Iraqi Resistance

[Comrade Hector]

They're labeled "terrorists", and described as an ultimately inferior resistance whose days are numbered. They're called "Saddam loyalists", despite the fact that they've never asked for his release, only for all the foreign oppressors led by the United States to leave Iraq and let them determin their future of an Iraq without Saddam Hussein's oppression, and a regime that functions from Baghdad and not Washington DC. George W. Bush and all those christian fanatical slobs in the White House and Pentagon keep insisting that this ridiculous "War on Terrorism" will be successful in Iraq and Afghanistan (two nations that had nothing to do with 9/11). Not surprizingly both the Taliban and Baathist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq were brought to power by the United States. In 2003 the United States led the invasion of Iraq, toppled Saddam Hussein, but was then confronted by a fierce armed resistance which was not expected. The republicans rant constantly on how the Iraqi resistance's days are numbered. The Iraqi Resistance is far from being on its knees, and are conducting successful guerilla tactics against the imperialist occupation of their country. View this website The Iraqi Resistance (http://www.albasrah.net/moqawama/english/iraqi_resistance.htm) and see their determination, their effectiveness, and will to prevail. See the photos of ambushes on US convoys, and attacks US bases and soldiers. What they don't show you in the capitalist media like CNN. I recommend that you also view their message to the people of the world and the soldiers.

[kurt]

Interesting indeed.

[YKTMX]

Nice post. It's so sad that many comrades on the board are so ambivalent in the fight between Imperialism and an anti-imperialist gueriilla movement of the poor. Oh well.

[Publius]

I don't support the US war but I can't support this sort of violence.

Just becase 'Imperialism' is bad doesn't mean the cure isn't worse.

I can fix the cut on your leg but amputation and cauterization, for instance, but it isn't wise, useful or good.

I feel the same way about this.

They don't NEED to kill the American soldiers because the only reason they're staying is because they are being killed.

THe problem is self-perpetuating, and you can thank these 'freedom fighters' for that.

You can thank them for the 20 years of American rule that will follow.

[Master Che]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 07:57 PM
I don't support the US war but I can't support this sort of violence.

Just becase 'Imperialism' is bad doesn't mean the cure isn't worse.

I can fix the cut on your leg but amputation and cauterization, for instance, but it isn't wise, useful or good.

I feel the same way about this.

They don't NEED to kill the American soldiers because the only reason they're staying is because they are being killed.

THe problem is self-perpetuating, and you can thank these 'freedom fighters' for that.

You can thank them for the 20 years of American rule that will follow.
Like what they've done in South america :lol: ?

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 08:02 PM
I don't support the US war but I can't support this sort of violence.

Just becase 'Imperialism' is bad doesn't mean the cure isn't worse.

I can fix the cut on your leg but amputation and cauterization, for instance, but it isn't wise, useful or good.

I feel the same way about this.

They don't NEED to kill the American soldiers because the only reason they're staying is because they are being killed.

THe problem is self-perpetuating, and you can thank these 'freedom fighters' for that.

You can thank them for the 20 years of American rule that will follow.
Publius, I'm as naive to think that the Iraqi Resistance are a bunch of freedom fighters. Perhaps they won't bring a better society to Iraq, not that the US would. But, it is the choice of the Iraqi people on how they should live, without being dictated to them by Washington. I only support their right to self determination. The US patriots on the other hand, delude themselves that every movement or regime supported by the White House fights for freedom. You didn't see much of that during the 1990's in Afghanistan, or in Pinochet's Chile for that matter.

[Intifada]

(Publius)

They don't NEED to kill the American soldiers

So what do they do in order to free themselves of an occupation led by the most aggressive and imperialist nation this world has seen since the end of the Second World War?

I know, they could go to the foreign soldiers, who maintain the occupation, and ask them politely: "Please stop occupying my country and do as the Iraqi people wish. Go home to your family and loved ones."

As far as I am aware, the Iraqis have done this through peaceful protests, only to be - frequently - met with further repression.

This, however, did and has not worked... and will not work.

The Iraqis have a right to resist occupation, and if killing US troops is the only way to do it, then so be it.

There is no other option.


the only reason they're staying is because they are being killed.


That is what the chickenhawks in Washington say, but it's a crap excuse for the ongoing occupation of Iraq.

To believe that the Bush administration care about Us troops is truly deluded.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 14 2005, 01:46 AM
TThey're called "Saddam loyalists", despite the fact that they've never asked for his release,.....
View this website The Iraqi Resistance (http://www.albasrah.net/moqawama/english/iraqi_resistance.htm)
From that Iraqi resistance website:

A statement from the Mujahidins Armed Forces Mid October 2005
It is on the life of the great leader Saddam Hussein that depends
the future of Iraq, the region and the Mankind.
They must remember that all the Mujahidin Baathists and the militants will sacrifice their lives for the leader Mujahid Saddam Hussein may the Lord safeguard him and free him from his ordeal, and will offer for his sake everything dear, and the one who dares harm the person of the President leader, or put his life into danger, or to expose him to a mockery trial in order to liquidate his beloved person.... We swear by God and by the homeland that the eyes of the Mujahidins will not sleep a wink until we punish the ones who harm the President in any way.
link (http://www.albasrah.net/en_articles_2005/1005/maf_111005.htm)
and

Al-Fallujah, which remains loyal to the Iraqi government lead by President Saddam Hussein, broke out in joyous displays earlier Monday after rumours spread that the man US forces captured Saturday night was not the former Iraqi leader
......
Iraqi residents of the area of ad-Duwar where Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was captured by aggressor troops late Saturday evening report that a ferocious
battle raged in their farming area between Iraqi Resistance Fighters led by President Saddam Hussein and American aggressor troops backed by aircraft who resorted to all sorts of weapons, including those under international ban.

Lawyer Isma'il 'Abd ar-Rahman said that the courageous Iraqi Resistance led by Saddam Hussein lost more than 150 men martyrs in the heroic engagement.
Emphasis added. link (http://www.albasrah.net/moqawama/english/resistancereport15-17-122003.htm)

As you can see, the Iraqi resistance itself does not, for the most part, hide its Ba'athist character; only its international sympathizers try to do so. I could give a lot of other examples off that website alone.

We've recently had a chance to measure the relative strength of the various elements of the resistance: the U.S.-sponsored constitutional referendum. For the first time, several armed resistance groups called for participation in the vote (a no vote of course). Including the Islamic Army in Iraq, the Army of Mujahideen, the Movement of Islamic Resistance (Hamas-Brigades of the 1920 Revolution) and the Islamic Front of the Islamic Resistance. It's significant on one level as a recognition of the reality that the results of the electoral process are likely to stand, otherwise why the fear of being left out of it?

But also in that other resistance groups called for a boycott and threatened violence against those voting. Notably the Ba'ath Party and Zarqawi's "Al-Qaeda in Iraq." Which are apparently allied. So who represents the real force in the resistance?

Apparently the Ba'athist and al-Qaeda-ists. Voter turnout was very light throughout Anbar province, where the resistance is strongest. The only exception was prison-like Falluja, where the remaining population turned out to vote "no"...under the protection of the occupation forces which reduced the city to a near-ghost town.

A supporter of the "vote No" element of the resistance complained afterward:

Although four of the major and most influent resistance groups on the Iraqi scene called Sunni Iraqis yesterday to go to the polling centers and cast a NO vote on the constitution, reality was contrary to what was expected from all Sunni circles, as our correspondents have reported that the regions falling under the control of al-Qaida’s organization in Iraq have seen almost nil or insignificant rates of votes in the referendum.
.....
Sheikh Abdul-Sattar Muhammad, one of the imams and preachers of Fallujah, said that al-Qaida’s organization made a huge error in preventing the people by threats and intimidations to take part in the vote, adding that al-Qaida contributed with other groups to the marginalization of the Sunnis and their impotence in the face of Shiites, Kurds and secular parties… He said also that if al-Qaida’s elements had let the people vote, the constitution would have been rejected by 100% of Sunnis and would have been aborted, while it would have been proved that Sunnis are not a minority in Iraq…

Whereas the Islamic Party has deliberately contributed in splitting the votes of the Sunnis in calling for a “yes” vote, Zarqawi has also given a gift to the occupation and the Safawi [a pejorative formula used in Sunni circles to designate the Shiites deemed to be “Iranian agents”] followers of Sistani by contributing unknowingly, through their threats to the voters, to the neutralization of the Sunni votes opposed to this constitution, under which the Iraqis may have to live miserably for a long period.link (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=8953)

Note that the other element of the resistance is just as focused as the Ba'athists and Zarqawi on anti-Kurdish and anti-Shi'a sectarianism and chauvinism. The sectarianism and chauvinism of tribal sheiks, landlords and businesspeople from the historically privileged Sunni Arab population.

This is not, in fact, an anti-imperialist movement. It is a Sunni-Arab supremacist movement. The Iraqi resistance itself is not shy about saying so; only its international sympatizers persist in wishful-thinking otherwise.

Among other things, this has led to a definite rift, and even armed conflict, with the previously sympathetic Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr:

The sun had barely risen over a small Sunni village when Shiite militiamen, some wearing black, launched a raid, ostensibly to free hostages. Interior Ministry troops joined the fight. After several hours, more than 20 people were dead.
....
The violence erupted when militiamen from the Mahdi Army, loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, raided the village to free hostages who they say were kidnapped by Sunni Arabs there. Medayna residents insist the attack was unprovoked.
....
Abbas al-Rubaie, an aide to al-Sadr, said villagers were harboring terrorists who kidnap people for money and that the militiamen intervened at the request of local authorities.

"The police forces couldn't reach the area because they're weak, and word came out that some hostages are held in this village," he said. "It's a religious duty to save someone's life."

He said Mahdi militiamen met resistance from militants in the village, whom he accused of rigging explosives on roads leading to the area. He said 19 militiamen and two to five policemen were killed.

He denied that the attack was sectarian motivated or that militiamen killed people in Medayna without provocation.AP article (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Iraq_Militias.html)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 02:02 PM
They don't NEED to kill the American soldiers because the only reason they're staying is because they are being killed.
That makes the kind of sense that's not. "I'm going to stay here because people are shooting at me."

Do you think the U.S. political leadership is that stupid?

[Publius]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 15 2005, 07:30 AM



Publius, I'm as naive to think that the Iraqi Resistance are a bunch of freedom fighters. Perhaps they won't bring a better society to Iraq, not that the US would. But, it is the choice of the Iraqi people on how they should live, without being dictated to them by Washington.

Yeah, it will be dictated by fellow Iraqis; presumably the local bullet feels better than the Washington bullet when embedded in the skull?


I only support their right to self determination.

And you think the Iraqi's with guns support self determination? Or do they support themselves determining?

There is a difference.

[Free Palestine]

Uh-huh, every single Iraqi fighting colonialism in Iraq is fighting for Sunni privilege? I don't think so. Al-Fallujah is just one group in a homegrown, multi-layered movement of numerable Iraqi groups taking directions from members of their respective communities. Cherry-picking one group (from a blog entry from 2003 no less) is a far cry from definitive substantiation for your little "Sunni supremacy" myth, but nice try. Got anything else? What's your next justification for occupation? That the resistance are nothing but "unworthy terrorists?" "Sunni privilege" fighters? Saddam loyalists?

FYI, there are Iraqi Christians, atheists, agnostics and seculars in the resistance - that's been proven. I think you're just trying to fit the points together in a way that nicely fits with the American mythology of its noble 'liberation' of Iraq from Saddam.

[Columbia]

I think things have turned there in some ways. The terrorists (that's what they are) can still/always inflict suffering, but the army, which used to run away, or sell out the allies, is becoming more successful each day.

I believe that you will see an de-escalation by the Brits, then U.S., during '06 and '07.

I believe the U.N. will re-deploy its mission there in late '06 or early '07, and that will give some kind of small victory to Pres. Bush. But, at that time it will be meaningless as he will be a lame duck and too tainted from his lies re: the war.

The end will not help the cause of the radical left, as Iraqis are, culturally, cappies. It will be about nationalism, not economics.

Another loss for the commies, but they get a win in Venezuela, as Chavez, about that time, will declare himself dictator.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 05:26 PM









So what do they do in order to free themselves of an occupation led by the most aggressive and imperialist nation this world has seen since the end of the Second World War?

I dunno, pray?

They don't really stand a chance.


I know, they could go to the foreign soldiers, who maintain the occupation, and ask them politely: "Please stop occupying my country and do as the Iraqi people wish. Go home to your family and loved ones."

It would probably be wiser than shooting at them and being killed.

And at least as effective.




As far as I am aware, the Iraqis have done this through peaceful protests, only to be - frequently - met with further repression.

Nothing garners repression as much as violence.

And this isn't JUST anti-troop violence.

This is anti-police violence, anti-citizen violence ANTI-CHILDREN VIOLENCE so and forth.

These people are bombing funerals, children playing in the streets and cafes.

THIS is what you and your disgusting ilk are supporting. Do you realize that? Do you care?

How is blowing up children fighting for ANYTHING useful?

IF they were only attacking troops AND the troops were being significantly abusive (And overall, they aren't. Abuses happen, but not as often as you seem to think), THEN I could see this as an option.

But they're attcking innocent civilians and the troops are rather restrained.

I just don't see the logic.



The Iraqis have a right to resist occupation, and if killing US troops is the only way to do it, then so be it.

There is no other option.

They weren't so willing to fight Saddam.

How fucking ironic.

And I wasn't aware 'US troops' meant '6 year old children'.



That is what the chickenhawks in Washington say, but it's a crap excuse for the ongoing occupation of Iraq.

No, it is the reason.

Why else would they keep troops there?




To believe that the Bush administration care about Us troops is truly deluded.

They don't.

But keeping them there is not popular or stratigically wise, overall.

[Rojo]

i sorta have to agree with publius on this one. You guys are absolutley right there is no reason America should be in Iraq and that some of the groups aren't radical. But we can't go around supporting radical muslims who believe that Saddam is good. Or people that blow themselves up in a crowded area just to kill a few soldiers and policemen (who I might add think that they're doing Iraq a service)

its just not right. we just can't support people who are beheading journalists (no matter how much capitalist propaganda they spit out).

[Creature]

Just a few alternative view points.


Extract from Richard Bransons Book, 'Loosing my Virginity'


Then I went down the the drawing room and King Hussein spkoe for an hour about the problems in the Middle East. As I sat and listened, I looked around and saw a signed photograph of Margaret Thatcher standing beside one of Saddam Hussein. King Hussein pointed out to me why he did not automatically support the Kuwaiti position against Iraq.
'The people of Kuwait are divided into three catagories,' he said. 'There are 400,00 Kuwaitis who are either very rich or very very rich; and there are 2 million impoverished immigrant workers looking after them.'
He pointed out that there was no free press and no free elections in Kuwait: it was hardly the 'democracy' the West claimed to be defending.
'The Kuwaitis do nothing for the Arab world,' he went on. 'All their money is in Swiss bank accounts, not in Arabia. I've asked a number of world leaders whether in the West would have come to Jordan's rescue if Iraq had invaded Jordan, a country with no oil. Each timethere was a silence. I doubt it.' Then he laughed. 'I know you would, though! Yes, you'd come sailing over the horizon with your baloon withyour Virgin planes beside you!
'No, seriously,' he said, 'this is the chance to resolve the entire Middle Eastern qeustion. Kuwait promised Saddam Hussein that it would pay its share of the costs of the war against Iran, which Iraq fought on its behalf. It has reneged on on that promise. Originaly, Saddam only planned to take the disputed oilfields he thought were rightfully his. He only occupied the whole country because he heard the Kuwaitis were prepareing the landing strips to let the Americans come in and defend them. He is certainly not interested in invading Saudi Arabia.'


Secondly (this goes for extremist's or freedom fighters), if muslims die, they're up in arms, but if Christians die they don't care.

[Intifada]

I dunno, pray?

They don't really stand a chance.

Viet Nam...


It would probably be wiser than shooting at them and being killed.

And at least as effective.


Guerrilla warfare can be extremely effective if done properly.


And this isn't JUST anti-troop violence.


THIS is what you and your disgusting ilk are supporting. Do you realize that? Do you care?


I never stated otherwise, and as far as I am aware, I did not show support for acts against Iraqi civilians, especially since that was one of the reasons I opposed the invasion in the first place.


They weren't so willing to fight Saddam.

How fucking ironic.


You either know nothing of Iraqi history, or have a short memory.

In 1991, following the First Gulf War, the oppressed Iraqi Shiites began an uprising, with the blessing of the Americans, only for it to be brutally crushed by Saddam.

US non-intervention still pisses off a lot of Shiites.

Fucking ironic, innit?


And I wasn't aware 'US troops' meant '6 year old children'.


I love it when people, who cannot refute what I say, make statements up.

You are an idiot.


No, it is the reason.

Why else would they keep troops there?


Maybe because they are interested in the strategic importance of Iraq?

We shall see properly, in the future, how long the US troops stay in Iraq.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 04:59 PM


That is what the chickenhawks in Washington say, but it's a crap excuse for the ongoing occupation of Iraq.

