Successful Iraqi Elections

[Capitalist Imperial]

Voter turnout is even heavier than expected, they even have had to keep some polling places open later. Additionally, Sunnis are coming out en masse to be heard.

Best of all, violence has been kept to a minimum.

This is really indicative of what the leftist media has vehemently avoided and denied for the last 12 months: That the US war effort in Iraq is making incredible progress.

Every purple finger is a bullet in the heart of the insurgency. Compunding this is that the iraqi forces are becoming more adept at repelling terrorist activities every day.

I know that it tears you commie-pukes to shreds to hear that the mission in Iraq is being accomplished, being that you were jizzing your pants to irresponsibly throw out your next inept "vietnam" analogy.

Sorry to disappoint you.

The reality is that the Iraq is fast becoming a success. Most leftists want defeat for the US in Iraq because it fits their anti-US agenda, without regard for granting Iraqis democracy and freedom in the region. Make no mistake about it, your liberal agenda is much more interested in seeing America fail than it is in the good of the Iraqi people. Luckily, the USA is a leader, and not a follower. We have stayed the course in the face of spineless bodies like the UN, france, spain, and Al Franken, and have done what is right. Now we find ourselves peering towards the horizon, and can see in the distance the birth of a new democracy.

And the left hates it.

So, for all of you red pundits who insisted Iraq would be a failure, how do you like your crow served?

[Guerrilla22]

The fact that they had elections means nothing. The Iraqi government answers to and will continue to answer to its puppet master the uS. The occurance of national elections does not mean sucess or progress.

The only way Iraq could be considered a sucees is if the country is fuctioning normally and could continue to function normally on its own, which it is light years away from. Insurgents control entire citites, the infrastructure is still heavily damaged. Iraqis have power for less than two hours a day. Hospitals lack necessary medical supplies. Not to mention thousands of Iraqi citizens are dying each month? If that's what you call success you're disillusioned.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 09:27 PM
The fact that they had elections means nothing. The Iraqi government answers to and will continue to answer to its puppet master the uS. The occurance of national elections does not mean sucess or progress.

The only way Iraq could be considered a sucees is if the country is fuctioning normally and could continue to function normally on its own, which it is light years away from. Insurgents control entire citites, the infrastructure is still heavily damaged. Iraqis have power for less than two hours a day. Hospitals lack necessary medical supplies. Not to mention thousands of Iraqi citizens are dying each month? If that's what you call success you're disillusioned.

The occurance of national elections does not mean sucess or progress.

Is this really how deep leftist denial is?


Insurgents control entire citites...

Really? Which ones?

[Intifada]

(Capitalist Idiot)

Voter turnout is even heavier than expected, they even have had to keep some polling places open later. Additionally, Sunnis are coming out en masse to be heard.


The turnout is large because the Sunnis are voting.


That the US war effort in Iraq is making incredible progress.


No.

Iraq is in chaos because of the US invasion and occupation.


Every purple finger is a bullet in the heart of the insurgency.

LOL!

You truly know nothing about the present situation in Iraq.

The large majority of insurgents supported taking part in the elections. In some places, they even provided protection for voters.

The rest of your post is typical bullshit.

The fact is, Iraqis want all occupying forces out of their country.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Now that we've seen 2 responses comprised of nothing but hateful rhetoric and obvious denial, lets look at the facts (I know dealing in facts against theory is novel for dictatorial sympathizers such as communists, but humor me), here are some facts on the major constituents of the progress in Iraq:

Democracy:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20051212-1.html (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051212-1.html)

Rebuilding:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...2/20051207.html (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051207.html)

The training of Iraqi domestic security forces:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...1/20051130.html (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051130.html)

[Intifada]

Not surprising that you avoid my post completely and give links to the same assholes who told us that Saddam had WMDs.

[Ownthink]

Wow, I bet the Administration loves you, because you ate all of this "Elections mean progress!" crap right up!

