the UK&#39;s permanent representative to UN, 3 April 1991, after voting for Security Council Resolution 687, to keep sanctions on Iraq. Full text here (http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/info/undocs/sc910403.pdf), p.37.

* "Do I think the answer is now for Saddam Hussein to be kicked out? Absolutely because there will not be - may I finish, please? - there will not be normalized relations with the United States, and I think this is true for most coalition partners, until Saddam Hussein is out of there. And we will continue the economic sanctions."
- President George H. Bush, 16 April 1991. White House Briefing. Full text here (http://middleeastreference.org.uk/bushlifting.html).

* "Saddam is discredited and cannot be redeemed. His leadership will never be accepted by the world community and, therefore, Iraqis will pay the price while he remains in power. All possible sanctions will be maintained until he is gone. Any easing of sanctions will be considered only when there is a new government."
- Robert M. Gates, Deputy National Security Adviser, on 7 May 1991. Quoted in "U.S. Sanctions Threat Takes U.N. by Surprise", Los Angeles Times (9 May 1991), emphasis added. The full text of the article is here (http://middleeastreference.org.uk/gateslifting.html).

* "President Bush said today that the United States would oppose the lifting of the worldwide ban against trading with Iraq until President Saddam Hussein is forced out of power in Baghdad".
- "Bush Links End Of Trading Ban To Hussein Exit", The New York Times, 21 May 1991.

* "We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted. Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must prove its peaceful intentions. It can only do that by complying with all of the Security Council resolutions to which it is subjected.

Is it possible to conceive of such a government under Saddam Hussein? When I was a professor, I taught that you have to consider all possibilities. As Secretary of State, I have to deal in the realm of reality and probability. And the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein&#39;s intentions will never be peaceful."
- Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State, 26 March 1997. This statement was made in her first major foreign policy address as Secretary of State, at Georgetown University, USA. The official text is here (http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/970326.html).

* Q Just to follow up on John&#39;s question. Did the President intend to kind of move the goalposts this morning when he said that the sanctions will be kept in place as long as Saddam is in power, as long as he lasts, as he put it? Is it his opinion that the sanctions will not be lifted ever as long as Saddam is in power, whatever he does, even if he were to comply?
MR. BERGER: Let Saddam Hussein come into compliance, and then we can discuss whether there are any circumstances.
Q But, Sandy, for the record, can you say from this podium that if he were --
MR. BERGER: It has been our position consistently that Saddam Hussein has to comply with all of the relevant Security Council resolutions for the sanctions.
Q But can you say for the record, that were he to comply -- I know that the point is moot for you at this point, but were he to comply with the sanctions, the U.S. would not block the U.N. from lifting the sanctions?
MR. BERGER: I don&#39;t think under these circumstances, when he is blatantly out of compliance it is the right time for us to talk about how we lift the sanctions. We&#39;re not going to negotiate lifting the sanctions at a time when he is in blatant disregard, not only of the sanctions, but also of the Security Council resolutions.
Q It&#39;s not a matter of negotiating, it&#39;s a point that we&#39;re asserting what is in the resolution. They said that if he complies -- that he has complied, the sanctions would be lifted. Is it the U.S. position right now that they would be lifted, or would you oppose such a move?
MR. BERGER: It has been the U.S. position since the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein has to comply with all of the relevant Security Council resolutions.
Q Not to belabor a quote, but what the President said is what he has just done is to ensure that the sanctions will be there until the end of time, or as long as he lasts.
MR. BERGER: Well, that&#39;s right. That&#39;s not inconsistent with what I&#39;ve said. In other words, there&#39;s no way --if he&#39;s got to be in compliance, he can&#39;t be in compliance if he&#39;s thrown the UNSCOM people out. So it&#39;s a necessary condition; it may not be a sufficient condition.
- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, 14 November 1997. The official text of the press conference is here (http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/11-1997/year.html).

* "As a second matter, strictly US policy, we believe that Iraq would be better served with a different leadership with a different regime so we have had a policy of regime change, which really has been there all along but was crystallised by President Clinton in 1998 at the time of Operation Desert Fox about that period, don&#39;t pin me down exactly but that was when it really began to be firmly articulated and became the policy of the US government.

It doesn&#39;t mean that an invasion is imminent. Sanctions and the pressure of sanctions are part of a strategy of regime change, support for the opposition, and reviewing additional options that might be available of a unilateral or multilateral nature."
Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, 12 February 2002. Interview with The Financial Times, here (http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3CMUGHNXC). Emphasis added.