No, it is the reason.

Why else would they keep troops there?
To ensure the stability of the new regime in Iraq, and above all, maximize U.S. influence on it? Including U.S. influence on its military, which is being trained by the U.S. army?

Really, explain to me why anyone would stay anyplace solely because they're being shot at. That's simply insane.

If Zarqawi told you not to jump off a cliff, would you jump to spite him?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 15 2005, 03:11 PM
FYI, there are Iraqi Christians, atheists, agnostics and seculars in the resistance - that's been proven.
And in the Ba'ath party. In fact, Christians were always disproportionately represented in the Ba'ath Party.

What's your point? Why are you denying something that's admitted - no, proudly proclaimed - by the "Iraqi resistance report"?

And did you even read my whole post?

[Publius]

Viet Nam...

Was a different matter entirely.

But let me ask you a question: If you support self-determination, why do you not (Presumably) support South Vietnam's independance?



Guerrilla warfare can be extremely effective if done properly.

But IS this effective?

No, no it isn't.

Not at all.

Read the papers. Look at who was killed last week. HOw many innocents?



I never stated otherwise, and as far as I am aware, I did not show support for acts against Iraqi civilians, especially since that was one of the reasons I opposed the invasion in the first place.

Horrific.

At least state that you don't care about civilians.

Don't feed me this bullshit.

Are so fucking blind as to think that supporting the 'insurgency' isn't DIRECT SUPPORT for the murder of innocents?

You can't hide behind these rationalizations.

The people who want us out don't want Iraqi freedom (By and large). They want to kill innocents and assume power.


You either know nothing of Iraqi history, or have a short memory.

In 1991, following the First Gulf War, the oppressed Iraqi Shiites began an uprising, with the blessing of the Americans, only for it to be brutally crushed by Saddam.

US non-intervention still pisses off a lot of Shiites.

Fucking ironic, innit?

I knew all of that.

But it isn't relevent.

They had years to fight and they didn't. They were subjugated.

I'm not blaming them, I'm just noting.




I love it when people, who cannot refute what I say, make statements up.

You are an idiot.


I love it when people don't undrestand the consequences of their actual beliefs, not their wishful fairy-tale-world delusions of them.

I don't care if you think the insurgents are nice guys, or 'freedom fighters' or 'Che Guevaras' or whatever bullshit yoy've made up; by supporting them, you support the deaths of innocents.

Not that I blame you for deflecting; it's an impossible situation to argue out of for a supposed humanist.



Maybe because they are interested in the strategic importance of Iraq?

We shall see properly, in the future, how long the US troops stay in Iraq.

Bet you a dollar it's tied to directly when the insurgency stops.

[Intifada]

Was a different matter entirely.


Which the Americans were confident of gaining victory in.

We all know how that conflict ended.


If you support self-determination, why do you not (Presumably) support South Vietnam's independance?


Why should I recognise South Vietnam?

The South was nothing but an American-backed puppet government.


But IS this effective?

No, no it isn't.

Not at all.

Read the papers. Look at who was killed last week. HOw many innocents?

The more US soldiers that return in body-bags, the more the US public will begin to depise the idea of US troops remaining in Iraq.


At least state that you don't care about civilians.

Don't feed me this bullshit.


I'm sorry, but the only person "feeding" anybody such "bullshit" is you.

Stop accusing me of supporting something I have always condemned.


Are so fucking blind as to think that supporting the 'insurgency' isn't DIRECT SUPPORT for the murder of innocents?


I do not "blindly" support all and any Iraqi "insurgency".


The people who want us out don't want Iraqi freedom (By and large).

The Iraqi people want you out.


Bet you a dollar it's tied to directly when the insurgency stops.

The "insurgency" is born out of the presence of American/foreign troops which occupy Iraq.

[Free Palestine]

But IS this effective?

To suggest that a strategy of effective use of guerilla warfare and continual maintenence of an effective fighting force won't eventually sap the political will of the oppressor government to remain an occupying power just plain ignores history and logic.


If you support self-determination, why do you not (Presumably) support South Vietnam's independance?

Is that why the U.S. thwarted democratic elections in the South that would have otherwise united the country under Ho Chi Minh? :huh:


Are so fucking blind as to think that supporting the 'insurgency' isn't DIRECT SUPPORT for the murder of innocents?

That is because there are no hiding places for combatants, such as forests and mountains, which forces them to fight almost exclusively in heavily populated cities, towns and along certain highways. That is why the car bomb and suicide bombers are deployed in the towns and cities. Also note the car bombings target military checkpoints, U.S. patrols, police stations, and officials who collaborate with the occupation -- all fair game. The nature of the car bombings results in civilian casualties by perforce, but they are rarely if ever the primary target. Some of the attacks that seem to be directed at only civilians reflect sectarian religious provocations, not necessarily associated with the resistance.


The people who want us out don't want Iraqi freedom (By and large). They want to kill innocents and assume power.

Got any evidence to support that?


Why are you denying something that's admitted - no, proudly proclaimed - by the "Iraqi resistance report"?

Really? You deduced all that from some blog from 2003 about Al-Fallujah? :lol:

[Publius]

Which the Americans were confident of gaining victory in.

We all know how that conflict ended.

I think the Americans were confident of gaining victory in about every way they undertook.


Why should I recognise South Vietnam?

The South was nothing but an American-backed puppet government.

But weren't there people in the South who didn't want the North to impose an utter dictatorship on them?

What about their right to self-determination?



The more US soldiers that return in body-bags, the more the US public will begin to depise the idea of US troops remaining in Iraq.

But also more Iraqis die in the fighting, more draconian measures are taken in Iraq, more torture occurs.

None of this is good for Iraqis.

As it is, they aren't really killing enough troops to be effective.



I'm sorry, but the only person "feeding" anybody such "bullshit" is you.

Stop accusing me of supporting something I have always condemned.

Look, you can say you support whatever and the hell you want, I don't care, but I sure hope you realize your 'condemnation' is utterly meaningless, useless, and contradictory to your message.

Could someone support the US military and simply ignore and 'condemn' it's killing of innocent civilians?

Of course not.

Why should your situation be any different?



I do not "blindly" support all and any Iraqi "insurgency".

And what are you doing to support the 'good' insurgency and injure the 'bad' one?

How do you have any assurance that this insurgency won't simply take power and take control?



The Iraqi people want you out.

But they want self-rule most of all, and Zarqawi and his ilk aren't going to bring it.



The "insurgency" is born out of the presence of American/foreign troops which occupy Iraq.

Al Zarqawi isn't from Iraq...

[Publius]

To suggest that a strategy of effective use of guerilla warfare and continual maintenence of an effective fighting force won't eventually sap the political will of the oppressor government to remain an occupying power just plain ignores history and logic.

Some are.

Most aren't.

Just because you and your friends declare 'guerilla war' doesn't mean you'll have any success, much less defeat the oppressor.

There was plenty of insurgency during WW2 but it didn't do more than cursory damage to the Nazis.

WHAT constitutes a 'good' insurgency, one likely to work?




Is that why the U.S. thwarted democratic elections in the South that would have otherwise united the country under Ho Chi Minh? :huh:

Yes, a 'Communist dictatorship' is truly a paradigm of self-determination.


That is because there are no hiding places for combatants, such as forests and mountains, which forces them to fight almost exclusively in heavily populated cities, towns and along certain highways. That is why the car bomb and suicide bombers are deployed in the towns and cities. Also note the car bombings target military checkpoints, U.S. patrols, police stations, and officials who collaborate with the occupation -- all fair game. The nature of the car bombings results in civilian casualties by perforce, but they are rarely if ever the primary target. Some of the attacks that seem to be directed at only civilians reflect sectarian religious provocations, not necessarily associated with the resistance.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4251390.stm

Wait! Let me guess! They were trying to detonate the bomb outside the mosque and use the explosion to blow bricks at the US troops a few blocks away, right? Devious plan!

That was the plan wasn't it?

Or maybe Baghdad is just SO crowded, they couldn't get a clear shot. Or maybe they're blind.

Or, wait a second, I think I fucking have it! THey were TRYING to kill innocent civilians!

Bullshit sophisms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4496277.stm


The bombs went off within minutes of each other and targeted patrols of Iraqi police or national guards as well as a restaurant they frequent.

Cars were destroyed, shops gutted and pools of blood stained the streets of a district where insurgents have been active.

Well, at least they TARGETED the 'right' people. They just kind of missed and killed a few dozen of the 'wrong people'.

Totally accidental though.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4423836.stm

I mean that woman holding the dead child? US military plant! Totally justified. That kid was just asking for it, what with his playing soccer and going to school! Little bastard deserved it!

Right?

Right?



Got any evidence to support that?

http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search...=0&go.y=0&go=go (http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=newsukfs&tab=news&q=al+zarqawi&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=go)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 14 2005, 07:46 AM


They're labeled "terrorists", and described as an ultimately inferior resistance whose days are numbered.

Do you mean the one's who cowardly use roadside IED's and suicide bombers to kill Iraqi civilians? They've killed as many Iraqi civilians as US soldiers. Yes, I call them terrorists. They are terrorists. Their days may not be numbered, but their days of effective resistance is.


They're called "Saddam loyalists", despite the fact that they've never asked for his release, only for all the foreign oppressors led by the United States to leave Iraq and let them determin their future of an Iraq without Saddam Hussein's oppression, and a regime that functions from Baghdad and not Washington DC.

I don't think anyone with a clear understanding of the insurgency is calling them saddam loyalists, though a small contingent of them in fact are. Additionally, I find it funny that they don't want to do the dirty work of ousting Saddam, but now that big bad America has done it, they are all to willing to take advantage of a state in transition.


George W. Bush and all those christian fanatical slobs in the White House and Pentagon keep insisting that this ridiculous "War on Terrorism" will be successful in Iraq and Afghanistan (two nations that had nothing to do with 9/11).

I'm not sure why you are invoking Christianity. CHristianity has nothing to do with this. Are you going to really claim that Afghanistan, which housed Al Queda training camps at numerous locations, supported the training of the 9/11 terroists, and hid OBL after 9/11, really had nnothing to do woth 911? Come on, man, get serious. As for Iraq, there have been some loose ties to general terrorism, but I agree that it had little to do with 9/11. However, I do think that Iraq was an ideal place to establish a US front for the overall war on terror, and it will give us a US sphere of influence and seat of democracy that will hopefullty spread to the rest of the middle east in time.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the war on terror is "ridiculous", but I can easily name about six major terrorist incidents agains the US and US interests that provoked this war.



Not surprizingly both the Taliban and Baathist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq were brought to power by the United States.

This an argument often put forward by leftists. I'm not sure why, it is a weak point. So what if we previously had a good relationship with these rogue states? Things change. Can I expect every one of you liberal leftists to maintain good relations with your ex boyfriends/girlfriends just because at some point in history you were in bed together? Of couse not. If anything, the fact that the US put these reginmes in power gives us even more responsibility for taking them out.


In 2003 the United States led the invasion of Iraq, toppled Saddam Hussein, but was then confronted by a fierce armed resistance which was not expected.

LOL, LOL, you say this as if these "brave warriors" are fighting face to face with our forces, when in fact they are taking tick-tack RPD shots from concealed positions, planting roadside bombs in advance of convoys, and bombing civilians in local marketplaces. You painting them as "fierce fighters" is pathetic at best. They rarely engage US forces face to face. When they do, they die.


The republicans rant constantly on how the Iraqi resistance's days are numbered. The Iraqi Resistance is far from being on its knees, and are conducting successful guerilla tactics against the imperialist occupation of their country.

I don't think that republicans constantly rant about this. I think that most American take the insurgency seriously. However, as much as you commie-pukes would like to see these terrorists kill Americans, as you are sycophants to anything anti-amarican. No matter, the fact remains that America and Iraqi nationals will be victorious in Iraq, and the insuurgency will be put down. History will show this.


View this website The Iraqi Resistance (http://www.albasrah.net/moqawama/english/iraqi_resistance.htm) and see their determination, their effectiveness, and will to prevail.

You are an idiotic sycophant with no understanding of who these terrorists are. They are islamic fundamentalists. They want every westerner dead, including you! They would just as soon cut you head off for singing or dancing as they would a US soldier for shooting at them. THEY WANT A TOTAL OPPRESSIVE ISLAMIC STATE IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AND DEATH TO THE WEST! This is well known. They behead journalists and aid workers. They bomb civilians. They are sick religious zealots, that yould just as soon impale your mother, and you can't seem to keep your nose out of their asses! You are a fucking imbecile. It is little wonder that you commies can't start a revolution. You are all so fucking soft! You are actually appeasing terrorists that would just as soon blow you face of your skull in the subway. You are truly loony.


What they don't show you in the capitalist media like CNN. I recommend that you also view their message to the people of the world and the soldiers.

What CNN also doesn't show is the schools being built, the water treatment plants and electric plants being re-established, the markets full of activity in bagdad. Oh, no, CNN would rather go on and on about abu graib's club-med that they call "torture", such as putting dog collars on prisoners (oh, the horror) and quickly forget about the horrible beheadings that the enemy perpetrates. Youthink CNNis right wing? Get real!

Keep supporting these terrorist fucks, you soft-stance appeaser. Leave it to the US to protect your ass as usual.

[Intifada]

(Publius)

But weren't there people in the South who didn't want the North to impose an utter dictatorship on them?

What about their right to self-determination?


The Americans, who were - as usual - scared of the influence of Communism, didn't mind supporting Diem (a bastard himself) and his decision not to hold a referendum on the question of Vietnamese reunification, did they?

Why didn't the Americans respect Vietnamese self-determination?


But also more Iraqis die in the fighting

I shall refer to Ho Chi Minh...

"You can kill ten of my men for every one one I kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and I will win."


more draconian measures are taken in Iraq, more torture occurs.

Draconian meaures began when the US stepped into Iraq and began the occupation, after pounding Iraq with bombs from the air.

What did you think would be the response of the Shias when the US censored al Sadr's newspaper?

Torture of innocent Iraqis has occured since the US stepped into Iraq too. It's only recently that the full story is beginning to be leaked into the public domain.


Could someone support the US military and simply ignore and 'condemn' it's killing of innocent civilians?

No, because it was the US which began the aggressive act of war which has led to the continuing occupation of Iraq.


And what are you doing to support the 'good' insurgency and injure the 'bad' one?


What can I do?

I support the Iraqi resistance critically.

The people who go out and kill US soldiers have my backing, but only because of my anti-imperialist stance.


How do you have any assurance that this insurgency won't simply take power and take control?


The "insurgency" is not monolithic.


But they want self-rule most of all, and Zarqawi and his ilk aren't going to bring it.


The want self-rule to go hand-in-hand with an end to the occupation of their country.

"Zarqawi and his ilk" does not make up the whole Iraqi "insurgency" though, does it?

Do you want to give me evidence which shows otherwise?


Al Zarqawi isn't from Iraq...

The US ain't exactly from Iraq either, so if you wish to debate about foreign fighters terrorising the Iraqi people...

Anyway, al Zarqawi is not the face of the Iraqi resistance, as it is not monolithic.

[truthaddict11]

whats the point in telling these people this CI? Yes it IS the truth but how can you change the minds of people on this board who celebrate 9/11 call it "the chickens comming home to roost" and wish america wiped out and all american troops dead? They are no better than the terrorists.

[JudeObscure84]

The Iraqi Resistence is filled with former Baathists, loyal Baathists and Islamic Jihadists. This makes up the bulk of the resistence. They assisinated a former UN ambassador because of his affiliation with the independence of East Timor from Muslim lands! This is NOT anti-imperialism people.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/10/03/iraq11804.htm

http://hrw.org/reports/2005/iraq1005/

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 17 2005, 03:01 AM




I think US planes and soldiers have already done plenty of killing of civilians. But of course in republican's eyes when an American soldier kills or rapes it for the good of a country. Besides, I'm willing to bet that half of those suicide bombers that "kill Iraqi civilians" are just used as covers for the actions of US soldiers. You say their days of effective resistance are numbered? It has been more than 2 years since the fall of Saddam Hussein, and they seem to be more effective now than when they began. This is the same bullshit that was being spewed about Vietnam. "Oh, we're winning the war", "It'll be over by christmas" and so on.


I don't think anyone with a clear understanding of the insurgency is calling them saddam loyalists, though a small contingent of them in fact are. Additionally, I find it funny that they don't want to do the dirty work of ousting Saddam, but now that big bad America has done it, they are all to willing to take advantage of a state in transition.

That's probably the only intelligent thing I've ever seen you post. Of course, you might want to convince your fellow republicans and president that. I don't think it was possible to do anything against Saddam Hussein from within Iraq, the US sanctions were making damn sure of that. The resistance if fighting colonial slavery, not "state transition".


