The Real Face of The U.S. Occupation Of Iraq

[Free Palestine]

Video: The Real Face of The U.S. Occupation Of Iraq

How the U.S. military occupation looks from the other end of the gun barrel. On the ground footage shows the humiliation and dehumanization, inevitable in a colonial situation.

Video: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8055.htm

[VonClausewitz]

I wonder when they'll film some protester to make the top General's life difficult. I used to get crap like that all the damn time at work, people who though because I had things to follow, that thus I was Der Fuhrer himself. :angry:

But well, it gives a little more depth to the situation, than the countless micheal moore-esque "Hate America, it's kool!" videos going about.

[Capitalist Imperial]

This video shows us nothing new, merely some battle footage and some protestors. I saw no dehumanization or humiliation. How do you glean these concepts from this video?

I did appreiciate the display of glorious American airpower during the first moments of the empire laying seige to Bagdad.

That was awesome.

[Lord Testicles]

I did appreiciate the display of glorious American airpower during the first moments of the empire laying seige to Bagdad.

You support the idea of an empire?

[Capitalist Imperial]

An "Empire" is not inertly good or inertly bad. Empires can be free, democratic, and benevolent.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 17 2005, 06:17 PM
An "Empire" is not inertly good or inertly bad. Empires can be free, democratic, and benevolent.
yes but the American "empire" isnt free, democratic or benevolent.

[Apka]

:hammer:

[Intifada]

It isn't an occupation.

It's liberation!

[JudeObscure84]

It isn't an occupation.

It's liberation!

Thats what the grandson of Ayatollah Khomenini has openly stated. Same with 20% of the population of Iraq (the Kurds) and more than half of the Shiite population in the south. The only ones openly calling it occupation are the tribal sects of Sunni nationalism, foreign jihadists and Baathist loyalists...

oh and anti-war westerners like yourself.

[Korol Aferist]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 16 2005, 08:49 PM
Video: The Real Face of The U.S. Occupation Of Iraq

How the U.S. military occupation looks from the other end of the gun barrel. On the ground footage shows the humiliation and dehumanization, inevitable in a colonial situation.

Video: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8055.htm
The video is very bad...
I mean really the video was flimed badly.
And all I saw was bunch of battle clips and old men that are loyal to the baath party nagging...Jeez... Great clip... Like it does anything.

[Korol Aferist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 10:27 PM

It isn't an occupation.

It's liberation!

Thats what the grandson of Ayatollah Khomenini has openly stated. Same with 20% of the population of Iraq (the Kurds) and more than half of the Shiite population in the south. The only ones openly calling it occupation are the tribal sects of Sunni nationalism, foreign jihadists and Baathist loyalists...

oh and anti-war westerners like yourself.
This is classic...

[JudeObscure84]

This is classic...

did I miss something?

[Korol Aferist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 10:32 PM

This is classic...

did I miss something?
Oops I'm sorry I just picked my nose while reading this old Soviet joke:

The drunk goes up to the donkey in the zoo and says,"You poor bunny rabbit!Look what the communists did to you."

Yeah that joke would be funny back in its days in the Soviet Union...

[JudeObscure84]

Soviet Party leader invites his mother into his office building and shows her around.

Mother: This is all really nice, son. But what if the Communists come?

[Korol Aferist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 10:38 PM
Soviet Party leader invites his mother into his office building and shows her around.

Mother: This is all really nice, son. But what if the Communists come?
Great one!
I got a bok at home I got to search for it's nothing but old soviet jokes.
Anyways...

Democracy now in Iraq...

Come on, commies!
Remember the three stages....
Capitalism then socialism then communism.
So that means Capitalisic Iraq first ! :rolleyes:

[JudeObscure84]

Great one!
I got a bok at home I got to search for it's nothing but old soviet jokes.
Anyways...

Democracy now in Iraq...

Come on, commies!
Remember the three stages....
Capitalism then socialism then communism.
So that means Capitalisic Iraq first !

for a second there I actually thought you had an argument. *sigh*

[kingbee]

Originally posted by Korol Aferist+Nov 17 2005, 10:43 PM--> (Korol Aferist @ Nov 17 2005, 10:43 PM)
[email protected] 17 2005, 10:38 PM
Soviet Party leader invites his mother into his office building and shows her around.

Mother: This is all really nice, son. But what if the Communists come?
Great one!
I got a bok at home I got to search for it's nothing but old soviet jokes.
Anyways...

