Log in

View Full Version : The Real Story in Iraq



Capitalist Lawyer
12th November 2005, 20:52
This was an opinion piece written in my local newspaper and written fairly well I might add. I can't link it due to the fact that it can only be viewed via private account.



A little over a year ago I was called up to serve a tour of duty in Iraq. While there I saw a side of the war that few have the opportunity to see: the truthful side.

Ask 8 out of 10 soldiers, who have seen time in Iraq to share their experience, and not a minute will go by before you hear of accomplishments ranging from power and phone service being restored, cleaner drinking water, young girls in school, hospitals re-opened, oil refineries being turned over to the Iraqi citizens, to an interim constitution being signed. But mostly you'll hear of an overwhelmingly hopeful response from the Iraqi people, stemming largely from the opportunity of freedom and the steadfastness displayed by the United States and its allies.

If you think this analysis is odd, ask yourself why. Could it be that the major media has done a terrible job covering this war? Could it be that leagues of power-hungry opponents to the president will do, say and print whatever they have to without shame or a sense of consequence to harm the present administration? I could tell you stories that would boil even the most liberal blood about how I saw the media betray the solider on the ground in Iraq day after day.

What is needed most to understand our involvement in Iraq is a rational explanation of moral clarity regarding the war on terrorism. The main weapon that terrorists use against the west is not bombs or guns but moral confusion: we too often hear amoral statements like: "America is also a terrorist state, because it too kills civilians."

Terrorism is not defined by the identity of its perpetrator. Nor is it defined by the cause a terrorist hides behind, whether real or imagined. Terrorism is defined by one thing and one thing alone. It is defined by the nature of the act. Terrorists systematically and deliberately attack the innocent. That is a very different thing from collateral damage.

This administration understands that if you want to fight terrorism you don't go out looking for the needle in the haystack. You burn the whole haystack! To use another analogy, when the roots of terror are cut off (power and finances) the grapes left on the vine will wither and die. That's exactly what the United States is doing now.

Yet, we have all heard it said we cannot fight two wars at one time, there is no link between Iraq and terrorism- this has long been the liberal mantra on keeping a ruthless brutal dictator in power. I must say it ridiculousness ranks right up there with my personal favorite liberal one-liner "Blood for oil."

Saddam Hussein violated 16 United Nation resolutions over a period of 10 years. He was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. I saw his mass graves in Iraq, and I saw women and children with gas and chemical burns all over their bodies. If you are not convinced of Iraq's involvement in terrorism, then at last allow me to plead to your side of reason. Are we to believe that there were known and active terrorist's cells in New York, Utah, L.A., Iran, Syria, Palestine, Turkey and Afghanistan? Yet under Saddam's rule, the left wing duplicity would have us believe Iraq was free from all terrorist activity. Such a claim is clearly illogical and anyone who is not blinded by an irrational hatred of George W. Bush can see that.

The president understands that the only way to defeat terrorism is to absolutely vanquish it. What happened on September 11 was only a link in a chain in the bloody history of terrorism. This is a battle that can have only one outcome: our victory, not theirs. Think of the cruelty the 9/11 hijackers perpetrated. They flew planes full throttle, into buildings where 30,000 were working. Terrorists have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent.

Tony Blair articulated this sentiment brilliantly, "There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must."

Try not to think of Iraq in terms of the day-to-day ups and downs often reported without proper context. Whether or not we win this war against terror will not be determined by the soldiers on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, but rather by the guts, and determination, displayed by the citizens of this country. The war on terror is a propaganda war; the battles that have lasting influence are fought over the minds and spirits of Americans.

Master Che
12th November 2005, 21:04
Nice little peice of shit propaganda you have there, here's a question i have for you. Why would ordinary iraqi citizens get guns and shot at US soldiers if they were helping him?

Ownthink
12th November 2005, 21:07
Yay! Now we have some telephone service and electricity that goes out everyday from American shelling!

And all at the price of having our country raped and thousands of civilians killed! Ain't that a bargain?

Don't even try to justify the complete imperialist mess that is Iraq, it just makes you sound like an idiot.

Loknar
12th November 2005, 21:09
Who says they're ordinary Iraqis? Those bastards in Syria and Iran are funding the insurgency.

Bathist Socialism is the ideology of the Sunni insurgency, most likely supported by Syria. I heard there are perhaps 20,000 insurgents. That is out of 25million, or .08% of the population.

If you hate the war, and believe it is wrong, fine, but it doesn’t mean progress hasnt been made. I love how you commies apologize for the Chinese occupation of Tibet and cite how Tibet has improved since the invasion.

Master Che
12th November 2005, 21:17
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 09:09 PM
Who says they're ordinary Iraqis? Those bastards in Syria and Iran are funding the insurgency.

Bathist Socialism is the ideology of the Sunni insurgency, most likely supported by Syria. I heard there are perhaps 20,000 insurgents. That is out of 25million, or .08% of the population.