I'm not sure why you are invoking Christianity. CHristianity has nothing to do with this. Are you going to really claim that Afghanistan, which housed Al Queda training camps at numerous locations, supported the training of the 9/11 terroists, and hid OBL after 9/11, really had nnothing to do woth 911? Come on, man, get serious. As for Iraq, there have been some loose ties to general terrorism, but I agree that it had little to do with 9/11. However, I do think that Iraq was an ideal place to establish a US front for the overall war on terror, and it will give us a US sphere of influence and seat of democracy that will hopefullty spread to the rest of the middle east in time.

I believe it was your little Ann Coulter that said "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to christianity". Baby Bush said: "God told me to attack Iraq". The Taliban were among the first to to express their condolences and vowed to track down Osama Bin Laden and determin if he was indeed responsible of the catastrophe, if he was they were going to take their own action. But it wasn't good enough for Bush. He had to declare for on the Taliban in which he stepped on probably the most reliable source to get Osama Bin Laden. I'm not denying the Taliban housed al-Qaeda training camps, of course they probably wouldn't have any long after 9/11 until Bush declared war on them for not wanted to give Bin Laden to the US if they found him. Why should they? He was allegedly in Afghanistan, so he should be tried by their laws if they found him. Afghanistan itself was not responsible. Now you're making sense, Iraq was apparently the ideal place to begin its hegemony over the people of the Middle East under the cloak of democracy. You'll see, one way or another the US will be defeated once again by force of arms. If not in Iraq or Afghanistan, then perhaps in Iran or Syria.


I'm not sure where you get the idea that the war on terror is "ridiculous", but I can easily name about six major terrorist incidents agains the US and US interests that provoked this war.

The US itself provoked the incidents. With their colonial occupation of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. Do you think everyone in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are happy with US presence in their countries? Aside from the ones in power?




Not surprizingly both the Taliban and Baathist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq were brought to power by the United States.

This an argument often put forward by leftists. I'm not sure why, it is a weak point. So what if we previously had a good relationship with these rogue states? Things change. Can I expect every one of you liberal leftists to maintain good relations with your ex boyfriends/girlfriends just because at some point in history you were in bed together? Of couse not. If anything, the fact that the US put these reginmes in power gives us even more responsibility for taking them out.

And a real argument I might add. By now you don't know why? The US champions being the main advocate of human rights and freedom, but it has supported some of the most brutal regimes in third world countries. On the contrary it is a very strong argument, which you little republicans have yet to give an accurate strong reply. Yeah, so what if we supported regimes that torture their people? So what if we supported dictators who fought for our interests? Right? The fact that the US placed these tyrants in power to preserve US interests take the lives of thousands, these tyrants then seek independence or become of threat to US hegemony, so they call in the bombs which kill thousands more. The only responsibility the US has is preserving its interests with total disregard for its people, which you've admitted to when you stated that the US places the Taliban and Saddam Hussein in power. They only do what they did, because the CIA trained them for that purpose. Thank you! Now that you given me a clear answer, I'll refrain from bringing it up again ;)


LOL, LOL, you say this as if these "brave warriors" are fighting face to face with our forces, when in fact they are taking tick-tack RPD shots from concealed positions, planting roadside bombs in advance of convoys, and bombing civilians in local marketplaces. You painting them as "fierce fighters" is pathetic at best. They rarely engage US forces face to face. When they do, they die.

That is brave I must admit. Its called guerilla warfare, which has been taking serious effect against the US occupiers. If they're just a bunch of cowardly mountain people as is perceived by republicans, then why are US soldiers still coming home in body bags. What you people don't understand, to the resistance dying by the enemy bullet is an honor. And you think by killing them as they come, they will stop? Their engagements against US forces will continue no matter what.


I don't think that republicans constantly rant about this. I think that most American take the insurgency seriously. However, as much as you commie-pukes would like to see these terrorists kill Americans, as you are sycophants to anything anti-amarican. No matter, the fact remains that America and Iraqi nationals will be victorious in Iraq, and the insuurgency will be put down. History will show this.

I think when they say things like "We're gonna kick their asses" shows just how seriously they take it. I don't want to see Americans get killed, and I give no political support for the Iraqi Resistance. This is just another deception created by brain dead conservatives like yourself convincing a people you don't think much that any criticisms of their government is an act against them personally. LOL, as I said this whole victory speech that you use was used constantly in Vietnam. "No matter when the Communists think or do, our forces and South Vietnamese allies will prevail" or something along those lines.


You are an idiotic sycophant with no understanding of who these terrorists are. They are islamic fundamentalists. They want every westerner dead, including you! They would just as soon cut you head off for singing or dancing as they would a US soldier for shooting at them. THEY WANT A TOTAL OPPRESSIVE ISLAMIC STATE IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AND DEATH TO THE WEST! This is well known. They behead journalists and aid workers. They bomb civilians. They are sick religious zealots, that yould just as soon impale your mother, and you can't seem to keep your nose out of their asses! You are a fucking imbecile. It is little wonder that you commies can't start a revolution. You are all so fucking soft! You are actually appeasing terrorists that would just as soon blow you face of your skull in the subway. You are truly loony.

First of all, don't ***** about Islamic fundamentalism when you lovely US government supported them in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Every westerner dead? LOL! They are very much aware of growing opposition to the enslavement of their country by the United States, especially the opposition in Europe. They want all occupational forces out of their lands, which is understandable. What if you lived in a country occupied by another and you were an average civilian? Would you like to see tanks and soldiers from a foreign power in your country? The US has got plenty of oppressive states on their side, why should they care if another was to be established? Aid workers-- don't you mean mercs? Bombing civilians? The US has done plenty of that and continues to do so. Sick religious zealots? Hmm, Jerry Fartwell, Ann Coulter, George Bush, and David Duke come to mind. One day you'll hopefully see that the only Iraqis and Afghans who support the occupation are the few who glue their lips to American asses! But of course you're just a brainwashed little rich fuck, who repeats what is dictated to him by CNN. People like you are soft, who are willing to have the poor kids go and die for Washington's greed, and you little rich kids just stay here praising Washington. No wonder you can't go, you're scared. Just like Ted Nugent. As for revolution in America? PFFT! Get real!


What CNN also doesn't show is the schools being built, the water treatment plants and electric plants being re-established, the markets full of activity in bagdad. Oh, no, CNN would rather go on and on about abu graib's club-med that they call "torture", such as putting dog collars on prisoners (oh, the horror) and quickly forget about the horrible beheadings that the enemy perpetrates. Youthink CNNis right wing? Get real!

CNN does nothing but spew pro-government lies, and continuing propoganda about a successful "war on terror". As for the torture, thanks to independent journalism the word gets out and denial becomes nonexistent when confronted with evidence. The center for US propoganda isn't right-wing? Get your head out of your ass!


Keep supporting these terrorist fucks, you soft-stance appeaser. Leave it to the US to protect your ass as usual.

And you keep supporting US slavery with your cowardly stance for the Iraqi ruling class. Lastly, you republicans don't give two shits about people in the USA. Just the ones who agree with you. You think Bush cared about the 9/11 victims? He's just milking the incident for support on his plans for colonial slavery in the Middle East. He's using the deaths of those innocent people for his own personal benefit. The "war on terror" will not be successful in the end. You'll see. And we'll be waiting for you little apologetic arguments of US military defeat, like the ones were read about Vietnam. How can the US protects it people from outside "threats", when it can't even protect them from inside threats?

[Comrade Hector]

The Iraqi Resistence is filled with former Baathists, loyal Baathists and Islamic Jihadists. This makes up the bulk of the resistence. They assisinated a former UN ambassador because of his affiliation with the independence of East Timor from Muslim lands! This is NOT anti-imperialism people.

They make up some of the resistance, not the bulk. Assasinating this UN amassador wasn't anti-imperialism, agreed. Its odd that any UN ambassador would desire the independence of East Timor. After all General Mohamed Suharto, who's forces oppressed the East Timor people was another darling dictator of the West. UN is just another front for US imperialism!

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 07:03 PM
whats the point in telling these people this CI? Yes it IS the truth but how can you change the minds of people on this board who celebrate 9/11 call it "the chickens comming home to roost" and wish america wiped out and all american troops dead? They are no better than the terrorists.
Tell me, little guy! Where do you see people on this board praising 9/11? As I told Capitalist Imperial, 9/11 was a tragedy and the Bush administration exploits it to gain support for the own personal greed.

[JudeObscure84]

They make up some of the resistance, not the bulk. Assasinating this UN amassador wasn't anti-imperialism, agreed. Its odd that any UN ambassador would desire the independence of East Timor. After all General Mohamed Suharto, who's forces oppressed the East Timor people was another darling dictator of the West. UN is just another front for US imperialism!

Ok there is no need to just drop names and connect dots to try and prove an irrelavant point. The West eventually supported East Timorese freedom under the Clinton Administration. Sergio De Mello the UN ambassador was murdered by an Islamic fundamentalist group that aligned itself with Al Queda in Iraq. The other groups not affiliated with the Islamic Jihadists are former Baath loyalists, and Sunni sectarian nationalists that operate inside the Sunni Triangle. Most of the Shiite Community opted to join the Iraqi Governing Council and the Kurds have always been Pro American. That only leaves Fascists, Nationalists, Jihadists and yound "anti-imperial" ideologues like yourselves rooting for US withdrawl.

* on a side note the communique left over from the Al Queda affiliated organization stated that Segrio De Mello was a UN imperial puppet that released East Timor from Muslim lands. If these people are anything they are fundamentalists who want to impose Shaira law from Jakarta, Indonesia to Cordoba, Spain.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 03:49 PM
The Iraqi Resistence is filled with former Baathists, loyal Baathists and Islamic Jihadists. This makes up the bulk of the resistence. They assisinated a former UN ambassador because of his affiliation with the independence of East Timor from Muslim lands! This is NOT anti-imperialism people.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/10/03/iraq11804.htm

http://hrw.org/reports/2005/iraq1005/
will you please stop using the word jihadists when referring to armed islamic insurgents. the meaning of jihad is different to different people( from being peaceful, to being violent), therfore its incorrect to use when describing violent people.

[JudeObscure84]

will you please stop using the word jihadists when referring to armed islamic insurgents. the meaning of jihad is different to different people( from being peaceful, to being violent), therfore its incorrect to use when describing violent people

very well, how about terrorists, nihilists, facsists, cold blooded killers? does that fit your fancy?

[JudeObscure84]

I dont understand. There have been countless reports streaming in from dozens of sources time and time again indicating that the insurgents kill civilians, coalition troops and foreign aid workers. how is this an anti-imperial struggle? I am willing to admit that there are some neutral elements that have sided with the terrorists and Baathist foes but does equating this logic compare to accepting Mussolini's blackshirts or Hitlers SS as the best weapon against US hegemony?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 17 2005, 08:17 PM





















I think US planes and soldiers have already done plenty of killing of civilians. But of course in republican's eyes when an American soldier kills or rapes it for the good of a country.

I don't think that American soldiers have conducted any rapes lately, stop with the sensationalist statements based on lies, Hector, let's deal with the facts here. I've already said before, I don't deny that collateral damage exists, but the US military takes great strides to inimize these incidenttals while still concucting effective operations. Your statements actually imply that the US is purposefully killing civilians, which it is not. That is the domain of the cowardly insurgency. They are in fact killing civilians on purpose, and you know it.


Besides, I'm willing to bet that half of those suicide bombers that "kill Iraqi civilians" are just used as covers for the actions of US soldiers.

I'll take that bet, because that claim is simply ludicrous. Even the BBC and AL Jazzeera don't deny the terrorist bombings of Iraqis at the hands of insurgent
groups. Be reasonable, Hector.


You say their days of effective resistance are numbered? It has been more than 2 years since the fall of Saddam Hussein, and they seem to be more effective now than when they began.

Does it really seem that way to you? It seems to me that since the Iraqi contitution was ratified, insurgent activity has leveled off. The insurgency is really not as effective as you would like to believe. Infrastructure is returning to Iraq, a new contitution has been ratified, and the Iraqi security forces are getting better and stronger every day. How do you measure effectiveness, hector? Because I can tell you that objectives in Iraq are being met, and we are moving in the right direction. We are gaining ground, Hector, not losing it. The insurgency amounts to more of a hinderence than a true opposition.


This is the same bullshit that was being spewed about Vietnam. "Oh, we're winning the war", "It'll be over by christmas" and so on.

Oh, great, another cliche, lazy, and innacurate analogy to Vietnam. This is weak, Hector. I will ell you what any reasonable person would understand. Iraq and Vietnam have many more differences than similarities. This war is different territorially, militarily, and politically. This horribly inaccurate analogy is just an easy way for liberals to sensationalize their opposition to Iraq. However, in reality the comparison does not hold up under logical scrutiny.


That's probably the only intelligent thing I've ever seen you post.

Gee, thanks.


Of course, you might want to convince your fellow republicans and president that.

Well, let's not kid ourselves, the Invasion Iraq had only incidental benefit with respect to the war on terror. The liberation and occupation of Iraq are more about US resource interests in the middle east. A US sphere of influence in the area and greater control over the world oil supply will give us the extension we need to develop alternative energy sources while ensuring the US economy still remains strong in the short term, which is an imperative for the worls economy to remain strong. It is truly in the world's interest that the US retains hemogony in the region and a majority stake in US oil reserves.


I don't think it was possible to do anything against Saddam Hussein from within Iraq, the US sanctions were making damn sure of that. The resistance if fighting colonial slavery, not "state transition".

I'm not sure what you mean by slavery, as all workers in the area are voluntary being paid a fair wage consistent wth market conditions. I really think that liberals need a new wholesale definition of "slavery". You really tend to throw the word around and misuse it to a fault.


I believe it was your little Ann Coulter that said "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to christianity".

I disagree. We shouldn't convert them to Christianity. I am secular, sir.


The Taliban were among the first to to express their condolences and vowed to track down Osama Bin Laden and determin if he was indeed responsible of the catastrophe, if he was they were going to take their own action. But it wasn't good enough for Bush. He had to declare for on the Taliban in which he stepped on probably the most reliable source to get Osama Bin Laden. I'm not denying the Taliban housed al-Qaeda training camps, of course they probably wouldn't have any long after 9/11 until Bush declared war on them for not wanted to give Bin Laden to the US if they found him. Why should they? He was allegedly in Afghanistan, so he should be tried by their laws if they found him.

Now you are simply lying, Hector. The Taliban was not even close to as cooperative as you claim. Where were you after 9/11. Do you really think that those islamic fundamentalists were interested in helping the Infidel US track down one of their own? Get real, sir. They were clebrating in the streets over the incident. You are delusional over who the Taliban is and what they represent.


Why should they? He was allegedly in Afghanistan, so he should be tried by their laws if they found him.

No, because his offenses were agianst the US, not afghanistan. The American people would not accept OBL being tried in a 3rd world nation led by a regime friendly to Al queda. Get real.


Afghanistan itself was not responsible.

They were by proxy in the fact that the enabled the training and support of AL Queda.


Now you're making sense, Iraq was apparently the ideal place to begin its hegemony over the people of the Middle East under the cloak of democracy.

What cloak? The constitution supports a democratic goivernment, 70% of the Iraqi people voted on it!


You'll see, one way or another the US will be defeated once again by force of arms. If not in Iraq or Afghanistan, then perhaps in Iran or Syria.

What do you mean "once again"? The US has really never been defeated by force of arms. Any historian will tell you that the US did quite well in vietnam militarily. Tactical operations were actually very successful, and we didn't even bomb the north to any significant degree! We lost in vietnam due to lack of support at home, not due to battlefield defeats. It was a political loss, not a military loss. Check your history.

The insurgents cannot defeat the US by force of arms, and Iran and syria certainly cannot. You are crazy to even consider it a possibility. Syrian and Iranian fighters coming across the border are being shut down as we speak.


The US itself provoked the incidents. With their colonial occupation of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. Do you think everyone in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are happy with US presence in their countries? Aside from the ones in power?

I think that the official Saudi Policy toward the US is one of welcome and accomodation. Not everyone in Saudi Arabia will agree with the government policies, no government has the support of 100% of its population on any issue.

As for Kuwait, they should indeed appreciate our presence, no need to explain why, right?


And a real argument I might add. By now you don't know why? The US champions being the main advocate of human rights and freedom, but it has supported some of the most brutal regimes in third world countries. On the contrary it is a very strong argument, which you little republicans have yet to give an accurate strong reply. Yeah, so what if we supported regimes that torture their people? So what if we supported dictators who fought for our interests? Right? The fact that the US placed these tyrants in power to preserve US interests take the lives of thousands, these tyrants then seek independence or become of threat to US hegemony, so they call in the bombs which kill thousands more. The only responsibility the US has is preserving its interests with total disregard for its people, which you've admitted to when you stated that the US places the Taliban and Saddam Hussein in power. They only do what they did, because the CIA trained them for that purpose. Thank you! Now that you given me a clear answer, I'll refrain from bringing it up again ;)

You din't answer my original point. Me saying that the US put Hussein and Bin Laden in power is not a huge windfall admission, it is well known. You did not need me to say it for it to be a fact. All I'm saying is that, just like personal relationships, political relationships change. This is not exclusive to the US, it is just a reality of geopolitical dynamics. The point is that we oppose them today.