[ComradeOm]

Really, how much credit do you think anyone on this site gives the White House? At least try to provide some even slightly impartial sources.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 10:27 PM
Not surprising that you avoid my post completely and give links to the same assholes who told us that Saddam had WMDs.
I didn't ignore your post, Intifada. I read the whole thing. You didn't really say anything that hasn't been rehashed 100 times in this forum already. I'm dealing with facts here, not rhetoric.

By the way, your nickname indicates that you could be a terrorist sympathizer, and thus your legitimacy may be compromised.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 10:30 PM
Wow, I bet the Administration loves you, because you ate all of this "Elections mean progress!" crap right up!
What do you mean "eat crap"?

Did you read the facts, or are you just spouting off your usual meaningless one-liners?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by "El shithead"
By the way, your nickname indicates that you could be a terrorist sympathizer, and thus your legitimacy may be compromised.

What do you think your nickname says about you? ....let me hazard a guess, you are a Capitalist who supports imperial adventures in the name of capital. Hence "Capitalist Imperialist."

Don't you think this might compromise your legitimacy?

[Master Che]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 15 2005, 09:19 PM
Voter turnout is even heavier than expected, they even have had to keep some polling places open later. Additionally, Sunnis are coming out en masse to be heard.

Best of all, violence has been kept to a minimum.

This is really indicative of what the leftist media has vehemently avoided and denied for the last 12 months: That the US war effort in Iraq is making incredible progress.

Every purple finger is a bullet in the heart of the insurgency. Compunding this is that the iraqi forces are becoming more adept at repelling terrorist activities every day.

I know that it tears you commie-pukes to shreds to hear that the mission in Iraq is being accomplished, being that you were jizzing your pants to irresponsibly throw out your next inept "vietnam" analogy.

Sorry to disappoint you.

The reality is that the Iraq is fast becoming a success. Most leftists want defeat for the US in Iraq because it fits their anti-US agenda, without regard for granting Iraqis democracy and freedom in the region. Make no mistake about it, your liberal agenda is much more interested in seeing America fail than it is in the good of the Iraqi people. Luckily, the USA is a leader, and not a follower. We have stayed the course in the face of spineless bodies like the UN, france, spain, and Al Franken, and have done what is right. Now we find ourselves peering towards the horizon, and can see in the distance the birth of a new democracy.

And the left hates it.

So, for all of you red pundits who insisted Iraq would be a failure, how do you like your crow served?
:lol: You dont actually believe this propaganda do you? There is no election, just deception. Why dont you give us some news that doesnt come from the US or military? Give us something neutral, all Iraq is now is a hidden dictatorship controlled by the us.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 10:02 PM
(Capitalist Idiot)


(Capitalist Idiot)

Clever


Not surprising that you avoid my post completely and give links to the same assholes who told us that Saddam had WMDs.

One of the worst leftist spins ever. The reality is that the intelligence was in fact faulty.

However, the aforementioned intelligence was corroborated by Israel, the Brits and Russia. In addition to this, Saddam himself postured as if he did have them so as not to lose face or security position relative to Iran or other neigbors. In effect, he wanted the world to think that he had them. This paired with agreed upon intelligence easily created justification for the WMD belief.

Thus, the USA established this as an understandable pretext for liberation. It turned out that, against mutually agreed intelligence, and Saddam's own grandstanding, WMD's were either non-existent or perhaps moved to Syria. Either way, you may accuse the administration and world intelligence community of poor intelligence, but not lying.

However, even if, in hindsight, WMD's were not found, there were other reasons to oust the Ba'athists and establish a foothold in the region, the 1st of which was to have a platform from which to establish a local democracy and fight islamo-fascism, and also to secure existing US interests in the region.

Intifada, try using a little reason next time, intead of the word "idiot" like all of the other little stupid armchair commie clones.

[dannie]

so CI, did you miss the part were bush stated about 30000 iraqi civillians got killed in the process,

it was a succes, indeed it was :rolleyes:

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Dec 15 2005, 10:50 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Dec 15 2005, 10:50 PM)
"El shithead"
By the way, your nickname indicates that you could be a terrorist sympathizer, and thus your legitimacy may be compromised.