I like this quote. It amounts to a good amount of saber-rattling, but not actual refuseal to lift sanctions after the security council resolutions were complied with. The fact remains they never were complied with in the 1st place. There is no doubt or disageeement that the US had a continiuing policy of regime change since GW1, and they didn&#39;t want to take the wind out of opposition forces&#39; sails by even discussing the re-empowerment of Saddam Hussein. This is a clever attempt to try and create the illusion of US action out of some simple political posturing. It was cetainly no excuse for Saddam to continue to snub the U.N.


Your opinion that "all Saddam had to do was comply" is a joke. You really don&#39;t know anything, do you?

Well, apparently I know simple reading comprehension, a skill which you seem to lack, along with reason, of course.


You are much more interested in defending America against everything than the facts or critical/analytical thinking, sir. Also, the "poor relations" with the US began when Saddam inquired about annexing Kuwait, and the US "had no opinion on the matter." Of course, that changed the moment the troops went in. Who is the one that started this mess? Well, if the United States was against the annexation of Kuwait into Iraq, Saddam never would have invaded. So who is responsible here?

Saddam Hussein. Do you actually think that because America gave a general unqualified opinion over relations in the region, that Saddam was justified in the invasion? I don&#39;t think that we ever gave the impression that we would let Saddam compromise our oil supply, nor should anyone think that we gave that impression to th Ba&#39;athists. Hardly. Besides, let&#39;s not kid ourselves, the liberation of Kuwait was simply a segue for the US to begin a plan originated in the seventies to gain a better sphere of influence in the region in order to gain access to certian resources for the good of the American people. It was a necessary move in the interest of the empire.


Well, if you ever did what you just said, you wouldn&#39;t have come to the conclusion that you have. Well, unless you&#39;re an idiot. :rolleyes:

This comment doesen&#39;t really mean anything.


Because Al-Franken is a communist :lol:

He approaches it. Besides, I&#39;m sorry, Lazar, I guess I assumed that I was debating someone who didn&#39;t need emoticons to help him read faceteousness when he sees it. But, then again, what was I thinking? Again, sir, reading comprehension.


You have to look at both sides to come to a conclusion. It is quite obvious that you haven&#39;t.

I just did.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 11:45 PM

Not to mention the fact that he completely skipped over my post which ripped his pathetic argument to shreds.
You may retract this comment at your convenience.

[KC]

I like this quote. It amounts to a good amount of saber-rattling, but not actual refuseal to lift sanctions after the security council resolutions were complied with. The fact remains they never were complied with in the 1st place. There is no doubt or disageeement that the US had a continiuing policy of regime change since GW1, and they didn&#39;t want to take the wind out of opposition forces&#39; sails by even discussing the re-empowerment of Saddam Hussein. This is a clever attempt to try and create the illusion of US action out of some simple political posturing. It was cetainly no excuse for Saddam to continue to snub the U.N.

If you want to interpret it like an idiot then that is your opinion. Let me quote this again for you:




From the end of the Gulf War, senior officials from the US in particular have repeatedly indicated that they will ensure that sanctions are kept in place regardless of weapons issues. Therefore, Iraq was deprived of any incentive to comply with the UN weapons inspectors.

It seems you are the one with reading comprehension problems.



Saddam Hussein. Do you actually think that because America gave a general unqualified opinion over relations in the region, that Saddam was justified in the invasion? I don&#39;t think that we ever gave the impression that we would let Saddam compromise our oil supply, nor should anyone think that we gave that impression to th Ba&#39;athists. Hardly. Besides, let&#39;s not kid ourselves, the liberation of Kuwait was simply a segue for the US to begin a plan originated in the seventies to gain a better sphere of influence in the region in order to gain access to certian resources for the good of the American people. It was a necessary move in the interest of the empire.


You seem to be forgetting that at this time the American regime was buddy-buddy with Saddam and his government. The fact that he was going to annex Kuwait had nothing to do with compromising our oil supply, as he was at this time an ally.



He approaches it.

I just stopped right there. You pretty much lost all validity at this (well, you never really put up a valid argument, anyways).




I just did.

Idiot. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 09:09 PM



I like this quote. It amounts to a good amount of saber-rattling, but not actual refuseal to lift sanctions after the security council resolutions were complied with. The fact remains they never were complied with in the 1st place. There is no doubt or disageeement that the US had a continiuing policy of regime change since GW1, and they didn&#39;t want to take the wind out of opposition forces&#39; sails by even discussing the re-empowerment of Saddam Hussein. This is a clever attempt to try and create the illusion of US action out of some simple political posturing. It was cetainly no excuse for Saddam to continue to snub the U.N.