That is brave I must admit. Its called guerilla warfare, which has been taking serious effect against the US occupiers. If they're just a bunch of cowardly mountain people as is perceived by republicans, then why are US soldiers still coming home in body bags. What you people don't understand, to the resistance dying by the enemy bullet is an honor. And you think by killing them as they come, they will stop? Their engagements against US forces will continue no matter what.

I'm sorry to break this to you, hector, but 2000 US deaths, while very unfortunate, is not really enough to have a "serious effect" against the US effort, Historically speaking, it is a very small number of losses. For instance, the US lost close to 65,000 men in vietnam, and over 200,000 in WWII. By comparison, 2000 losses is a drop in the bucket.


If they're just a bunch of cowardly mountain people as is perceived by republicans, then why are US soldiers still coming home in body bags.

You can still kill and be cowardly. Serial killers do it all the time. Just plant roadside bombs and take RPG shots from building roofs, then run away. This is not brave, toe-to-toe fighting. By your definition, a B-52 dropping bombs from 10,000 feet is brave as well. So, which is it, Hector?


I think when they say things like "We're gonna kick their asses" shows just how seriously they take it. I don't want to see Americans get killed, and I give no political support for the Iraqi Resistance.

Who is "they"? Rural, uneducated Americans? You would get that response from rural citizens of many nations. How can you say that you don't support the Iraqi resistance? You original post was doing just that!!! Don't try to back of it now!


LOL, as I said this whole victory speech that you use was used constantly in Vietnam. "No matter when the Communists think or do, our forces and South Vietnamese allies will prevail" or something along those lines.

First off, this is the 2nd false analogy you've made to vietnam. I've said it before: The left's comparison's to Vietnam are based more on agenda-driven sensationalism and emotional appeals than actual facts or logic. Second, Ultimately the US was victorious over communism, so thiose statements about ultimately prevailing ended up being true, as will be our claim of ultimately defeating Islamo-Fascist terrorism.


First of all, don't ***** about Islamic fundamentalism when you lovely US government supported them in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo.

In afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo they were not flying planes into our buildings and cutting off our journalists' heads. In eastern europe, they weren't even really extreme fundamentalists.


Every westerner dead? LOL! They are very much aware of growing opposition to the enslavement of their country by the United States, especially the opposition in Europe.

That doesn't mean that they don't want every non-subscriber to Islam subjugated and summarily executed. Make no mistake, they do, and are very open about it. They consider any non-muslim and infidel and worthy of death. They are very vocal about this, and are on record a myriad of times regarding it.


They want all occupational forces out of their lands, which is understandable.

I agree, they want peace, and that is understandable.


What if you lived in a country occupied by another and you were an average civilian? Would you like to see tanks and soldiers from a foreign power in your country?

Not for no reason, no, but such things do not occur in a vaccum.

I would be grateful if a benevolent and democratic nation like the United states liberated me from an oppressive and genocidal regime that I wasn't even allowed to speak against.


The US has got plenty of oppressive states on their side, why should they care if another was to be established?

Oppressive states are the hallmark of communism, sir.


Aid workers-- don't you mean mercs? Bombing civilians? The US has done plenty of that and continues to do so.

No, I mean aid workers... Korean medical aid workers, and journalists, and red cross officials. The US has never purposefully beheaded aid workers, Hector, stiop with the lies.


Sick religious zealots? Hmm, Jerry Fartwell, Ann Coulter, George Bush, and David Duke come to mind.

Really? When have any of them even killed another person, let alone cut their head off while chanting psalms, or strapped bombs to themselves and blown up a wedding party at a hotel? Don't you have a sense of relativism, Hector? Use some critical thinking and common sense (Oh, I'm sorry, that is not allowed in communism).


One day you'll hopefully see that the only Iraqis and Afghans who support the occupation are the few who glue their lips to American asses!

They are the only ones who realize that the liberation of Iraq and a democratic onstitution are good for Iraq. They are not the religious kooks who woulg have your head on a platter if they could. They are actually reasonable.


But of course you're just a brainwashed little rich fuck, who repeats what is dictated to him by CNN.

CNN is too liberal. I prefer Fox news. Additionally, the more inaccurate assumptions you make about me, the more you expose yourself for the idiot that you are.


People like you are soft, who are willing to have the poor kids go and die for Washington's greed, and you little rich kids just stay here praising Washington.

It is a myth that only the poor serve in the military. Many middle class Americans join the military out aaf a sense of purpose and as a carreer choice, contrary to what your leftist propoganda tells you. And again, I'm cetainly not "risch", but I can tell you that I've earned everything I have. I understand that actually earning what you have and actuall working for rewqard is a concept lost on communist, you would rather have the state support you in a constant state of mediocrity. Tjhis is why the US is the world leader in technology and innovation, because we have incentivve and competiton, and why the USSR never gave the world one practical advance in technology, medicine, or science. (They did get to space 1st, but were easily surpassed by the US, who never looked back and left the soviets in their dust).


No wonder you can't go, you're scared. Just like Ted Nugent. As for revolution in America?

This statement is just dumb. It sdoesn't mean anything, it's just a simple emotional appeal devoid of substance or supporting evidence.


PFFT! Get real

I don't know what PFFT means.


CNN does nothing but spew pro-government lies, and continuing propoganda about a successful "war on terror".

LOL, do you ever watch CNN? They spend much more time focusing on the "atrocities" at abu graib such as some insurgent scumbag who want me and you dead by decaptitation, and wouldn't hesitate to cut your mother's throat, being paraded around naked for a few minutes, or maybe the horrible and unspeakable torture technique of putting a dog collar on a prisoner, than they do with the infrastructure and school building in iraq. They focus more on the idiot cindy sheehan dishonering her son's memory than they do with the victory in fallujah. They focu more on troop deaths trhatn the ratification of the Iraqi constitution.

CNN is no friend of the War hector, I would re-assess you position on this, it is ill-studued. Fox news provides a much more fair and balanced account of the efforts in Iraq than the Commie-Club-Network


As for the torture, thanks to independent journalism the word gets out and denial becomes nonexistent when confronted with evidence. The center for US propoganda isn't right-wing? Get your head out of your ass!

I'm much more interested in preventing future civilian bombings and a possible terrorist attack on a US nuclear facility as opposed to if an islamo-fascist scumbag gets a few bamboo shoots up his fingernails, and I make no apologies for it, and neither does the administration.


And you keep supporting US slavery with your cowardly stance for the Iraqi ruling class. Lastly, you republicans don't give two shits about people in the USA. Just the ones who agree with you. You think Bush cared about the 9/11 victims?

Come on, hector, be reasonable, most everyone cared for the 9/11 victims. Now you're just being sensational. These statements are much to broad and and incorrecct to warrant a response, as they are simply not true.


He's just milking the incident for support on his plans for colonial slavery in the Middle East. He's using the deaths of those innocent people for his own personal benefit.

What do you mean "colonial slavery"? Those people will be much better in the next 5 years than they were under saddam. Additionally, this whole war is much bigger than bush or anyone in the adiministration. This is about securing American resource interests for the next 20 years and defeating islamo-fascim.


The "war on terror" will not be successful in the end. You'll see.

No, sir, you will see, and hisory will dictrate, the AMerican empire's glorious victory in the middle east.


And we'll be waiting for you little apologetic arguments of US military defeat, like the ones were read about Vietnam.

Third weak vietnam comparison, Hector, don't you have anything that isn't spoon fed to you by your socialist propoganda machine? And, once again, if you think that vietnam was a military defeat, then you klnow little about the vietnam war.


How can the US protects it people from outside "threats", when it can't even protect them from inside threats?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. For the nation that is the #1 enemy of islamic terrorists, there has not been another successful attack here for 4 years. I'm noty saying there won't be one, we are vigilant and ready, but I'm saying there have been many arrests and plots foiled in the warr on terror, so you have to admit that the US has been effective in domestic defense.

Come on, Hector, its time to get serious. If the US leaves Iraq, it will amount to surrender to the terrorists, and we are not going to surrender. OBL thought that the US was a paper tiger when he hit us on 9/11. He now knows that this is not the case, as he is hiding in his own shit in a cave somewhere. Leaving Iraq now would show the islamo-fascists that they can defeat us by holding out with a few roadside bombs and suicide attackers, and by manipulating the leftist idiots like cindy sheehan into thinking that they are "freedom fighters", and vindicate OBL's original idea, let alone leave Iraq open to Islamic rule. And lets not kid ourselves, protesters in the US and Europe are actually helping them with their dissidence. Thankfully, not everyone in this world is a scared pussy willing to surrender to terrorism.

Again, The terrorists would see us surrender, and know that they can push their brand of fascism throughout the middle east and other areas with relative inpunity. What don't you understand about that, you stupid ass?

Do you want an islamic fundamentalist state in the middle east? We don't.

Hector, it is obvious that you are soft on terrorism, and are all too willing to appease these fundamentalist fucks. You may be willing to surrender to terror, but America is not.

[JudeObscure84]

The arguments in here just bring to conclude that my presupposistion was correct. To a modern leftist today, anything is better than US imperialism so any anti-western movement has to be indirectly supported, understood or apologized for.

What I wanna know is why this logic wasnt applied to the Fascists in Spain, Italy and Germany? I mean it seems that they were proly the best weapon against US/UK hegemony back in the '40's.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 10:18 AM
Anyway, al Zarqawi is not the face of the Iraqi resistance, as it is not monolithic.
But, as I showed in my post, the element he represents has turned out to be the strongest (together with the Ba'ath Party.) Successfully enforcing an boycott of the constitutional referendum in Anbar Province, despite calls for a "no" vote by other resistance groups.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 09:42 PM
The arguments in here just bring to conclude that my presupposistion was correct. To a modern leftist today, anything is better than US imperialism so any anti-western movement has to be indirectly supported, understood or apologized for.
That's what some people explicitly argue, so you haven't made a great discovery.

Your generalization to all "modern leftist"s is unwarranted. If you're interested in serious discussion, don't assume that all "leftists" think the same thing.

I'd suggest the logic of this argument would tend to take people out of the left, ultimately: from supporting ultraright adversaries of the U.S. and rival imperialist powers, to becoming more and more like them.


What I wanna know is why this logic wasnt applied to the Fascists in Spain, Italy and Germany? I mean it seems that they were proly the best weapon against US/UK hegemony back in the '40's.

That logic was applied by many, but in reverse. The fascists were seen as the main enemy, and the US and anything it did - even Hiroshima and Nagasaki - was supported on that basis. By the official Communist Parties, most of all, and by others influenced by them.

Not by everyone, however.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 16 2005, 09:01 PM
If anything, the fact that the US put these reginmes in power gives us even more responsibility for taking them out.
You might as well say: because Jesse James robbed the bank, therefore he should be responsible for running it from now on.

[JudeObscure84]

That's what some people explicitly argue, so you haven't made a great discovery.

Your generalization to all "modern leftist"s is unwarranted. If you're interested in serious discussion, don't assume that all "leftists" think the same thing.

I'd suggest the logic of this argument would tend to take people out of the left, ultimately: from supporting ultraright adversaries of the U.S. and rival imperialist powers, to becoming more and more like them.

Sev. the reason why I say modern is because the modern left today resembles isolationist conservatives that actually care about national borders and status quo. I mean the real face behind the anti-war movement was actually started by the anti-war reactionaries on the extreme right, like Pat Buchanan, Justin Raimundo and the like. I mean since when have leftists used Kissinger terms like national integrity and stability?
The left today seems to have delved deeper in to the maddening depths of Islamic radicals and saw life through thier religous overtly pathaological eyes.


That logic was applied by many, but in reverse. The fascists were seen as the main enemy, and the US and anything it did - even Hiroshima and Nagasaki - was supported on that basis. By the official Communist Parties, most of all, and by others influenced by them.

Not by everyone, however.

I was just trying to point out that todays left movements would rather fight side by side against US Empire rather than the democratic forces of the Kurdish Peshmerga, the countries of Denmark, Italy, Holland and Australia. Instead they opt to cheer for the Iraqi resistence mainly composed of Baathists, Facscists, Nationalists and Islamists.

* On a side note I would also like to say that even if the arguments in here claim that there are other people besides the mentioned groups in the Iraqi Resistence this only restates my point that these are the very people lining up to side with Fascsists to deny US hegemony.

[Publius]

You might as well say: because Jesse James robbed the bank, therefore he should be responsible for running it from now on.

Flawed logic.

A more apt analogy would be: Jesse James installs a gang member as leader of the bank to give him money, therefore he has a responsibility above that of others to rectify his mistake and remove the person.

Get it?

[Severian]

No, I don't see how that makes any difference.

Why would anyone expect Jesse James to remove that gang member and stop the flow of money? And if he did, it'd only be to replace him with another gang member.m

Looking to Jesse James - or Uncle Sam - to fix problems of his own creation is amazingly foolish.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 03:50 PM
Sev. the reason why I say modern is because the modern left today resembles isolationist conservatives that actually care about national borders and status quo. I mean the real face behind the anti-war movement was actually started by the anti-war reactionaries on the extreme right, like Pat Buchanan, Justin Raimundo and the like. I mean since when have leftists used Kissinger terms like national integrity and stability?
The left today seems to have delved deeper in to the maddening depths of Islamic radicals and saw life through thier religous overtly pathaological eyes.
That's certainly true of many. Which is why I said the logic of this tends to take them out of the left.



That logic was applied by many, but in reverse. The fascists were seen as the main enemy, and the US and anything it did - even Hiroshima and Nagasaki - was supported on that basis. By the official Communist Parties, most of all, and by others influenced by them.

Not by everyone, however.

I was just trying to point out that todays left movements would rather fight side by side against US Empire rather than the democratic forces of the Kurdish Peshmerga, the countries of Denmark, Italy, Holland and Australia. Instead they opt to cheer for the Iraqi resistence mainly composed of Baathists, Facscists, Nationalists and Islamists.

The lesser-evil approach is fundamentally the same, whether one chooses one evil or another. It's not new, though it is growing. And its lesser-evillism itself, not the choice of evils, which needs to be challenged.

Here's an old post where I explore the parallel between the lesser-evil approach adopted by most of the "left" during WWII and today. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36308&st=25&#entry1291884155)

Incidentally, describing the Kurdish nationalist parties (KDP and PUK) and their militias as "democratic" is highly debatable. Even their quarrels with each other have been settled with bullets, not ballots.

And the other countries you name are all minor imperialist powers. Their foreign policy is no more about the promotion of democracy than is Washington's - maybe less.

[Publius]

No, I don't see how that makes any difference.

Why would anyone expect Jesse James to remove that gang member and stop the flow of money? And if he did, it'd only be to replace him with another gang member.m

Looking to Jesse James - or Uncle Sam - to fix problems of his own creation is amazingly foolish.

I didn't say he would, I just said he has a special obligation to do so.

He likely won't do it, but he SHOULD do it.

That was the point.

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 18 2005, 03:27 AM






I don't think that American soldiers have conducted any rapes lately, stop with the sensationalist statements based on lies, Hector, let's deal with the facts here. I've already said before, I don't deny that collateral damage exists, but the US military takes great strides to inimize these incidenttals while still concucting effective operations. Your statements actually imply that the US is purposefully killing civilians, which it is not. That is the domain of the cowardly insurgency. They are in fact killing civilians on purpose, and you know it.

LOL! You wouldn't hear about it if they did from your CNN or any of those corporate owned stations. I am dealing with facts. You see, I do deeper research than the crap they spew on your capitalist media, who barely broadcast any form of criticism on the Iraq war. In fact I was listening to a KPFA the other day when a guy talked about his cousin in Arizona (if I remeber correctly) an Iraq war veteran who hung himself in his room weeks after returning. One can only imagine what he witnessed that lead up to it. Again, I don't deny the Iraqi Resistance kills civilians. In fact I show no political for them. Unlike you republicans, I'm not stupid enough to believe that anyone fighting against a regime I oppose will bring a better society for those people. If they desire to an Iraq without US hegemony then it is their national right.



I'll take that bet, because that claim is simply ludicrous. Even the BBC and AL Jazzeera don't deny the terrorist bombings of Iraqis at the hands of insurgent
groups. Be reasonable, Hector.

Again, neither do I. But its absurd to dismiss that US forces are less guilty of it. What about the anti-occupation protests which Us forces shot at shortly after the "liberation", organized by the non-violent faction of the resistance (yes there are several such as trade unions)?


It seems to me that since the Iraqi contitution was ratified, insurgent activity has leveled off. The insurgency is really not as effective as you would like to believe. Infrastructure is returning to Iraq, a new contitution has been ratified, and the Iraqi security forces are getting better and stronger every day. How do you measure effectiveness, hector? Because I can tell you that objectives in Iraq are being met, and we are moving in the right direction. We are gaining ground, Hector, not losing it. The insurgency amounts to more of a hinderence than a true opposition.