What do you think your nickname says about you? ....let me hazard a guess, you are a Capitalist who supports imperial adventures in the name of capital. Hence "Capitalist Imperialist."

Don't you think this might compromise your legitimacy? [/b]
No, because neither of these names are associated with terrorism (except for desperate fringe leftists desperate to quell individual liberty).

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by ja[email protected] 15 2005, 11:06 PM
so CI, did you miss the part were bush stated about 30000 iraqi civillians got killed in the process,

it was a succes, indeed it was :rolleyes:
Human death is not the only measure of progress or lack therof.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Dec 15 2005, 11:15 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Dec 15 2005, 11:15 PM)
Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 15 2005, 10:50 PM

"El shithead"
By the way, your nickname indicates that you could be a terrorist sympathizer, and thus your legitimacy may be compromised.

What do you think your nickname says about you? ....let me hazard a guess, you are a Capitalist who supports imperial adventures in the name of capital. Hence "Capitalist Imperialist."

Don't you think this might compromise your legitimacy?
No, because neither of these names are associated with terrorism (except for desperate fringe leftists desperate to quell individual liberty). [/b]

What does my statement have to do with terrorism?

You questioned Intifada's legitimacy because you consider his nickname to be that of a "terrorist sympathiser." Therefore I questioned your legitimacy to talk about an imperial adventure to advance the power of American and British capital because of your nickname, "Capitalist Imperial."

If you don't see the obvious contradiction of your original statement, then I would seriously question your mental capacity.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by CI
(except for desperate fringe leftists desperate to quell individual liberty).

"desperate fringe leftists desperate to ...."

Using the same word twice in the same sentence (especially a descriptive word) is incredibly poor English.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 16 2005, 10:16 AM
Human death is not the only measure of progress or lack therof.
do you think it's "progressive" that the living standards of almost all the people in iraq is now considerably lower than it was before the occupation?

[ReD_ReBeL]

the reason the turn-outs got so many people is that is going to be the first time to vote for the governing party!! which is a good thing for Iraqies becoz they where stuck under tht fascist Saddam for years and years. If only the US would get out and for Iraq to try and learn to maintain stability on there own or else wen the US do leave in the end it'l just be chaos against the new government which gets elected. Lets just hope the new government dont turn out to be some Islamic who turns Iraq into a Islamic state or for the new gov to be a puppet of the US

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Dec 15 2005, 11:27 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Dec 15 2005, 11:27 PM)
Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Dec 15 2005, 11:15 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Dec 15 2005, 11:15 PM)
Armchair [email protected] 15 2005, 10:50 PM

"El shithead"
By the way, your nickname indicates that you could be a terrorist sympathizer, and thus your legitimacy may be compromised.

What do you think your nickname says about you? ....let me hazard a guess, you are a Capitalist who supports imperial adventures in the name of capital. Hence "Capitalist Imperialist."

Don't you think this might compromise your legitimacy?
No, because neither of these names are associated with terrorism (except for desperate fringe leftists desperate to quell individual liberty). [/b]

What does my statement have to do with terrorism?

You questioned Intifada's legitimacy because you consider his nickname to be that of a "terrorist sympathiser." Therefore I questioned your legitimacy to talk about an imperial adventure to advance the power of American and British capital because of your nickname, "Capitalist Imperial."

If you don't see the obvious contradiction of your original statement, then I would seriously question your mental capacity. [/b]
Come on , AS, get serious. Of course I know what my name implies, that is why I chose it. There is a difference between supporting a benevolent empire and capitalism, and supporting terrorism.

This is obvious.

Talk about linited mental capacity!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Dec 15 2005, 10:50 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Dec 15 2005, 10:50 PM)
"El shithead"
By the way, your nickname indicates that you could be a terrorist sympathizer, and thus your legitimacy may be compromised.

What do you think your nickname says about you? ....let me hazard a guess, you are a Capitalist who supports imperial adventures in the name of capital. Hence "Capitalist Imperialist."