Democracy now in Iraq...

Come on, commies!
Remember the three stages....
Capitalism then socialism then communism.
So that means Capitalisic Iraq first ! :rolleyes: [/b]
capitalism doesn't necessarily have to come.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Skinz+Nov 17 2005, 06:24 PM--> (Skinz @ Nov 17 2005, 06:24 PM)
Capitalist [email protected] 17 2005, 06:17 PM
An "Empire" is not inertly good or inertly bad. Empires can be free, democratic, and benevolent.
yes but the American "empire" isnt free, democratic or benevolent. [/b]
Yes it is, sir. It is among the most free and emocratic nations on earth, and pure numbers speaks to it's benevolence.

I would like you to advise me of, within reason, a freedom that is restricted in the US.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 11:53 PM
capitalism doesn't necessarily have to come.

capitalism doesn't necessarily have to come.

Yes it does, and communism never will.

[Drathir]

I would like you to advise me of, within reason, a freedom that is restricted in the US.

Gay marriage for one:)

[viva le revolution]

The right of third world nations to self-determination.
in case you ask,


1. Chile (general augusto pinochet)

2. Cuba (fulgencio batista)

3. Indonesia ( general suharto)


4. Pakistan ( general zia ul haq, and more recently, general pervez musharraff)

5. south africa ( apartheid)
In all these nations brutal regimes were used as mercenary states by the U.S to oppress the people for western profit. these are by no means the only ones. nor do they account for the almost unbroken chain of wars and hostilities the U.S has carried out since the ned of world war 2. yet you have the gall to call imperialism free! of course sitting in yankee land and spouting such shit must get you a few stars in class, come on over to the third world, i would give anything to have a crack at yankee skull!

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 17 2005, 06:17 PM
An "Empire" is not inertly good or inertly bad. Empires can be free, democratic, and benevolent.
Name one.

[Intifada]

Thats what the grandson of Ayatollah Khomenini has openly stated. Same with 20% of the population of Iraq (the Kurds) and more than half of the Shiite population in the south. The only ones openly calling it occupation are the tribal sects of Sunni nationalism, foreign jihadists and Baathist loyalists...

oh and anti-war westerners like yourself.


Some evidence to back up your claims wouldn't go amiss.

I know, through research and polls conducted in Iraq, that a large majority (71% in this (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm) poll) of Iraqis view the US-led Coalition as "occupiers" rather than "liberators".

Moreover, a poll conducted for the Coalition in August 2005, suggests that 45% of Iraqis support attacks on UK and US troops, whilst 82% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of Coalition troops.

[kingbee]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Nov 18 2005, 03:42 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Nov 18 2005, 03:42 AM)
[email protected] 17 2005, 11:53 PM
capitalism doesn't necessarily have to come.

capitalism doesn't necessarily have to come.

Yes it does, and communism never will. [/b]
i was actually meaning that in the menshevik/ bolshevik debate on whether capitalism has to be fully fledged before socialism.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Ahhhh.... nothing more entertaining than well-spoken communists on the anti-imperialism soapbox.

Britain and the US have been fairly consistent in their demands on the world for the last 60 years or so. Democracy. It was demanded of the USSR and is being acheived. It was demanded in Africa and is being acheived. It has been demanded in the Middle East and is being acheived. The rise of democracies across the globe continues every year. Maybe it's not in the timeframe hoped for by the Left, but it IS happening.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 23 2005, 07:13 PM
Britain and the US have been fairly consistent in their demands on the world for the last 60 years or so. Democracy.
Iran?

I could throw in many more examples.

[enigma2517]

I don't know why you all even bother trying to refute these ahistorical arguments anymore.

[kingbee]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 23 2005, 07:13 PM
Ahhhh.... nothing more entertaining than well-spoken communists on the anti-imperialism soapbox.

Britain and the US have been fairly consistent in their demands on the world for the last 60 years or so. Democracy. It was demanded of the USSR and is being acheived. It was demanded in Africa and is being acheived. It has been demanded in the Middle East and is being acheived. The rise of democracies across the globe continues every year. Maybe it's not in the timeframe hoped for by the Left, but it IS happening.
its exactly as marx predicted- that is, that the bourgeiosie will stop at nothing to spread the "free" market. that is clouded, however, by the spread of "democracy".

if democracy didn't mean free markets, america, the uk etc wouldn't give a shit.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Nov 18 2005, 03:39 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Nov 18 2005, 03:39 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 06:24 PM

Capitalist [email protected] 17 2005, 06:17 PM
An "Empire" is not inertly good or inertly bad. Empires can be free, democratic, and benevolent.
yes but the American "empire" isnt free, democratic or benevolent.
Yes it is, sir. It is among the most free and emocratic nations on earth, and pure numbers speaks to it's benevolence.