I'll believe that when I stop hearing about soldiers being killed in Iraq due to insurgent attacks, and when I stop seeing Iraqis protesting for the US to leave their country.


Oh, great, another cliche, lazy, and innacurate analogy to Vietnam. This is weak, Hector. I will ell you what any reasonable person would understand. Iraq and Vietnam have many more differences than similarities. This war is different territorially, militarily, and politically. This horribly inaccurate analogy is just an easy way for liberals to sensationalize their opposition to Iraq. However, in reality the comparison does not hold up under logical scrutiny.

I'm not comparing Iraq to Vietnam. Don't you read correctly? I was comparing the crap that came out of the mouths of US leaders of promised victories. The only thing that came out of those slobs and still comes out is hot air. While in the end the soldiers fight a useless war.

QUOTE]Well, let's not kid ourselves, the Invasion Iraq had only incidental benefit with respect to the war on terror. The liberation and occupation of Iraq are more about US resource interests in the middle east. A US sphere of influence in the area and greater control over the world oil supply will give us the extension we need to develop alternative energy sources while ensuring the US economy still remains strong in the short term, which is an imperative for the worls economy to remain strong. It is truly in the world's interest that the US retains hemogony in the region and a majority stake in US oil reserves.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for clearing that up. Obvoiusly you republicans (as well as democrats) have little concern for the well being of Iraqi people for the future. All that you care about is controling and leeching off their resources. The worlds interests? Don't you mean the ruling class? You have proven that the true aims of the US is only to to extend it's hegemony for its own profits, the capitalists getting richer. Don't even try to deny it, you just said so yourself. Its just a war for profit by maintaining a US empire by force.


I'm not sure what you mean by slavery, as all workers in the area are voluntary being paid a fair wage consistent wth market conditions. I really think that liberals need a new wholesale definition of "slavery". You really tend to throw the word around and misuse it to a fault.

First of all, I'll thank you to stop using the word liberal. I'm not a liberal (I don't even like them). As far as I'm concerned liberals nothing more than republicans with a more cute appearance. As for the wage, what would you consider fair wage? One dollar a day? That's how much workers in third world countries make working for US corporations. Apparently it translates as "fair wage" in republican, just as long as the corporation is profiting.



I disagree. We shouldn't convert them to Christianity. I am secular, sir.

Hmm, republicans are usually unanimous when it comes to foreign policy.


Now you are simply lying, Hector. The Taliban was not even close to as cooperative as you claim. Where were you after 9/11. Do you really think that those islamic fundamentalists were interested in helping the Infidel US track down one of their own? Get real, sir. They were clebrating in the streets over the incident. You are delusional over who the Taliban is and what they represent.

Its a fact! The Taliban had been receiving aid from Washington (35 million in May of 2001 alone), and conducted business with them about the future of US interests in Afghanistan. The Taliban leader did in fact phone Bush to express condolences and vowed to punish Osama Bin Laden if he was indeed guilty, but would try under Afghan law. That's when Bush turned against them. Many Afghans were celebrating the 9/11 attack, but the Taliban regime wasn't. Those were just ordinary people angry at the US. I think it is you who is delusional of what the Taliban is. I know who they are, how they got to power, and the things they did to the Afghan people, compliments of the CIA.


No, because his offenses were agianst the US, not afghanistan. The American people would not accept OBL being tried in a 3rd world nation led by a regime friendly to Al queda. Get real.

They were still friendly to the US at this time. Think about it, if the Taliban caught Bin Laden and tried him, chances are they'd do to him what most Americans at the time wanted to be done to him, that the US would never do.


They were by proxy in the fact that the enabled the training and support of AL Queda.

That never seemed to bother Washington, until they refused to hand over Bin Laden if they caught him.


The constitution supports a democratic goivernment, 70% of the Iraqi people voted on it!

Wrong, it was 47%. Told to me by my political science instructor who happens to be from Iraq.


What do you mean "once again"? The US has really never been defeated by force of arms. Any historian will tell you that the US did quite well in vietnam militarily. Tactical operations were actually very successful, and we didn't even bomb the north to any significant degree! We lost in vietnam due to lack of support at home, not due to battlefield defeats. It was a political loss, not a military loss. Check your history.

This is just a weak and apologetic argument invented by conservatives for the purpose of upholding their ego about America being able to impose its hegemony on any nation at free will, but in Vietnam's case failed militarily and politcally. There is no point in winning battles if you fail to demoralize and bring the enemy to its knees. Americans soldiers in the end were demoralized and defeated. They were refusing to fight, were killing their own officers, selling weapons to locals for drugs, and there was virtually no discipline left in the soldiers. The NVA rolled over the puppets in Saigon, united their country, and ended all US influence and interests. This is a defeat whether or not you want to accept it.


The insurgents cannot defeat the US by force of arms, and Iran and syria certainly cannot. You are crazy to even consider it a possibility. Syrian and Iranian fighters coming across the border are being shut down as we speak.

It is this type naivety that makes American society so stupid. "We're the big boys, no ones gonna ever kick our ass, we're too powerful". You're to blinded by US propaganda to see that this "war on terror" is like building a sand castle. The puppet regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq won't last unless remains there securing it. Its a useless war.


As for Kuwait, they should indeed appreciate our presence, no need to explain why, right?

The Kuwaiti government, no you don't need to explain. But those Kuwaitis who don't want the US there might need a little attention.


Me saying that the US put Hussein and Bin Laden in power is not a huge windfall admission, it is well known. You did not need me to say it for it to be a fact. All I'm saying is that, just like personal relationships, political relationships change. This is not exclusive to the US, it is just a reality of geopolitical dynamics. The point is that we oppose them today.

Oh yes it is, because the US supporting them is the reason they are able to do what they did to their people. And its further proof that the US doesn't give damn about the well-being of either the Iraqi or Afghan people. Its just about extending their empire and placing in power or supporting dictators and cutthroats if it secured the US empire in the region. Look at Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan.


I'm sorry to break this to you, hector, but 2000 US deaths, while very unfortunate, is not really enough to have a "serious effect" against the US effort, Historically speaking, it is a very small number of losses. For instance, the US lost close to 65,000 men in vietnam, and over 200,000 in WWII. By comparison, 2000 losses is a drop in the bucket.

So far in comparing to the US deaths in WWII and Vietnam, you're right. But I'm not talking about quantity here. I'm talking about the resistance becoming more organized, and effective as it has since after the overthrow of Hussein. It may not seem like much as of now (if it really is 2000 as the official version says).


You can still kill and be cowardly. Serial killers do it all the time. Just plant roadside bombs and take RPG shots from building roofs, then run away. This is not brave, toe-to-toe fighting. By your definition, a B-52 dropping bombs from 10,000 feet is brave as well. So, which is it, Hector?

Serial killers kill defenseless people without purpose aside from satisfying their need for pleasure. The Iraqi resistance kills US troops because they are the occupiers and the resistance wants them out of their country. And the US forces are armed to the teeth. There is a difference, Capitalist Imperial.


Who is "they"? Rural, uneducated Americans? You would get that response from rural citizens of many nations. How can you say that you don't support the Iraqi resistance? You original post was doing just that!!! Don't try to back of it now!

I've heard these "kick your their ass" claims from both rednecks and yuppies. I have been hearing it most of my life. My original post did not praise the Iraqi Resistance in anyway. It was just to show people their effectivness, and that America is not "winning the war on terror". We see the onesided view of the US media constantly, so I thought it would be informative to show it from the other side. Did I say "Hail Iraqi Freedom Fighters"? Did I say that they will bring a better society for Iraq? Did I say they don't kill civilians? Once again, unlike republicans I don't fool myself into believing that a movement or army fighting against a government I oppose will bring a better society. They want self determination, and they have the right to it.


First off, this is the 2nd false analogy you've made to vietnam. I've said it before: The left's comparison's to Vietnam are based more on agenda-driven sensationalism and emotional appeals than actual facts or logic. Second, Ultimately the US was victorious over communism, so thiose statements about ultimately prevailing ended up being true, as will be our claim of ultimately defeating Islamo-Fascist terrorism.

Again, I'm comparing the phraseology of the US leaders, not the situations. This "US was victorious over communism" argument is just more patriotic egotistical mentality. Gorbachev sold out because he wanted to be Reagan's friend. Plain and simple.


In afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo they were not flying planes into our buildings and cutting off our journalists' heads. In eastern europe, they weren't even really extreme fundamentalists

True, but they were cutting up and mutilating Serbs and Croats in Bosnia. And in Kosovo anyone who wasn't Albanian Muslim. They were not as extreme, but did welcome al-Qaeda and other Muslim radicals into their volunteer units.


That doesn't mean that they don't want every non-subscriber to Islam subjugated and summarily executed. Make no mistake, they do, and are very open about it. They consider any non-muslim and infidel and worthy of death. They are very vocal about this, and are on record a myriad of times regarding it.

That is true. And thats why I think its totally naive to praise the Iraqi Resistance as freedom fighters or any Islamic radical.


I would be grateful if a benevolent and democratic nation like the United states liberated me from an oppressive and genocidal regime that I wasn't even allowed to speak against.

You're an American patriot, and are only looking at it from that point of view. What if this "oppressive and genocidal regime that I wasn't even allowed to speak against" was installed by your "liberators" for maintaining their interests?


Oppressive states are the hallmark of communism, sir.

Would you like me to give the full list of dictators supported by Washington? I'll bet you haven't of five of them. Afghanistan and Iraq were but two. So don't give me that shit about "oppressive Communism"!


No, I mean aid workers... Korean medical aid workers, and journalists, and red cross officials. The US has never purposefully beheaded aid workers, Hector, stiop with the lies.

Ok then? What about these so-called "civilian contractors"?


Really? When have any of them even killed another person, let alone cut their head off while chanting psalms, or strapped bombs to themselves and blown up a wedding party at a hotel? Don't you have a sense of relativism, Hector? Use some critical thinking and common sense (Oh, I'm sorry, that is not allowed in communism).

Coulter, Fartwell, and Duke probably haven't killed personally. But they've sure advocated it. I do plenty of critical thinking and have plenty of common sense. You should try using it sometime, then you can stop being so close minded. I forgot, republicans are taught not to criticize or tollerate it.


They are the only ones who realize that the liberation of Iraq and a democratic onstitution are good for Iraq. They are not the religious kooks who woulg have your head on a platter if they could. They are actually reasonable.

You means those Iraqi and Afghan leeches who wear 2,000 dollar suits?


CNN is too liberal. I prefer Fox news. Additionally, the more inaccurate assumptions you make about me, the more you expose yourself for the idiot that you are.

They both spew the same uncritical crap about US politics. Judging by your vocabulary and baseless arguments, I think that's a safe assumption.


It is a myth that only the poor serve in the military. Many middle class Americans join the military out aaf a sense of purpose and as a carreer choice, contrary to what your leftist propoganda tells you. And again, I'm cetainly not "risch", but I can tell you that I've earned everything I have. I understand that actually earning what you have and actuall working for rewqard is a concept lost on communist, you would rather have the state support you in a constant state of mediocrity. Tjhis is why the US is the world leader in technology and innovation, because we have incentivve and competiton, and why the USSR never gave the world one practical advance in technology, medicine, or science. (They did get to space 1st, but were easily surpassed by the US, who never looked back and left the soviets in their dust).

The poor kids are usually the cannon fodder in US wars. Especially those who come from the ghetto. There are those middle class boys, but they're usually given the easiest and less dangerous tasks. And you're wrong about the Soviet Union. They gave nations like the Warsaw Pact and Cuba, as well as most Socialist states better education and medicine programs than any other capitalist state. Soviet weaponry was able to match that of the USA, see Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, and Iraq.


LOL, do you ever watch CNN? They spend much more time focusing on the "atrocities" at abu graib such as some insurgent scumbag who want me and you dead by decaptitation, and wouldn't hesitate to cut your mother's throat, being paraded around naked for a few minutes, or maybe the horrible and unspeakable torture technique of putting a dog collar on a prisoner, than they do with the infrastructure and school building in iraq. They focus more on the idiot cindy sheehan dishonering her son's memory than they do with the victory in fallujah. They focu more on troop deaths trhatn the ratification of the Iraqi constitution.

I used to watch it, but eventually got tired of their bull about the "war on terror". Did you ever actually see these schools being built? Or do you just see US soldiers putting one brick on to of another? Do you also deny that US troops torture prisoners? CNN never metions the effects that these tortures has on relatives on the families of the victims, which I have no doubt radicalizes many of them. They also make no comment that this "Iraqi constitution" spells out US ownership of Iraq.


I'm much more interested in preventing future civilian bombings and a possible terrorist attack on a US nuclear facility

You're just paranoid. But course, as long as people remain frightened even an idiot like Bush can control them.


Come on, hector, be reasonable, most everyone cared for the 9/11 victims. Now you're just being sensational. These statements are much to broad and and incorrecct to warrant a response, as they are simply not true.

Its logic. As long as Bush uses the 9/11 scare as he did with Afghanistan and Iraq many like yourself will gladly support it, so he known he can wage or for profit with this scare. The 9/11 victims are very convenient for the Bush Administration.


What do you mean "colonial slavery"? Those people will be much better in the next 5 years than they were under saddam. Additionally, this whole war is much bigger than bush or anyone in the adiministration. This is about securing American resource interests for the next 20 years and defeating islamo-fascim.

No, they'll just be slaves with one dollar a day wages as most US corporate employees in the third world. Thanks again, for clearing up the true motive of the US. Securing America's interests, not the well-being of the Iraqi people. I've glad we can agree.


No, sir, you will see, and hisory will dictrate, the AMerican empire's glorious victory in the middle east.

You can't impose a system on a nation against the will of the people. The American empire will fall one way or another. If not in Iraq then elsewhere in the Middle East. What the USA is doing is what all empires have done which eventually led to their colapse.


Third weak vietnam comparison, Hector, don't you have anything that isn't spoon fed to you by your socialist propoganda machine? And, once again, if you think that vietnam was a military defeat, then you klnow little about the vietnam war.

I've already repeated myself several times on this matter. You may want to read about the psychology of war and the spiritual part of it. Then you might understand why Vietnam was a military defeat for the USA.


I'm not sure what you mean by this. For the nation that is the #1 enemy of islamic terrorists, there has not been another successful attack here for 4 years. I'm noty saying there won't be one, we are vigilant and ready, but I'm saying there have been many arrests and plots foiled in the warr on terror, so you have to admit that the US has been effective in domestic defense.

LOL! You mean detaining and interrogating Arab-Americans under suspicion, because they look like the perpetrators of 9/11?



Come on, Hector, its time to get serious. If the US leaves Iraq, it will amount to surrender to the terrorists, and we are not going to surrender. OBL thought that the US was a paper tiger when he hit us on 9/11. He now knows that this is not the case, as he is hiding in his own shit in a cave somewhere. Leaving Iraq now would show the islamo-fascists that they can defeat us by holding out with a few roadside bombs and suicide attackers, and by manipulating the leftist idiots like cindy sheehan into thinking that they are "freedom fighters", and vindicate OBL's original idea, let alone leave Iraq open to Islamic rule. And lets not kid ourselves, protesters in the US and Europe are actually helping them with their dissidence. Thankfully, not everyone in this world is a scared pussy willing to surrender to terrorism.

Again, The terrorists would see us surrender, and know that they can push their brand of fascism throughout the middle east and other areas with relative inpunity. What don't you understand about that, you stupid ass?

Do you want an islamic fundamentalist state in the middle east? We don't.

Hector, it is obvious that you are soft on terrorism, and are all too willing to appease these fundamentalist fucks. You may be willing to surrender to terror, but America is not.

Osama Bin Laden is not hiding in some cave as you people think. In fact if anything he got what he wanted. He knows damn well that the majority of world public opinion of the "war on terror" is in opposition and heavily bashes the US government. Osama Bin Laden has the whole world hating the USA, because of this stupid war. And it was convenient for him to attack the USA on 9/11, knowing full well that Bush is dumber than dogshit, would take the bait. A surrender and an immediate US withrawal from the Middle East and Persian Gulf would reduce the threat of terrorism from al-Qaeda and such groups. Did that ever occur to you that they might be a little upset with the US occupying their territory? By opposing the "war on terror" Germany, France, Belguim, and the other European nations have secured their countries from terror attacks. Remember Spain? After the terrrorist attack there how the Spaniards turned against Bush's ***** Aznar defeating him in a land slide victory? If al-Qaeda tries to push radical islamism through the Middle East its up to the people their to fight it and determin their own future, not the USA who only desires to leech off of their natural resources.

No, I don't want a radical islamic state, for the last time. You on the other hand would if it would support US interests.

Its more than clear that you are manipulated by republican propoganda, and are utterly paranoid. I'm not soft on any terrorism, especially not the kind that exists thanks to Washington and London. You have surrendered to terror and slavery. But you're so blind that you can't see it. Its amazing that you conservative dumbfucks can't see that the USA doesn't give a damn about whether a government is fundamentalist or not. Just as long as their interests are secured is Washington's only concern.