Don't you think this might compromise your legitimacy? [/b]
Picking out ticky-tack errors overlooked due to the pace of debate distracts from the original topic.

By the way, I am paid for my skills as a linguist, and I can almost guarantee my English and vocabulary is better than yours. If you want to start an english/grammar tally, we can.

However, you will lose.

[commiecrusader]

CA, if the fact that there was a high voter turnout means that Iraq is a success, does that mean the high voter turnout that led to Bu$h being elected was a good thing? Does it mean that a high voter turnout in.... Zimbabwe, where only Mugabe supporters are allowed to vote, is a good thing? A high voter turnout proves nothing. All they can vote for is people handpicked by Bu$h. Will they turn the country over to be raped by TNCs? why yes... I guess they will.

[ComTom]

This is ridicuolous. You have lost the war in Iraq because you failed to catch the hearts and minds of the people. The nation of Iraq is very unstable, they have millitias practically controlling armed actions in the Shiite controlled areas, and the Peshmerga, a Kurdish nationalist group, is practically in control of the North, a pro-US millitia. There is such a heavy division, that even if we stayed in for 100 years, they would eventually break into war. 45% of Iraqis support attacks on troops! 80% want us out! Not to mention, these Iraqi's have been voting for parties loyal to IRAN! They also have been voting on far right ultra conservative Islamist parties. This is a failure at best.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by rioters bloc+Dec 15 2005, 11:32 PM--> (rioters bloc @ Dec 15 2005, 11:32 PM)
Capitalist [email protected] 16 2005, 10:16 AM
Human death is not the only measure of progress or lack therof.
do you think it's "progressive" that the living standards of almost all the people in iraq is now considerably lower than it was before the occupation? [/b]
Do leftists always think in the short term like you?

Iraq is in transition. Current measures are not indicative of where the nation will be in 5 years, but elections and infrastructure progress is.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 12:04 AM
Not to mention, these Iraqi's have been voting for parties loyal to IRAN! They also have been voting on far right ultra conservative Islamist parties. This is a failure at best.

This is ridicuolous. You have lost the war in Iraq because you failed to catch the hearts and minds of the people.

Dude, you are so dumb. Not only are you in denial, but you are talking in the past tense as if the war is over. It is not. Get real.


The nation of Iraq is very unstable, they have millitias practically controlling armed actions in the Shiite controlled areas, and the Peshmerga, a Kurdish nationalist group, is practically in control of the North, a pro-US millitia.

That actually helps my argument, imbecile.


There is such a heavy division, that even if we stayed in for 100 years, they would eventually break into war.

You have little knowledge of history, don't you?


45% of Iraqis support attacks on troops! 80% want us out!

Which leftist media outlet told you that? Besides, we want out as well! But just not until the job is done. Simply "wanting the US out" is not what the Iraqis want. They want stability and security as well. However, pollsters like to ask simplistic questions that they know will yield answers that will fit their agendas. Let me conduct a poll and ask the right questions, the results, I'm confident, will be different.


Not to mention, these Iraqi's have been voting for parties loyal to IRAN! They also have been voting on far right ultra conservative Islamist parties. This is a failure at best.

Full Iraqi voter turnout is failure at best? Not it's official, you are one of the dumbest people I've ever debated with.

[ComTom]

45% of Iraqis support attacks on troops! 80% want us out!



Which leftist media outlet told you that? Besides, we want out as well! But just not until the job is done. Simply "wanting the US out" is not what the Iraqis want. They want stability and security as well. However, pollsters like to ask simplistic questions that they know will yield
answers that will fit their agendas. Let me conduct a poll and ask the right questions, the results, I'm confident, will be different.

No actually, this is a BBC poll that was scraped until it was secretly leaked to the American media, you capitalist shit face.

The nation of Iraq is very unstable, they have millitias practically controlling armed actions in the Shiite controlled areas, and the Peshmerga, a Kurdish nationalist group, is practically in control of the North, a pro-US millitia.



That actually helps my argument, imbecile.