Who cares they wouldent do anything if you bastards didnt bother them in the first place. I bet if your country was destroyed and several of your family members were killed you wouldent be so happy about it.

Amusing Scrotum
12th November 2005, 21:28
A little over a year ago I was called up to serve a tour of duty in Iraq. While there I saw a side of the war that few have the opportunity to see: the truthful side.

So one eye witness account of what is going on in a country the size of Iraq, is a truthful account? What an absurd concept.


Ask 8 out of 10 soldiers, who have seen time in Iraq to share their experience, and not a minute will go by before you hear of accomplishments ranging from power and phone service being restored, cleaner drinking water, young girls in school, hospitals re-opened, oil refineries being turned over to the Iraqi citizens, to an interim constitution being signed. But mostly you'll hear of an overwhelmingly hopeful response from the Iraqi people, stemming largely from the opportunity of freedom and the steadfastness displayed by the United States and its allies.

Firstly I would like to see the survey which says 8 out of 10 soldiers believe this and secondly, I would rather see a survey saying what Iraqis' think about the situation.

Also he says "But mostly you'll hear of an overwhelmingly hopeful response from the Iraqi people, stemming largely from the opportunity of freedom and the steadfastness displayed by the United States and its allies." Really? I'd be singing the praises of the American military if there were soldiers standing there with guns, most people would do the same. Self preservation will make you lie your ass off.


If you think this analysis is odd, ask yourself why. Could it be that the major media has done a terrible job covering this war? Could it be that leagues of power-hungry opponents to the president will do, say and print whatever they have to without shame or a sense of consequence to harm the present administration? I could tell you stories that would boil even the most liberal blood about how I saw the media betray the solider on the ground in Iraq day after day.

Personally I couldn't give a shit about the petty squabbles of the bourgeois. I'd rather hear what groups like the ICP, the Kurdish Left and the IWC have to say on the issue and they are nowhere near as kind to the Americans as the "mainstream" media.


What is needed most to understand our involvement in Iraq is a rational explanation of moral clarity regarding the war on terrorism. The main weapon that terrorists use against the west is not bombs or guns but moral confusion: we too often hear amoral statements like: "America is also a terrorist state, because it too kills civilians."

America is a terrorist state. Nicaragua anyone?


Terrorism is not defined by the identity of its perpetrator. Nor is it defined by the cause a terrorist hides behind, whether real or imagined. Terrorism is defined by one thing and one thing alone. It is defined by the nature of the act. Terrorists systematically and deliberately attack the innocent. That is a very different thing from collateral damage.

So when America was blanket bombing Vietnam, they were not "systematically and deliberately" killing innocent people?

There are countless other examples where America has deliberately attacked civilians. Therefore America is a terrorist, Usama bin America.


This administration understands that if you want to fight terrorism you don't go out looking for the needle in the haystack. You burn the whole haystack! To use another analogy, when the roots of terror are cut off (power and finances) the grapes left on the vine will wither and die. That's exactly what the United States is doing now.

(Emphasis added.)

Is he proposing genocide here?

Also doesn't this make a mockery of his statement that America is not a terrorist, surely by "burning the whole haystack" America is "systematically and deliberately" killing innocent people.

Plus his analogies are crap.


Yet, we have all heard it said we cannot fight two wars at one time, there is no link between Iraq and terrorism- this has long been the liberal mantra on keeping a ruthless brutal dictator in power. I must say it ridiculousness ranks right up there with my personal favorite liberal one-liner "Blood for oil."

Liberal mantra of supporting dictators? Don't be so silly, Reagan loved Saddam, Somoza and Noreiga. You can't blame everything on the liberals, cause the conservatives are just as bad.

Though "blood for oil" is actually quite good for a liberal, which makes me doubt its actually a liberal slogan.


Saddam Hussein violated 16 United Nation resolutions over a period of 10 years. He was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. I saw his mass graves in Iraq, and I saw women and children with gas and chemical burns all over their bodies. If you are not convinced of Iraq's involvement in terrorism, then at last allow me to plead to your side of reason. Are we to believe that there were known and active terrorist's cells in New York, Utah, L.A., Iran, Syria, Palestine, Turkey and Afghanistan? Yet under Saddam's rule, the left wing duplicity would have us believe Iraq was free from all terrorist activity. Such a claim is clearly illogical and anyone who is not blinded by an irrational hatred of George W. Bush can see that.

Israel's broke five times more resolutions, America's broke a few and vetoed others. Shall we invade America and Israel?

Also I would have thought America had given money to the families of dead Contras' etc.

When you look at it, by these standards, America is a far bigger terrorist.