Again, I'm glad we can both agree an the true purpose of the "War on Terror": US hegemony, and profit; not the people. Thanks for making it clear.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 19 2005, 08:34 PM
Its a fact! The Taliban had been receiving aid from Washington (35 million in May of 2001 alone),
That's an urban legend, not a fact. Started by a liberal columnist named Tom Hayden.

In reality, the U.S. in May 2001 gave that much food to international NGOs for distribution in Afghanistan as humanitarian relief.

If you go back further, to the mid-90s, there was a period where the U.S. supported the Taliban. But that was indirect, through the Pakistani government, not a matter of direct aid appropriations.

[kingbee]

i think george galloway put it best

"if occupation is ugly, how can resistance be pretty?"

[Lev]

yeh i think Galloway is right about the resistence.

Wasn't sure if anyone had dug out these facts yet but their worth putting out

The lancet medical journal report from over a year and a half ago put Iraqi casualties at around 100,000 deaths. The range to which this data could be out is reported at 10,000 to 200,000 with 100,000 being easily the most reasonable figure.

Also this would fit in with the extremely conservative estimation of the Iraq Body Count, which counts all deaths from the war and occupation that come through a variety of media sources. They put the figure at 30,000 deaths.

In all probability though Iraqi deaths are AT LEAST the top end of the Lancet scale. 200,000 as the report was now over a year ago, and the sample they took ignored the brutal assault on Falluja which was unfolding at the time.

Alongside at least 100,000 dead iraqis we must take over 2,000 american servicemen and nearly 100 british troops.

Nobody simply wishes a massacre of british or american troops, we support the troops in as much as we dont think that poor working class kids from economically depressed areas should fight the oil wars of the rich!

Given the scale of the casualties of each side I think that it is more accurate to say that the left defends the rights of the Iraqi's to resist illegal foreign aggression (as defined even in the UN charter). We do not rejoice at the death of a single troop, they did not go their by choice, they were lied into the war by Bush and Blair so nobody can claim they went to war consciously and willingly.

These findings by Iraq body count are interesting

Who did the killing?

US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.

Given that post-invasion crime is clearly a product of the havoc caused by the complete distruction of Iraqi civil society then I would tend to argue that 73% of deaths are the direct responsibilty of the occupying forces and also the 9% from the fringes of the anti-occupation forces are more indirectly the responsiblitiy of occupying forces.

Before 2003 there had never been a suidice bomber in Iraq or from Iraq. Now suicide attacks are almost to be expected. This is because of the brutality of the occupation and nothing else.

This is the death and destruction the continued occupation causes.

Also Interesting is the Coalition authorites own survey that found 82% of Iraqis wanted troops out immediately which would make sense as 80% of votes cast in the elections were for parites who called for the immediate end to the occupation.

The resistance to occupation comes in many forms, it began with marches of workers for jobs and services, it has included strikes (including a general strike against occupation in Ramadi) and also Iraqi's who have taken up arms to defend themselves. And people only took up arms as they could not wield any political power otherwise

Fallujah did not witness any of the looting or chaos that gripped many parts of the country in the wake of the invasion. Tribal sheikhs and religious leaders ensured security in the city. A crowd of civillians insisted the US troops were not needed and demanded that soldiers handed the local school back to the city authorities and left town. The troops opened fire, killing 13. The killings in Fallujah would propel the Sunni city into the heart of a new national movement.

For this reason Falluja was brutally crushed, and the futher and futher repression of ordinary Iraqis who want the troops out pushes people to defend themselves by whatever means nescessary.

It is an absolute tiny minority who are ba'athist diehards or al-quieda types or who whip up sectarian violence. The only data I can find immediately is for the month of August 2004. Despite the high profile of Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi in the western media in that whole month of august Zarqawi's group was responsible for just 6 attacks out of 2,700!

The groups who model themselves on Al-Qaida represent a tiny minority fringe of a much broader islamist movement.

If anyone needs proof that the Shia are in opposition to occupation too look at the profile of Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr an the Mehdi army. Also it was a british controlled shia province that scored the highest number of Iraqis who supported armed resistence in a recent survey.

I would say victory to the intifada but I will probably be branded a terrorist

[Militant]

Originally posted by nate+Nov 17 2005, 08:45 PM--> (nate @ Nov 17 2005, 08:45 PM)
[email protected] 17 2005, 03:49 PM
The Iraqi Resistence is filled with former Baathists, loyal Baathists and Islamic Jihadists. This makes up the bulk of the resistence. They assisinated a former UN ambassador because of his affiliation with the independence of East Timor from Muslim lands! This is NOT anti-imperialism people.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/10/03/iraq11804.htm

http://hrw.org/reports/2005/iraq1005/
will you please stop using the word jihadists when referring to armed islamic insurgents. the meaning of jihad is different to different people( from being peaceful, to being violent), therfore its incorrect to use when describing violent people. [/b]
Why do you care?

Former more, I'm prett sure that want bin Laden and Zakarai (sp?) call it.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Militant+Nov 21 2005, 09:49 PM--> (Militant @ Nov 21 2005, 09:49 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 08:45 PM

[email protected] 17 2005, 03:49 PM
The Iraqi Resistence is filled with former Baathists, loyal Baathists and Islamic Jihadists. This makes up the bulk of the resistence. They assisinated a former UN ambassador because of his affiliation with the independence of East Timor from Muslim lands! This is NOT anti-imperialism people.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/10/03/iraq11804.htm

http://hrw.org/reports/2005/iraq1005/
will you please stop using the word jihadists when referring to armed islamic insurgents. the meaning of jihad is different to different people( from being peaceful, to being violent), therfore its incorrect to use when describing violent people.
Why do you care?

Former more, I'm prett sure that want bin Laden and Zakarai (sp?) call it. [/b]
I think he's saying that because he doesn't want you to sound like an idiot.

Too late. Any armed person who fights occupation or oppression and happens to be a Muslim is NOT a "jihadist". Seeing as how the word does not mean "holy war", but rather, struggle, than this could be any Muslim in a struggle, peaceful or otherwise.

[jambajuice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 01:35 PM
Nice post. It's so sad that many comrades on the board are so ambivalent in the fight between Imperialism and an anti-imperialist gueriilla movement of the poor. Oh well.
I don't imagine the people, who USA imperialist call insurgents, think of themselves as your comrade.

I imagine that they would be just as happy to shoot 'comrades' when they are done killing imperialist.


I am I crazy to think so? That these people would be happy to shoot comrades next? Like in Afganistan in the 1980s? Lots of comrades got shot there.

[Capitalist Imperial]

LOL! You wouldn't hear about it if they did from your CNN or any of those corporate owned stations. I am dealing with facts. You see, I do deeper research than the crap they spew on your capitalist media, who barely broadcast any form of criticism on the Iraq war. In fact I was listening to a KPFA the other day when a guy talked about his cousin in Arizona (if I remeber correctly) an Iraq war veteran who hung himself in his room weeks after returning. One can only imagine what he witnessed that lead up to it. Again, I don't deny the Iraqi Resistance kills civilians. In fact I show no political for them. Unlike you republicans, I'm not stupid enough to believe that anyone fighting against a regime I oppose will bring a better society for those people. If they desire to an Iraq without US hegemony then it is their national right.


Once again, Hector, I make a futile attempt to appeal to your reason. If there were rapes and malicious killings of innocents by US soldiers, you would in fact hear about it. That includes CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Network News, the BBC, and AL Jazeera. Al Jazeera is foaming att the mouth for stuff like this. However, even they can't make the claim that US soldiers are committing such atrocities. Who is KPFA? Do you mean Pacifica Radio? Of course those radical leftists are going to find one soldier with a negative report of the war and exploit it. That soldier could have hung himself for any reason. That doesn't reflect the majority of soldier's experience or perception of the Iraq war. Pacifica radio is an agenda driven socialist radio station, and they are masters of radical leftist propoganda.


Again, neither do I. But its absurd to dismiss that US forces are less guilty of it. What about the anti-occupation protests which Us forces shot at shortly after the "liberation", organized by the non-violent faction of the resistance (yes there are several such as trade unions)?

Of course they are less guilty of it, theya re not commiting these malicious crimes on purpose!!! As for the shooting of your so-called "non-violent" protestors, I will admit that it may have been a mistake, but I don't hink either you or me knows what really happened that day. Were all of the protesters really unarmed? Did they make threataning moves toward the soldiers?


I'll believe that when I stop hearing about soldiers being killed in Iraq due to insurgent attacks, and when I stop seeing Iraqis protesting for the US to leave their country.

That's not really a realistic expectation. Even when Iraq is considered totally under control and the insurgency winds down (and there are indicators that this is starting to happen), some holdouts may still conduct bombings and guerilla attacks. b There will always be protests, as you'll never have 100% support for any policy anywhere. However, a few radical holdouts killing soldiers here and there is not tatamount a lack of progress.


As for the wage, what would you consider fair wage? One dollar a day? That's how much workers in third world countries make working for US corporations. Apparently it translates as "fair wage" in republican, just as long as the corporation is profiting.

I can tell you that Iraqis are making more than a dollar a day working for US coprorations. As for the rest of the third world, the wages that US companies pay is far better than what local businesses can pay, and local workers flock to those jobs, as local market conditions dictate that the "dollar-per-day" that you paint as paltry is actually a very good wage for the region in which it is paid. Thus, US companies abroad improve local economies, they don't depress them. Your communist propoganda never tells you this, of course.



Hmm, republicans are usually unanimous when it comes to foreign policy.

Yes, but modern foreign policy does not incude Christian indoctrination.


Wrong, it was 47%. Told to me by my political science instructor who happens to be from Iraq.

You are wrong, sir! You instructor is likely a liberal with an ageda. Either way, he is wrong. Even Al-Jazeera, a vehement anti-american media source, admits it is around 60-75%:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/946...FBE41ADE2C8.htm (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/94682ECB-4904-4CE1-94A4-BFBE41ADE2C8.htm)

I would be interested to hear what your professor's source is.


This is just a weak and apologetic argument invented by conservatives for the purpose of upholding their ego about America being able to impose its hegemony on any nation at free will, but in Vietnam's case failed militarily and politcally.

I disagree. We really need to abstract out the difference between the political constituent of war and the tactical performance of soldiers. For instance, the tet offensive was actually a great victory for US forces, as was Ke San. Most field battles were victories. Unfortunately, it was over territory and objectives that didn't matter, because the US government limited our own effort there. This is pretty well known. I agreee that in the end vietnam was a failure, but the US essentially set itself up for failure. I beleive that bombing the north and lifting retrictions on rules of engagement could have yielded a different outcome.


There is no point in winning battles if you fail to demoralize and bring the enemy to its knees. Americans soldiers in the end were demoralized and defeated. They were refusing to fight, were killing their own officers, selling weapons to locals for drugs, and there was virtually no discipline left in the soldiers.

That kind of stuff did happen here and there, but it was not most soldiers as you suggest. There was fragging, demoralization, and drug use, but it was relatively few individuals. Most soldiers maintained professionalism to the end.


The NVA rolled over the puppets in Saigon, united their country, and ended all US influence and interests. This is a defeat whether or not you want to accept it.

When you say "united", do you mean the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of south vietnamese? I wouldn't call that a unifying effort.


It is this type naivety that makes American society so stupid. "We're the big boys, no ones gonna ever kick our ass, we're too powerful".

It's not naivety, its based on historical performance, and confidence. We do not subscribe to defeatism likew so much of the left does. Additionally, you can't really call American society stupid when it has given the world the vast majority of major inventions and innovations in the last 150 years, and is also the creator of most modern arts such as music, film, and dance, let alone having the world's largest economy. You can't have all these atteributes and be considered a stupid society.


You're to blinded by US propaganda to see that this "war on terror" is like building a sand castle. The puppet regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq won't last unless remains there securing it. Its a useless war.

Well, there will be something there securing it: The US sphere of influence. It will support a democratic Iraq and Afghanistan. America's South and Central American Proxy states have lasted, and I think Iraq and afghanistan will too, providing the USA with a better foothold in the region and ensuring greater sovereignty for the empire.



The Kuwaiti government, no you don't need to explain. But those Kuwaitis who don't want the US there might need a little attention.

I'm not really sure what the majority of Kuwaitis think about the US presence there. Are you sure?


Oh yes it is, because the US supporting them is the reason they are able to do what they did to their people. And its further proof that the US doesn't give damn about the well-being of either the Iraqi or Afghan people. Its just about extending their empire and placing in power or supporting dictators and cutthroats if it secured the US empire in the region. Look at Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan

I admit that America takes care of America first, like every country does, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, the fact the remains that the Iraqis and Afghans enjoy the incidental benefit of the US presence and actions in the region. In return, certain resource allocations go the empire as compensation for the protection and democratizing of those nations. Its good for America and the world economy and stability.


So far in comparing to the US deaths in WWII and Vietnam, you're right. But I'm not talking about quantity here. I'm talking about the resistance becoming more organized, and effective as it has since after the overthrow of Hussein. It may not seem like much as of now (if it really is 2000 as the official version says).

But Hector, the resistance is not getting better, it is getting weaker. Their leadership is losing support and effectiveness. What is getting better every day is Iraqi security forces. They are becoming more adept and controlling, repelling, and defeatring the insurgents with American training:


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176983,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177019,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176930,00.html


Serial killers kill defenseless people without purpose aside from satisfying their need for pleasure. The Iraqi resistance kills US troops because they are the occupiers and the resistance wants them out of their country. And the US forces are armed to the teeth. There is a difference, Capitalist Imperial.

Yes, but the argument was whether the fighting style was brave or cowardly. You really didn't address that.


Again, I'm comparing the phraseology of the US leaders, not the situations. This "US was victorious over communism" argument is just more patriotic egotistical mentality. Gorbachev sold out because he wanted to be Reagan's friend. Plain and simple.

I would expect such denial form someone named "comrade". Most historians will tell you that in fact the US did help contribute to the fall of the USSR through cold war operations (including supporting the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, which is seen by many experts as the beginning of the end for the soviet empire) and economic power through the arms race. Don't try and make it more simple that it was. As much as you hate to hear it, most reasonable people understand that America definitely had a major hand in the fall of the USSR. Refusal of this idea is pure denial.


True, but they were cutting up and mutilating Serbs and Croats in Bosnia. And in Kosovo anyone who wasn't Albanian Muslim. They were not as extreme, but did welcome al-Qaeda and other Muslim radicals into their volunteer units.

I agree with you here, as in Bosnia we were actually protecting muslims. Many leftist idiots forget this when they claim that America is not tolerant of Islam.


You're an American patriot, and are only looking at it from that point of view. What if this "oppressive and genocidal regime that I wasn't even allowed to speak against" was installed by your "liberators" for maintaining their interests?

Honestly, I think that if I lived in that region, I would be more interested in the present than the past.


Would you like me to give the full list of dictators supported by Washington? I'll bet you haven't of five of them. Afghanistan and Iraq were but two. So don't give me that shit about "oppressive Communism"!

I'm just saying that is is tough for any communist to point the finger at America and scream "oppresion!". Communism's human rightrs record is much worse than America's.


Ok then? What about these so-called "civilian contractors"?

What is wrong with them? They are trying to build schools and bring electricity back to Iraq. If these insurgents are really "Iraqi Nationals" (which the vast majority are not), you would think that they would want their infrastructure back. As for civilian security contractors, they go to Iraq knowing that their job is dangerous, and they will be targets. I don't make any excuses for them. However, the beheadings have been mostly aid woirkers. Look at the current hostages in the news. They are, just as I said, aid workers and an archaeologist:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177196,00.html


The poor kids are usually the cannon fodder in US wars. Especially those who come from the ghetto. There are those middle class boys, but they're usually given the easiest and less dangerous tasks.

This is just a lie, hector. Do you think the US military asks recruits, "where do you live, "how much money does your family have?" And then places them based on their response? Get real, Hector, thats not how it works. It is a volunteer army, and recruits choose the vocation that they want to embark on. There are plenty of middle class people on the front lines right now. You don't know what you are talking about.


And you're wrong about the Soviet Union. They gave nations like the Warsaw Pact and Cuba, as well as most Socialist states better education and medicine programs than any other capitalist state.

Are you really going to claim that soviet medicine is better than American medicine? COme on. Perhaps every single russian had moedical coverage, but the quality was poor. Look at Russian life expectancies.


Soviet weaponry was able to match that of the USA, see Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, and Iraq.

Hector, in every one of these conflicts the United states enjoyed superior performance and a favorable kill ratio over it's opponents on Land, Water, and Air. I can go into detail if you wish, but you can look it up yourself. How can you bring up Somalia? About 50 US soldiers, unprepared for a prolonged battle, fought their way out of the middle of a city teeming with 5000+ armed insurgents and countless other hostiles, and most got out alive and well. That is not poor performance, sir, that is an incredible performance by a professional army.


You're just paranoid. But course, as long as people remain frightened even an idiot like Bush can control them.