Actually, no it doesn't. The peshmerga fights Turkey, and they will eventually get pissed and either force us to fight Peshmerga, or no longer be allies and be considered enemies of America. The millitia controlling Shiite Iraq, is anti-US. They do not associate themselves with the goverment, its the equivilance of giving Boshleviks rifles in St. Petersburg before the the October Revolution! Your the real sped here, I wish you would wake up and smell the flowers, but your stuck in your goverment and listen to everything they say and believe it.

Not to mention, these Iraqi's have been voting for parties loyal to IRAN! They also have been voting on far right ultra conservative Islamist parties. This is a failure at best.



Full Iraqi voter turnout is failure at best? Not it's official, you are one of the dumbest people I've ever debated with.

Failure at best? Yes, do you want another Iran? Does the US want a Iraqi goverment that becomes a one party state similiar to Iran? Your the real retard here.

This is ridicuolous. You have lost the war in Iraq because you failed to catch the hearts and minds of the people.



Dude, you are so dumb. Not only are you in denial, but you are talking in the past tense as if the war is over. It is not. Get real.

I am talking is past tense because after the 2003 liberation of Iraq, the US had a chance to rebuild the country, but they didn't. This started a insurgency.

[Guerrilla22]

Is this really how deep leftist denial is?

It is you who is denial about the state of Iraq. The overall condition of living is now much worse than it was under Saddam.


Really? Which ones?

Najaf. al Sadr's insurgentscontrol the entire city, thus Najaf is nicknamed "Sadr City"

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 12:29 AM

Is this really how deep leftist denial is?

It is you who is denial about the state of Iraq. The overall condition of living is now much worse than it was under Saddam.


Really? Which ones?

Najaf. al Sadr's insurgentscontrol the entire city, thus Najaf is nicknamed "Sadr City"

Najaf. al Sadr's insurgentscontrol the entire city, thus Najaf is nicknamed "Sadr City"

Liar:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...2/20051207.html (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051207.html)

"Iraqi And Coalition Forces Have Cleared And Are Holding The City Of Najaf. Ninety miles south of Baghdad, Najaf is home to one of Shia Islam's holiest places - the Imam Ali Shrine. As a predominantly Shia city, Najaf suffered greatly during Saddam's regime. About a year after U.S. troops liberated the city, it fell under the sway of a radical and violent militia. Fighting damaged homes and businesses, and the local economy collapsed as visitors and pilgrims stopped coming to the shrine out of fear for their lives. In the summer of 2004, the Iraqi government and Coalition decided to retake control of the city. Iraqi and Coalition forces rooted out the militia in tough, urban fighting. Together with the Iraqi government and the Shia clerical community, we forced the militia to abandon the shrine and return it to legitimate Iraqi authority. The militia committed to disarm and leave Najaf."

[commiecrusader]

I didn't see the part where you explained how a high turnout equals a success?

[Guerrilla22]

Yes and if the white house claims something it must be true! :rolleyes:


I didn't see the part where you explained how a high turnout equals a success?

That's because he can't. Living conditions are worse in Iraq now than they ever were under Saddam. Alsoinsurgent attacks ahve not decreased since 2003, but drastically increased and the country is in the middle of a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. Progress?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 01:04 AM
Yes and if the white house claims something it must be true! :rolleyes:
Other sources have confirmed that the insurgency was defeated in Najaf. It's pretty well known.

The same has happened in all the ex-insurgent strongholds.

As I've said before, the insurgency is waning. They have been reduced from a force entrenched in major towns to a rag-tag group without a realistic objective or foothold in Iraq.

[ReD_ReBeL]

im anti-US government too but come on be realistic no living standards is going to improve while there is war and civil-war going

[commiecrusader]

Living standards wouldn't have dropped to the levels they are at now, without the U$A's helpful assisstance. And do you really think they will improve for the masses to a level much more than they were pre-war, once all the natural oil resources and the ensuing profits are swallowed by American conglomerates?

[ReD_ReBeL]

i dont know depends what government they get in , i'm glad they got rid of that rascist racist Saddam though he was no good . not saying the US occupation is good, just the Saddam out is good .