The president understands that the only way to defeat terrorism is to absolutely vanquish it. What happened on September 11 was only a link in a chain in the bloody history of terrorism. This is a battle that can have only one outcome: our victory, not theirs. Think of the cruelty the 9/11 hijackers perpetrated. They flew planes full throttle, into buildings where 30,000 were working. Terrorists have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent.

Yes I can see Georgy boy "vanquishing" terrorism with his magic wand. :lol:

Yes terrorists have no moral inhibition, but neither does George Bush. Therefore it makes sense to get rid of both of them.


Tony Blair articulated this sentiment brilliantly, "There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must."

Tony Blair's an arsehole and I'm pretty sure if they just let Usama be king of somewhere, he'd be happy. You see thats all bourgeois fucks ever want, power.


Try not to think of Iraq in terms of the day-to-day ups and downs often reported without proper context. Whether or not we win this war against terror will not be determined by the soldiers on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, but rather by the guts, and determination, displayed by the citizens of this country. The war on terror is a propaganda war; the battles that have lasting influence are fought over the minds and spirits of Americans.

So if the wars not won by the soldiers, then whats the point in going to war with soldiers. You'd save a whole heap of money by just winning the war through "minds and spirits." So really he's conceding here Iraq is pointless, it doesn't matter, so why invade it?

This is by far the poorest pro war piece I've read. This guy is an embarrassment to bourgeois journalism.

Amusing Scrotum
12th November 2005, 21:33
Who says they're ordinary Iraqis? Those bastards in Syria and Iran are funding the insurgency.

Around 2% of the insurgency is foreign.


Bathist Socialism is the ideology of the Sunni insurgency, most likely supported by Syria. I heard there are perhaps 20,000 insurgents. That is out of 25million, or .08% of the population.

The Baath Party was modelled on the Nazi Party, they killed Socialists and Communists.

Also polls show the majority of the Iraqi population support the insurgency.

CarlTheCommie
12th November 2005, 23:53
Capitalist Lawyer,

I believe these kinds of distortions and misinformation about the war against Iraq are why the Iraqi people remain staunchly in opposition to the war in virtually every independent poll since the assault began 12 years ago.

Specifically, I feel it is a cruel and sadistic joke to claim responsibility for clean water, electricity and phone service, hospitals being re-opened, etc. if one realizes that it was the assault on their country by the U.S. that ended these services for the Iraqis! Contrary to the article, the U.S. continuously and deliberately (for 12+ years ) targeted the infrastructure of Iraq (against international law) in order to put pressure on the Iraqi people to rise against its leader. This resulted in the death of over half a million (500,000+) Iraqi children under the age of 12. (UNICEF)

It is also grossly incorrect to intimate that young girls can now go to school; they have always been allowed to attend school. Iraq was the most progressive of all so-called middle eastern states concerning its women; far more than the two U.S. allies, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

According to a book published in 1990 called “A Country Study: Iraq,” (which happens to be one in a series of books prepared by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress) Iraq's women are highly educated and well represented:

“Between 1976 and 1986, the number of primary-school students increased 30 percent; female students increased 45 percent, from 35 to 44 percent of the total. The number of primary-school teachers increased 40 percent over this period. At the secondary level, the number of students increased by 46 percent, and the number of female students increased by 55 percent, from 29 to 36 percent of the total. Baghdad, which had about 29 percent of the population, had 26 percent of the primary students, 27 percent of the female primary students, and 32 percent of the secondary students.”

The book continues:
“In the mid-1980s, observers reported that in many ministries the overwhelming proportion of employees were women. Foreign contractors have encountered women supervisors on huge construction projects, women doctors in the hospitals, and even women performing law enforcement roles. This emancipation—extraordinary for an Arab country—was sanctioned by the government, which expended a significant amount of propaganda publicizing the role of women in helping to win the war (with Iran).” (parenthesis mine)

Perhaps if time permits I will cover some of the other distortions in the article at a later time.

Amusing Scrotum
14th November 2005, 07:25
Capitalist Lawyer, where art thou?

Come on you brought the article to our attention surely you could respond to the criticisms. Though I've got a sneaky feeling you were the person who wrote this and you are therefore slightly embarrassed by the resulting criticism.

Comrade Hector
14th November 2005, 07:51
While idiots like Capitalist Lawyer, and Capitalist Imperial rant and never make stable arguments on Iraq, one question really boggles my mind. If the Iraqi people are so happy with the imperialist occupation, then why the hell did 47% of them boycott the elections? And more importantly, why are US soldiers still coming home in body bags? Surely if the majority of Iraqis supported the US presence, the "terrorists" would be defeated by an armed uprising by the people. Don't you think its also strange that a force of 25,000 as you put it is currently wreaking havoc for the US forces? Your piece is the same propoganda shit that was spewed to the American public on Vietnam. But as you said, little capitalist lawyer, its an "opinion piece".

Master Che
14th November 2005, 17:25
I think Capitalist Lawyer and Capitalist Imperial are the same person.