Really? Let's review:

The bombing of Pan Am flight 109

The bombing of the marine barracks in beirut

the bombing of the embassy in saudi arabia

the bombing of two embassies in africa

the bombing of the USS cole

the bombings in bali

the bombings in indonesia

The 1993 bombing of the world trade center

The 2001 destruction of the world trade center

the bombing in london

the bombing in spain

the shoe bomber richard reed

the bust of an indian national trying to smuggle shoulder-fired SAM's into the USA

the bust of a huge terror plot in australia

Hector, how much terrorism do we have to see before my concerns are not "paranoid" but in fact well founded? Get serious, sir. We are not frightened, we are aware of reality and history, and our nation, unlike the spineless spain and france, are doing someting about it. That is not fear, that is legitimate and understandable action. I'm really not a huge Bush fan, and he certainly doesn't contol my thinking. That is just a stupid idea perpetrated by leftists, who use the weak "brainwash" argument simply because someone doesn't agree with them. America has much more freedom of information than communist nations, Hector. If anything, it is communists who are braiwashed. They don't get access to anything that hasn't been filtered by the dictatorial government party censors, so don't give me your "brainwashed control" crap.


You can't impose a system on a nation against the will of the people. The American empire will fall one way or another. If not in Iraq then elsewhere in the Middle East. What the USA is doing is what all empires have done which eventually led to their colapse.

I hate to break this to you, hector, but America isn't going anywhere soon. All empires fall, but this is a different time. Eventually, everything ends, but AMerica is stronger than ever, and it will not dissolve or likely even lose power in our lifetimes.



I've already repeated myself several times on this matter. You may want to read about the psychology of war and the spiritual part of it. Then you might understand why Vietnam was a military defeat for the USA.

I've covered this. Seperate tactical operations from political considerations, sir.


LOL! You mean detaining and interrogating Arab-Americans under suspicion, because they look like the perpetrators of 9/11?

No, I mean detaining people suspected of attempting terrorist activity in the United States. They don't simply arrest arabs, they are arrested under well-founded suspicians based on actions and paper trails.


Osama Bin Laden is not hiding in some cave as you people think. In fact if anything he got what he wanted. He knows damn well that the majority of world public opinion of the "war on terror" is in opposition and heavily bashes the US government. Osama Bin Laden has the whole world hating the USA, because of this stupid war. And it was convenient for him to attack the USA on 9/11, knowing full well that Bush is dumber than dogshit, would take the bait. A surrender and an immediate US withrawal from the Middle East and Persian Gulf would reduce the threat of terrorism from al-Qaeda and such groups. Did that ever occur to you that they might be a little upset with the US occupying their territory? By opposing the "war on terror" Germany, France, Belguim, and the other European nations have secured their countries from terror attacks. Remember Spain? After the terrrorist attack there how the Spaniards turned against Bush's ***** Aznar defeating him in a land slide victory? If al-Qaeda tries to push radical islamism through the Middle East its up to the people their to fight it and determin their own future, not the USA who only desires to leech off of their natural resources.

Spain was soft and allowed terrorism to intimidate it's people and government. And, unfortunately, hector, I'm sorry that you don't understand this, but we must engage terrorists in the middle east, as that is where it's core is. We are not going to sit back and let another 9/11 happen. Yes, I know iraq was not directly involved, but there are in fact terorists there now, and that is where we will fight them. If you really think that leaving Iraq will reduce islamo-fascism or terrorism, then you in fact are blind. I know what you really want to see, America defeated. Well, you won't see it, sir, we are "in it to win it".



Again, I'm glad we can both agree an the true purpose of the "War on Terror": US hegemony, and profit; not the people. Thanks for making it clear.

I make no apologies for US hegemony. I would rather have the US at the top of the food chain rather than some rogue state bent on genocide and religious fundamentalism. Hegemony is the goal of most strong nations. The brits did it, the spanish did it, the french did it the moors did it, the byzantines did it, the romans did it, the persians did it, the greeks did it, the USSR did it, the chinese did it, I can go on and on. The major problem that many have with the USA is jealousy and envy over our power and success, and that we are extremely astute and adept at almost everything we do, period.

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 1 2005, 02:38 AM




Once again, Hector, I make a futile attempt to appeal to your reason. If there were rapes and malicious killings of innocents by US soldiers, you would in fact hear about it. That includes CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Network News, the BBC, and AL Jazeera. Al Jazeera is foaming att the mouth for stuff like this. However, even they can't make the claim that US soldiers are committing such atrocities. Who is KPFA? Do you mean Pacifica Radio? Of course those radical leftists are going to find one soldier with a negative report of the war and exploit it. That soldier could have hung himself for any reason. That doesn't reflect the majority of soldier's experience or perception of the Iraq war. Pacifica radio is an agenda driven socialist radio station, and they are masters of radical leftist propoganda.

Yeah sure! Then your capitalist propaganda machine would repeat the same mistake made in Vietnam, reporting every little detail including US massacres which resulted in popular opposition to the war. It would be the same result if you did hear about it. For example if the capitalist propaganda machine reported on Vietnam the same way it does today with Iraq and Afghanistan, we never would've learn about the My Lai Massacre, other than sources like Pacifica Radio which you conservatives would dub "Commie Propaganda". And as for Pacifica Radio, its quite beneficial when a station gets its reports uneditied from journalists who actually go in the field rather than being embedded with American soldiers, like your CNN propagandists.


Of course they are less guilty of it, theya re not commiting these malicious crimes on purpose!!! As for the shooting of your so-called "non-violent" protestors, I will admit that it may have been a mistake, but I don't hink either you or me knows what really happened that day. Were all of the protesters really unarmed? Did they make threataning moves toward the soldiers?

The protests were organized by Iraqi Trade Unions, which oppose the use of violence. They voiced and shouted their opposition the the American-led rape of their country and were met with gun fire. Considering the US history of violently breaking up protests at home and abroad, I wouldn't doubt that they killed unarmed protesters.


That's not really a realistic expectation. Even when Iraq is considered totally under control and the insurgency winds down (and there are indicators that this is starting to happen), some holdouts may still conduct bombings and guerilla attacks. b There will always be protests, as you'll never have 100% support for any policy anywhere. However, a few radical holdouts killing soldiers here and there is not tatamount a lack of progress.

Again, the insurgency is not going to wind down. They are reportedly much more organized and stronger then in 2003. They will still conduct guerillas tactics against US forces until they leave. There is no real progress going on in Iraq because the US leeches cannot hold power without the US guarding it. Don't give me that crap about schools again. The kids will probably learn only how to write big mac in Arabic.


I can tell you that Iraqis are making more than a dollar a day working for US coprorations. As for the rest of the third world, the wages that US companies pay is far better than what local businesses can pay, and local workers flock to those jobs, as local market conditions dictate that the "dollar-per-day" that you paint as paltry is actually a very good wage for the region in which it is paid. Thus, US companies abroad improve local economies, they don't depress them. Your communist propoganda never tells you this, of course.

Exactly! Thanks again for clearing that up. Yes one dollar a day sure beats the wages from American corporations sure beat the wages from local companies. Of course for the Americans its just cheap labor. "Lets give them a little more than what the locals give them, have them work the same 14 hours a day, so we can profit for much cheaper than back home". Again, I'm glad we can agree. US improving abroad local economies? What kid of drugs do you take? Look at Latin America. They've been infested with US companies since the 1800, and the majority of their live below the poverty line. My parents are from Latin America, so don't screw with me on this!


You are wrong, sir! You instructor is likely a liberal with an ageda. Either way, he is wrong. Even Al-Jazeera, a vehement anti-american media source, admits it is around 60-75%:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/946...FBE41ADE2C8.htm (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/94682ECB-4904-4CE1-94A4-BFBE41ADE2C8.htm)

I would be interested to hear what your professor's source is.

"Liberal", the main term you cons use. As for al-Jazeera, that's still a very large number who boycotted. I also wouldn't doubt that many of the voters just because many have never voted and others haven't in decades. Of course it didn't bug Reagan. My instructor still maintains connections in Iraq. So he says.


I disagree. We really need to abstract out the difference between the political constituent of war and the tactical performance of soldiers. For instance, the tet offensive was actually a great victory for US forces, as was Ke San. Most field battles were victories. Unfortunately, it was over territory and objectives that didn't matter, because the US government limited our own effort there. This is pretty well known. I agreee that in the end vietnam was a failure, but the US essentially set itself up for failure. I beleive that bombing the north and lifting retrictions on rules of engagement could have yielded a different outcome.

There is no difference between "political" and "military" loss. These are positions of war invented by American patriots. I wouldn't gloat too much about the Tet offensive because the US damn near lost that battle. And Khe San, you are right the Americans won both battles. Ho Chi Minh even said at the beginning of the war to the Americans: "You can kill 10 of my men for every one I kill of yours. But even at those odds I will win and you will lose". This is what happened. US government didn't limit anything; they carpet bombed North Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos without taking any real effect on the Viet Cong or the NVA. It doesn't matter how much you cons try to convince yourselves and others that the US won that war in anyway. The truth is simple, the US lost on all points. But from your point of view I guess in the Civil War the Confederacy really won the war. They did better on the battlefield, they won most battles, they killed more Yankees.


That kind of stuff did happen here and there, but it was not most soldiers as you suggest. There was fragging, demoralization, and drug use, but it was relatively few individuals. Most soldiers maintained professionalism to the end.

Another dose of con ignorance. Not true, most had already seen the effects of the war, and the unpopularity they faced among the people of Vietnam. Then they began to question why they were fighting. To free a nation? Is it possible when over 90% wants you out and supports the Communists? They saw that their buddies died for Johnson's and Nixon's greed, only to colonize another country. This is why there was so much protest among the soldiers. They had no real clue on what they were fighting for. Most soldiers were demoralized, tired of fighting. Killing their officers was a sign of protest. Again, you cons can twist it anyway you like to suit your egotistical patriotism, but the truth is undeniable. American soldiers are not superhuman. I don't where you get this BS that most were still willing to die in a war they had no business in, and on behalf of a nation that wanted them out.


When you say "united", do you mean the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of south vietnamese? I wouldn't call that a unifying effort.

Are you joking? You can do better than that. But if this is your argument, how does it compare to the 3 million Vietnamese killed by US bombs and agent orange? Those killed by the Viet Cong and NVA were elitists loyal to the US and their lap dogs in Saigon. They made up less than 10% of Vietnam. Did you honestly expect the Vietnamese people to place their faith in the disorganized and incompetent US puppet regime that couldn't maintain a secure leadership, much less satisfy the people's needs?


It's not naivety, its based on historical performance, and confidence. We do not subscribe to defeatism likew so much of the left does. Additionally, you can't really call American society stupid when it has given the world the vast majority of major inventions and innovations in the last 150 years, and is also the creator of most modern arts such as music, film, and dance, let alone having the world's largest economy. You can't have all these atteributes and be considered a stupid society.

This is a naive bully mentality. Bullies base their strength also on the passed performances which overtime produces overconfidence which is a weakness. Then the bullies eventually meet their match. The USA went through it in Vietnam, and it will go through it again. You'll see. The only thimg the American society knows is what is fed to them from a box. The music and movies today are crap. Britney Spears doesn't qualify as dance to me. Education in the USA is among the lowest. A 9th grade education in the USA is a 5th grade education in South America and Europe. As for the ecomomy, well thats probably because America has the sources for it. Many Latin American countries could've been able to compete, but being kept under the American jackboot for almost 2 centuries has made that a little difficult. Then there is the US arrogance about the world. But looking at America's history, and its lack of knowledge about other nations, there is really no need to go into that. Most Americans are weak, soft, and stupid is the bottom line. But its no fault of their own, its the society as a whole.


Well, there will be something there securing it: The US sphere of influence. It will support a democratic Iraq and Afghanistan. America's South and Central American Proxy states have lasted, and I think Iraq and afghanistan will too, providing the USA with a better foothold in the region and ensuring greater sovereignty for the empire.

US colonialism will not secure a damn thing. You can't compare Latin America to the Middle East. As I've stated Latin America has been enslaved by the USA since the 1800s. The Middle East on the other hand is filled with militants who (thanks to Bush) are convinced that this is a christian war against Islam. America will built its little empire from sand, but the waves and wind will keep blowing and washing it away. When the people of Iraq and Afghanistan see the incompetence of the lapdogs, that's when the USA will lose its empire (thanks for confirming that again).


I admit that America takes care of America first, like every country does, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, the fact the remains that the Iraqis and Afghans enjoy the incidental benefit of the US presence and actions in the region. In return, certain resource allocations go the empire as compensation for the protection and democratizing of those nations. Its good for America and the world economy and stability.

So you're admitting that "taking care of America first" means supporting dictators to secure US interests? Whats so beneficial to the Iraqis and Afghans with US soldiers marching up and down their streets telling them what to do? I only see two pverty stricken nations who are being enslaved. Again, Iraqis and Afghans with $2000 suits, doesn't resemble the people of either countries. The resources are leeched by the USA and their lapdogs, who will only profit while their people stuggle to feed themselves and work for a few dollars a day. This is what happens to every under developed country that the USA has enslaved. Its only about securing American profits. Why were Afghans rioting and protests all over Afghanistan just this spring?


But Hector, the resistance is not getting better, it is getting weaker. Their leadership is losing support and effectiveness. What is getting better every day is Iraqi security forces. They are becoming more adept and controlling, repelling, and defeatring the insurgents with American training:


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176983,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177019,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176930,00.html

This is exactly what the US propaganda machine wants people like you to believe. They are not losing support, and are in fact more organized. You only see through foxnews what the government wants you to see. This is one of the reasons I posted this topic is to prove that the Iraqi resistance is not getting weaker as the US wants us to believe,they are getting stronger. Iraqi Security Forces are incompetent and cannot take any action against the resistance without US support. Even as we speak, many US politicians are calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. Hmm, I wonder why? I should also mention that Bulgaria and Ukraine have already are about to withdraw from Iraq.


Yes, but the argument was whether the fighting style was brave or cowardly. You really didn't address that.

In a war when you see your enemy you kill him. And if your country is occupied by a colonial power you use whatever tactics will inflict the most losses and cause a blow to their morality. You just call it cowardly because your little Bush said it is.


I would expect such denial form someone named "comrade". Most historians will tell you that in fact the US did help contribute to the fall of the USSR through cold war operations (including supporting the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, which is seen by many experts as the beginning of the end for the soviet empire) and economic power through the arms race. Don't try and make it more simple that it was. As much as you hate to hear it, most reasonable people understand that America definitely had a major hand in the fall of the USSR. Refusal of this idea is pure denial.

I'm not saying the US didn't play a role. All of their agents took power (in which most cases Civil War followed) in Eastern Europe after the counter-revolution, so yes they did play a role. But, Gorbachev could've continued fighting, but he chose to capitulate. These "experts" only look at it from the outside. Afghanistan had nothing to do with it. In fact in 1985-1986 the Mujas withdrew back to Kandahar and Terat after all of their munitions and supply lines were amost totally destroyed by the Russians. They were nearly defeated. Ever wonder why they got the stingers? Gorbachev himself, even admitted in a Cold War interview that had he not taken the position he took in the 1980s he could've still been in the Kremlin as we speak. He encouraged the reactionary movements to rise up, so the main role was his not the US.


I agree with you here, as in Bosnia we were actually protecting muslims. Many leftist idiots forget this when they claim that America is not tolerant of Islam.

They are not wrong at all. America will support anything and anyone who will secure its interests in the region. They waited until there was slaughter, so the people would be exhausted and demoralized thereby paving the way for colonialism. The Yugoslav wars were very convenient for the West. This isn't protection, my dear friend. America isn't tolerant of Islam. If it was, there wouldn't have been so many hate crimes and detentions after 9/11, and lets not forget the US PATRIOT ACT.


Honestly, I think that if I lived in that region, I would be more interested in the present than the past.

More ignorance. I don't think if you were an average Iraqi, you'd think the same way. Putting your faith in a power that installed a dictator that tortured you for the purpose of securing their empire, I think you'd think twice about it.


I'm just saying that is is tough for any communist to point the finger at America and scream "oppresion!". Communism's human rightrs record is much worse than America's.

So you're admitting that the US supports dictators? So then its not tough at all. Whatever human rights America *****es about, occurs right here in the good ol' USA. If you leave your suburb for a while and look at the other side, you'd see it. The Communists didn't bring poverty to any nation, they fought it. The communists didn't install dictators everywhere, and then bomb them when they no longer needed them. The Communists provided free medicine, education, and other human necessities which is more than I can say for the West.


What is wrong with them? They are trying to build schools and bring electricity back to Iraq. If these insurgents are really "Iraqi Nationals" (which the vast majority are not), you would think that they would want their infrastructure back. As for civilian security contractors, they go to Iraq knowing that their job is dangerous, and they will be targets. I don't make any excuses for them. However, the beheadings have been mostly aid woirkers. Look at the current hostages in the news. They are, just as I said, aid workers and an archaeologist:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177196,00.html

True not all the resistance are Iraqi Nationals, but many of them are. This is their fight against US colonialism in the form of a jihad in which foreign Muslim radicals are also involved against what they see as a war against the Muslim peoples. The "civilian contractors" are the romantic label the US propaganda machine has labeled them. They are mercenaries in reality, and are not building schools or anything of the sort, see for yourself click here (http://electroniciraq.net/news/1435.shtml).