I would like you to advise me of, within reason, a freedom that is restricted in the US. [/b]
Ha, aside from the fact we don't even elect our president or our Supreme Court? :blink:

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I could throw in many more examples.

Please do, and remember to cite your sources from CREDIBLE publications and not Marxists.org or blowupthegovernment.com.

[LSD]

Please do, and remember to cite your sources from CREDIBLE publications and not Marxists.org or blowupthegovernment.com.

Um, CL, these aren't "controversial" cases.

Even the US Secretary of State has acknowledged her country's role in the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mossadeq.

Is that "CREDIBLE" enough for you?

As for other examples, I guess we'll still have to wait for your government to fess up about Chile and Guatamala and South Vietnam and Greece and Brazil and the Dominican Republic ...but the evidence is no less damning.


Democracy. It was demanded of the USSR and is being acheived.

:lol:

The US didn't give a fuck if the USSR was democratic or not! They had plenty of undemocratic allies. They just cared that the USSR was a rival for international power.

If it had ever truly been about democracy, then the US wouldn't have such a bloody history of overthrowing democratically elected leaders in their quest to "battle Communism".

[jambajuice]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 17 2005, 06:17 PM
An "Empire" is not inertly good or inertly bad. Empires can be free, democratic, and benevolent.
Sorry. All empires are evil. The only reason why the USA empire is not evil to the people who live within it's borders is because of the 2nd Amendment and firearms.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

QUOTE
Please do, and remember to cite your sources from CREDIBLE publications and not Marxists.org or blowupthegovernment.com.



Um, CL, these aren't "controversial" cases.

Even the US Secretary of State has acknowledged her country's role in the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mossadeq.

Is that "CREDIBLE" enough for you?

As for other examples, I guess we'll still have to wait for your government to fess up about Chile and Guatamala and South Vietnam and Greece and Brazil and the Dominican Republic ...but the evidence is no less damning.


QUOTE
Democracy. It was demanded of the USSR and is being acheived.





The US didn't give a fuck if the USSR was democratic or not! They had plenty of undemocratic allies. They just cared that the USSR was a rival for international power.

If it had ever truly been about democracy, then the US wouldn't have such a bloody history of overthrowing democratically elected leaders in their quest to "battle Communism".


I assume you are referring to the lesser referenced and far more disputable 'economic imperialism'. That idea has been advanced primarily by anti-American 'intellectuals' since the demise of the USSR as a way to attach a negative connotation to the USA. This is despite the fact that the US has not maintained anything resembling a colonial empire in 60 years.

Economic imperialism is based on the mistaken claims that the US exerts control over certain countries based on our power within the financial markets. many argue that Japan, for example, is a dependency because their economy is so closely linked to ours. This whole idea ignores basic principles of capitalism and fails to recognize the way global market forces work.

If you're referring to imperialism of the old British model - we haven't maintained anything like that since WWII. If you are referring to our tendency to ignore bad rulers as long as they are military allies, well, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. During the Cold War we did what we had to do. It certainly doesn't bother me.

As far as the spread of democracy... all one has to do is look at the numbers of democratic countries around the globe to see that democracy is on the rise and the US has played a big part in making that happen.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Still waiting for a reply LSD.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 02:33 AM

It isn't an occupation.

It's liberation!

Thats what the grandson of Ayatollah Khomenini has openly stated. Same with 20% of the population of Iraq (the Kurds) and more than half of the Shiite population in the south. The only ones openly calling it occupation are the tribal sects of Sunni nationalism, foreign jihadists and Baathist loyalists...

oh and anti-war westerners like yourself.
Oh, you forgot the ICP and WCPI who were outlawed by the baathists and led insurrections and guerrilla warfare aimed at toppling the regime, and they consider the americans to be occupiers. Some are even involved in the insurgency.

ICP=Iraqi Communist Party

WCPI= Workers Communist Party of Iraq