If you want to interpret it like an idiot then that is your opinion. Let me quote this again for you:




From the end of the Gulf War, senior officials from the US in particular have repeatedly indicated that they will ensure that sanctions are kept in place regardless of weapons issues. Therefore, Iraq was deprived of any incentive to comply with the UN weapons inspectors.

It seems you are the one with reading comprehension problems.



Saddam Hussein. Do you actually think that because America gave a general unqualified opinion over relations in the region, that Saddam was justified in the invasion? I don&#39;t think that we ever gave the impression that we would let Saddam compromise our oil supply, nor should anyone think that we gave that impression to th Ba&#39;athists. Hardly. Besides, let&#39;s not kid ourselves, the liberation of Kuwait was simply a segue for the US to begin a plan originated in the seventies to gain a better sphere of influence in the region in order to gain access to certian resources for the good of the American people. It was a necessary move in the interest of the empire.


You seem to be forgetting that at this time the American regime was buddy-buddy with Saddam and his government. The fact that he was going to annex Kuwait had nothing to do with compromising our oil supply, as he was at this time an ally.



He approaches it.

I just stopped right there. You pretty much lost all validity at this (well, you never really put up a valid argument, anyways).




I just did.

Idiot. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Weak, Lazar, weak.

Your tired, canned, and repeated responses of "Idiot", peppered with brainless emoticons, continue to comprimise your credibility.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Weak, Lazar, weak.

Your tired, canned, and repeated responses of "Idiot", peppered with brainless emoticons, continue to comprimise your credibility.

Why don&#39;t you answer his "weak" arguments?

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 8 2005, 04:18 PM
This is absolutely fucking poetic. Not only did they not allow us to use their airspace to hit Quaddafi&#39;s place, not only did they not help us with the libertion of a now constiututional Iraq or the related terrorist insurgenccy, or in Afghanistan for that matter, but they in fact tried to shake us up and hinder us every step of the way.

Now look. The truly peaceful and benevolent Islam is coming back to bite them.

And, of course, in the French tradition, they are soft as hell on the matter. They can&#39;t even quell what is basically an unarmed insurgency from the suburbs. I would expect nothing less from the spineless twits.

With this situation spreading now to belgium and even Germany, it looks like this incredible socialist dream is once again crumbling into futility. I would say that I hope this uprising spreads to all of socialist Europe, but unlike the French, I have a spine, and am consistent, so I still hope that these islamo-fascists are defeated soon. I suppose England is the only nation over there with the werewithal to do anything.

Thanks, socialism, for creating a permanent underclass that has no chance for upward mobility.

How does the crow taste, pinkos?

By the way, if France needs help from a nation that actually has a pair, I suppose they can still call the good old U.S. What the hell? Lets continue the tradition of the U.S helping them without an ounce of reciprocation.


LOL, LOL, LMAO, ROFL
What ignorance&#33; I think the people of France, Belgium, and Germany have shown courage on their decision not to send their soldiers to die for Washington DC, and London. But I guess that&#39;s the typical republican way of freedom&#33; Bash, insult, kill, and silence anyone who doesn&#39;t agree with you. Unlike Capitalist Imperial, the French, Belgians, and Germans have a brain, and think independently, not what is dictated to them by a brain-dead president Bush. "Socialist Europe" that&#39;s a joke, right?


I suppose England is the only nation over there with the werewithal to do anything.

For the most part yes&#33; But tell me something, when the discussion was raised earlier this year about a possible attack on Iran, why did even Britain put their foot down and tell the USA if they went ahead with such an attack that Britain would not participate?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 14 2005, 05:38 AM

Weak, Lazar, weak.

Your tired, canned, and repeated responses of "Idiot", peppered with brainless emoticons, continue to comprimise your credibility.

Why don&#39;t you answer his "weak" arguments?
I have, armchair, go back and read.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Lazar+--> (Lazar)No. Actually, see my post earlier. You know, the one you ignored. Reply to my post or shut the fuck up.[/b]


Lazar

Idiot. laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Lazar, tone down your responses please :)

[YoUnG192]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 08:51 PM
Contrary to your naive understanding of the riots/protests, this situation has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.
Nothing to do with Islam? How about discrimination of their religion?

[Intifada]

Nothing to do with Islam? How about discrimination of their religion?

I have mentioned racism already.

What I was trying to state was that the riots were in no way motivated by political Islam.