This is just a lie, hector. Do you think the US military asks recruits, "where do you live, "how much money does your family have?" And then places them based on their response? Get real, Hector, thats not how it works. It is a volunteer army, and recruits choose the vocation that they want to embark on. There are plenty of middle class people on the front lines right now. You don't know what you are talking about.

I did not say that. But military recruiters are often in inner city high school campuses and specifically target for recruitment those who have no real other opportunity, and are then sent in as cannon fodder in the event of a war. I attended an inner city high school, and recruiters were present regularly.


Are you really going to claim that soviet medicine is better than American medicine? COme on. Perhaps every single russian had moedical coverage, but the quality was poor. Look at Russian life expectancies.

In the Soviet Union the male life expectancy was 80+, whereas today in Capitalist Russia the life expectancies are round 50+. I wouldn't call that poor quality.


Hector, in every one of these conflicts the United states enjoyed superior performance and a favorable kill ratio over it's opponents on Land, Water, and Air. I can go into detail if you wish, but you can look it up yourself. How can you bring up Somalia? About 50 US soldiers, unprepared for a prolonged battle, fought their way out of the middle of a city teeming with 5000+ armed insurgents and countless other hostiles, and most got out alive and well. That is not poor performance, sir, that is an incredible performance by a professional army.

Once again, the kill rate makes very little difference if you can't bring the enemy to its knees. This is something you obviously can't understand, and I can't put it any more clear than this. Oh yeah sure, Somalia was a professional performance! A mission that was to take but a half an hour tops last well into dawn with 19 dead US soldiers and about 80 wounded. Not to mention a forced withdrawal, and the dictator remained in power until his death.


Really? Let's review:

The bombing of Pan Am flight 109

The bombing of the marine barracks in beirut

the bombing of the embassy in saudi arabia

the bombing of two embassies in africa

the bombing of the USS cole

the bombings in bali

the bombings in indonesia

The 1993 bombing of the world trade center

The 2001 destruction of the world trade center

the bombing in london

the bombing in spain

the shoe bomber richard reed

the bust of an indian national trying to smuggle shoulder-fired SAM's into the USA

the bust of a huge terror plot in australia

Hector, how much terrorism do we have to see before my concerns are not "paranoid" but in fact well founded? Get serious, sir. We are not frightened, we are aware of reality and history, and our nation, unlike the spineless spain and france, are doing someting about it. That is not fear, that is legitimate and understandable action. I'm really not a huge Bush fan, and he certainly doesn't contol my thinking. That is just a stupid idea perpetrated by leftists, who use the weak "brainwash" argument simply because someone doesn't agree with them. America has much more freedom of information than communist nations, Hector. If anything, it is communists who are braiwashed. They don't get access to anything that hasn't been filtered by the dictatorial government party censors, so don't give me your "brainwashed control" crap.

LOL! You're lecturing me on being brainwashed and not thinking critically? Look at you! Everything you spew is obviously dictated to you by the US media. Let me show you some real critical thinking. Do you honestly believe that these acts have been committed out of pure jealousy as the TV tells you? Perhaps maybe, just maybe, that these acts were committed due to US occupation in these countries, and raping them for their natural resources. Did you ever think of that? Obviously not! In Lebanon the US fired on Syrian and Lebanese Muslim forces. They retaliated with the Barrack bombing which Reagan actually got their message. London, Madrid, New York? Perhaps the years occupation of Muslim lands and the rape of Iraq and Afghanistan might have had something to do with motivating these acts of terror? The only stories you hear have been filtered by the media to promote stories favorable to the US cause, there is almost never a critical opinion. But at least in the Socialist states people were taught to think critically, eventhough it wasn't allowed, they still did. In America you can think critically about the government (officially on paper) but the problem is Americans are taught not to think critically about the government. I mean, do you think Osama Bin Laden thought about what the US would do before he committed the terror attacks of 9/11? I think so. And I also think it was very convenient for him that Bush is president, the biggest moron that ever lived. So I wouldn't doubt that Bush bit the worm on Bin Laden's hook.


I hate to break this to you, hector, but America isn't going anywhere soon. All empires fall, but this is a different time. Eventually, everything ends, but AMerica is stronger than ever, and it will not dissolve or likely even lose power in our lifetimes.

This is just the naivety that has people like you brainwashed. All empires said they were different from the last one that fell, all said they were too powerful to dissolve. This is the naivety which leads to the mistake of underestimation which leads to the defeat of and downfall of empires. I believe you and I may not live to see the US dissolve, but I think we will live to see the American empire crumble, meaning no more US bases in the world, i.e a world without US hegemony. The vsst majority of the people in this world are against the US empire. Here's a tip: go to Europe for example, and look at the US embassies. They are all protected by police barricades, armor vehicles, or both.


No, I mean detaining people suspected of attempting terrorist activity in the United States. They don't simply arrest arabs, they are arrested under well-founded suspicians based on actions and paper trails.

Well, then, explain this: click here (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F0DBD9A6-5B8F-4D55-9BE6-4394DB1004AE.htm).


Spain was soft and allowed terrorism to intimidate it's people and government. And, unfortunately, hector, I'm sorry that you don't understand this, but we must engage terrorists in the middle east, as that is where it's core is. We are not going to sit back and let another 9/11 happen. Yes, I know iraq was not directly involved, but there are in fact terorists there now, and that is where we will fight them. If you really think that leaving Iraq will reduce islamo-fascism or terrorism, then you in fact are blind. I know what you really want to see, America defeated. Well, you won't see it, sir, we are "in it to win it".

Spain was not intimidated. They took the responsibility of ousting that US ***** Jose Maria Aznar who put the Spanish people in the way of terrorist acts. Iraq had nothing to do with Spain, other than Aznar being a lapdog. The people made Spain much more safe from terrorism when they ousted Aznar in a land slide electorial victory. Intimidation would have been to continue Spain's involvement. The people of France, Germany, Belgium, and so on are not soft at all. They had the courage to say no to the big boss: the USA. It has nothing to do with being intimidated, but the desire not to go to war with a country that poses no threat. Guess what? There have been no terrorist acts in these countries. There won't be another 9/11 provided that we leave the Middle East alone. And we done that previously, it wouldn't have happened the first time. This is another example of your inability to think critically. The "terrorists" are in Iraq now, because of the US occupation. I don't believe "Islamo-Fascism" as you put it will be reduced if the US leaves. Its not being reduced with the US occupation. But how the Iraqi people will deal with it is their problem. Perhaps the can do it, provided that the US doesn't starve them again with new sanctions. I do want to see the US government defeated, and I don't doubt that you and I will see it. I am tired of seeing the US government imposing its hegemony on weaker nations, starving those with sanctions and bombing those nations who refuse to be under the US jackboot. I think its time that America be taught a serious lesson. I assure you it will happen one day. "We are in it to win it"? So were the Nazis.


I make no apologies for US hegemony. I would rather have the US at the top of the food chain rather than some rogue state bent on genocide and religious fundamentalism. Hegemony is the goal of most strong nations. The brits did it, the spanish did it, the french did it the moors did it, the byzantines did it, the romans did it, the persians did it, the greeks did it, the USSR did it, the chinese did it, I can go on and on. The major problem that many have with the USA is jealousy and envy over our power and success, and that we are extremely astute and adept at almost everything we do, period.

Then don't give me any of that crap about America wanting to build a "free and democratic" society. You obviously think pro-American dictators are fine, as long as America's hegemony remains. Genocide and religious fundamentalism? How do you think the US was built? Remember the Natives? Thank you, again you've confirmed that the interest of the US is not the well being of the people, but preserving its profits and will on others by force. Sounds like a dictatorship to me. Again, no one is jealous of the USA. This is something you cons created to feel superior to others. No other country I've visited wants their country modeled after the US. In fact they laugh at the stupidity and narrow-mindedness of American society. As a society Europeans are far more successful than in the USA. More social benefits, which creates far less poverty than in the USA. More privileges, less cencorship, more culture, and less ignorance. This is why they laugh at the USA. Maybe if you got out of your suburban life and saw the world, would be a bit wiser to things like this.

[TheLiberal]

The Iraqi resistance is only associated with the Left because of the fact that it is fighting a United States military presence in the country, sent there by an extremely right wing presidency.

The Islamist state that the resistance desire would be oppressive and undemocratic just like that of Iran.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 8 2005, 10:35 AM

Then don't give me any of that crap about America wanting to build a "free and democratic" society. You obviously think pro-American dictators are fine, as long as America's hegemony remains. Genocide and religious fundamentalism? How do you think the US was built? Remember the Natives? Thank you, again you've confirmed that the interest of the US is not the well being of the people, but preserving its profits and will on others by force. Sounds like a dictatorship to me. Again, no one is jealous of the USA. This is something you cons created to feel superior to others. No other country I've visited wants their country modeled after the US. In fact they laugh at the stupidity and narrow-mindedness of American society. As a society Europeans are far more successful than in the USA. More social benefits, which creates far less poverty than in the USA. More privileges, less cencorship, more culture, and less ignorance. This is why they laugh at the USA. Maybe if you got out of your suburban life and saw the world, would be a bit wiser to things like this.
Do you really think we care about what Europeans think? That is what is laughable. We laugh at them for being so spineless, pompous, and weak economically.

Additionally, Europe is not as successful as the USA at all, which is why they are often envious and jealous of the US in the first place. We are stronger economically, technologically, medically, and culturally, and we easily suprpassed Europe in 200 years, while Europe as a geopolitical entity has been around for over 1000 years. That is quite embarassing for europeans.

Thus, we have nothing to prove to Europe at all. They can laugh unitl they are blue in the face, but they still have to settle with being #2, and in the shadow of America.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 01:02 PM
The Islamist state that the resistance desire would be oppressive and undemocratic just like that of Iran.
Actually, there are many different resistance groups with many different ideologies. At least one of them is Communist (stalinist), the Iraqi Communist Party Al-Cadre - a breakaway from the main Iraqi Communist party. There are also secular nationalists, Baathists, and other groups. It's a broad coalition. If the resistance wins the resulting state will probably be a compromise between all these ideas, a strongly nationalist state with smaller islamic & state socialist leanings and amnesty for the baathists.

BTW, the current regime is already a milder version of Iran. The Supreme Council of the Islamic Republic in Iraq, which wants to imitate the Iranian revolution in Iraq, and the Dawa party, which wants a milder Islamic Shiite state, are the leading members of the coalition that won Iraq's election. Article 2 of the Iraqi constitution makes Islam the state religion.

[Punk Rocker]

They don't NEED to kill the American soldiers

Haha, you're right. They just need to ask the American soldiers nicely, and they will leave.

[jaster]

the resistance is a legal right guerenteed by the UN comission, but as someone replied to on eof the oter posts, they are negligible, so i guess they are labeled as terroists. keep in mind that i do not support the car-bombings of discos ( tel-aviv) hoowever attacking a milatary target (pentagon, 2001) is not terroisim it is either resisitance or a deceration/continuation of war

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 10 2005, 08:48 PM
Do you really think we care about what Europeans think? That is what is laughable. We laugh at them for being so spineless, pompous, and weak economically.

Additionally, Europe is not as successful as the USA at all, which is why they are often envious and jealous of the US in the first place. We are stronger economically, technologically, medically, and culturally, and we easily suprpassed Europe in 200 years, while Europe as a geopolitical entity has been around for over 1000 years. That is quite embarassing for europeans.

Thus, we have nothing to prove to Europe at all. They can laugh unitl they are blue in the face, but they still have to settle with being #2, and in the shadow of America.
No! As a matter of fact I don't think America gives a rats ass what anyone thinks, and that is why they are so eager to force their empire on others. You last post just poves what an ignorant fool you are. If Europe is so much economically weaker than the USA, why is it then that the poverty level there so much lower than in the USA? I've been to Europe, and except for Prague, I never saw people who looked as if they had to sleep on the streets every night. Obviously, they are able to provide their own people, more than what America can do for its own people. Education and medicine are available to all citizens. You think America is culturally superior? What kind of drugs are you on? Most people in Europe know the capital of Brazil by third grade, whereas in the US they're lucky if they can name the spoken language by high school. As for being weak, if you think that refusal to get involved in a war for one man's greed is cowardice, then you know absolutely nothing about anything. It is not about jealousy of the USA. No one in their right mind could possibly be jealous of American society. Jealousy involved a superior look towards whom the emotion is directed at. Most Europeans however, look at American society as inferior, and is nothing more than a target of ridicule. The only embarrasing thing for some Europeans is when their leaders kiss white house ass (or as you put it "being the Shadow of America"). Lastly, the world is not from California to New York Islands. Capitalist Imperial, you are living proof of the inferiority of American society. Both your ignorant comments and arrogant chauvinistic mentality says it all.


the resistance is a legal right guerenteed by the UN comission, but as someone replied to on eof the oter posts, they are negligible, so i guess they are labeled as terroists. keep in mind that i do not support the car-bombings of discos ( tel-aviv) hoowever attacking a milatary target (pentagon, 2001) is not terroisim it is either resisitance or a deceration/continuation of war

I couldn't agree more. Although their actions that take the lives of civilians are condemnable, they have right to defend their country from the US-led rape. Just like the Lebanese did to the Marines Barracks, and the USS Cole to name a few. They are military, and should be treated as such.


The Islamist state that the resistance desire would be oppressive and undemocratic just like that of Iran.

Very true, and this is exactly why I've stated that political support for the Iraqi resistance is absurd. But they have a right to live in an Iraq not ruled from Washington. Also, the US doesn't give a damn whether Iraq is a bourgeois democracy or a radical Islamic dictatorship. Just as long as the have control of Iraq.

[Counter-Insurgent]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 28 2005, 10:59 AM

No! As a matter of fact I don't think America gives a rats ass what anyone thinks, and that is why they are so eager to force their empire on others. You last post just poves what an ignorant fool you are. If Europe is so much economically weaker than the USA, why is it then that the poverty level there so much lower than in the USA? I've been to Europe, and except for Prague, I never saw people who looked as if they had to sleep on the streets every night. Obviously, they are able to provide their own people, more than what America can do for its own people. Education and medicine are available to all citizens. You think America is culturally superior? What kind of drugs are you on? Most people in Europe know the capital of Brazil by third grade, whereas in the US they're lucky if they can name the spoken language by high school. As for being weak, if you think that refusal to get involved in a war for one man's greed is cowardice, then you know absolutely nothing about anything. It is not about jealousy of the USA. No one in their right mind could possibly be jealous of American society. Jealousy involved a superior look towards whom the emotion is directed at. Most Europeans however, look at American society as inferior, and is nothing more than a target of ridicule. The only embarrasing thing for some Europeans is when their leaders kiss white house ass (or as you put it "being the Shadow of America"). Lastly, the world is not from California to New York Islands. Capitalist Imperial, you are living proof of the inferiority of American society. Both your ignorant comments and arrogant chauvinistic mentality says it all.


Make whatever arguments you wish, Hector, the fact remains that Europe will be #2 to the USA for at least some time into the forseeable future.

Any "laughing" that Europeans do is usually appealing to their own sense of inferiority and envy for wht America has become. Also, those social accomodations of which you speak are merely an excuse for Europe to continue to erode freedoms and property ownership, as well as ensuring that most everyone settles for mediocrity.

By the way, their Olympians can't really compete with ours, either.

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by Counter-[email protected] 29 2005, 12:42 AM
Make whatever arguments you wish, Hector, the fact remains that Europe will be #2 to the USA for at least some time into the forseeable future.

Any "laughing" that Europeans do is usually appealing to their own sense of inferiority and envy for wht America has become. Also, those social accomodations of which you speak are merely an excuse for Europe to continue to erode freedoms and property ownership, as well as ensuring that most everyone settles for mediocrity.

By the way, their Olympians can't really compete with ours, either.
You are just litte repeater. I have argued and supported my claims to which patriotic brainwashed idiots like you cannot. I bet you always thought they spoke Spanish in Brazil and Suriname, or Arabic in Afghanistan. In Europe they know who speaks what tongue and where. There, so you see who is inferior. Don't open your mouth unless you can really back up what you say. But this is common for American patriots.

[TeamAmerica]

I for one understand that they speak Portuguese in Brazil and typically Afghan, Persian, or Dari in Afghanisatan.

It looks like your yankee stereotype does not apply to me.

[Guerrilla22]

Mainly Pashtu, arabic, Farsi, Urdu, and Uzbek.

[omegaflare]

Terrorism (according to the Minimanual of the Urban Guerilla) is vital to guerilla warfare. I dont necessarily agree with it, but it can be beneficial when innocent people are not involved in the crossfire.

Though, I just thought I should add this, the techniques done by the iraqi insurgents are impressive. Who would have thought to use an RPG as anti-aircraft artillery??