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 01:04 AM
Yes and if the white house claims something it must be true! :rolleyes:


I didn't see the part where you explained how a high turnout equals a success?

That's because he can't. Living conditions are worse in Iraq now than they ever were under Saddam. Alsoinsurgent attacks ahve not decreased since 2003, but drastically increased and the country is in the middle of a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. Progress?
I didn;t know that I had to explain it. High voter turnout means that the people of Iraq want to move on with democracy, and establish a new era of freedom and proserpity for the nation.

They are not hiding in their houses from the evil insurgents, they are making a statement. Additionally, the fact that the sunnis want to be part of the process speaks volumes.

Why does your denail continue? Just concede the point!

[Phalanx]

Najaf. al Sadr's insurgentscontrol the entire city, thus Najaf is nicknamed "Sadr City"


Liar:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...2/20051207.html (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051207.html)

"Iraqi And Coalition Forces Have Cleared And Are Holding The City Of Najaf. Ninety miles south of Baghdad, Najaf is home to one of Shia Islam's holiest places - the Imam Ali Shrine. As a predominantly Shia city, Najaf suffered greatly during Saddam's regime. About a year after U.S. troops liberated the city, it fell under the sway of a radical and violent militia. Fighting damaged homes and businesses, and the local economy collapsed as visitors and pilgrims stopped coming to the shrine out of fear for their lives. In the summer of 2004, the Iraqi government and Coalition decided to retake control of the city. Iraqi and Coalition forces rooted out the militia in tough, urban fighting. Together with the Iraqi government and the Shia clerical community, we forced the militia to abandon the shrine and return it

What cities in Iraq are truly in US control?

Let's see...

Falluja is in the process of being liberated of US troops, insurgents and citizens of the city are slowly retaking their homes

Sadr City, a sprawling slum of 2 million in Baghdad, is hardly in the control of US forces. This is one of the biggest cities in Iraq, also. The entire city hates the troops, and insurgents have relatively free reign in the area. Juba has been given vantage points to fire on the US troops.

Najaf isn't really under the control of the coalition. They won the first battle of the city, but US troops have a skeleton garrison there.

Al-Anbar province, one of the largest in Iraq, isn't controlled by the US. Every day I hear the US whining to Syria on how it has to fight insurgents in the province.

US troops aren't safe even if they control a city. Bombs are placed at the roadside, and wreck havoc among the US troops. Four-fifths of all Iraqis want troops out, and 45 percent support attacks on US troops. That probably means they are willing to give support to insurgents.

Iraq will be controlled by extreme-right groups even if there are so-called free elections.

[commiecrusader]

They are not hiding in their houses from the evil insurgents, they are making a statement. Additionally, the fact that the sunnis want to be part of the process speaks volumes.
Brilliant capitalist bullshit. Do you write speeches for Bu$h? How about, as I said before, the elections in Zimbabwe? The opposition turned out in force, but was denied access to polling stations, plus elections were rigged anyway. U$ elections where your namesake Bu$h got re-elected. All brilliant examples of perfect-ly crap token elections, the same as this one where they get to choose from Bu$h stooge 1, 2 or 3, or however many candidates he's allowed to stand.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 01:11 AM
Living standards wouldn't have dropped to the levels they are at now, without the U$A's helpful assisstance. And do you really think they will improve for the masses to a level much more than they were pre-war, once all the natural oil resources and the ensuing profits are swallowed by American conglomerates?
That is pure conjecture.

Red Rebel reiterates a good point that I made earlier. You can't count a nation in transition's current state as the ultimate state. It will likely take about another 3-5 years for Iraq to return to it's previous economic and political viability.

And it will be worth it, as history will lay witness to.

[commiecrusader]

If you could read you would see that I acknowledged living standards would improve from their current standing. I fail to see how they will improve beyond Saddam-era standards when all the money is being siphoned out of the country by Bu$h's cronies however.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Chinghis [email protected] 16 2005, 01:14 AM

Najaf. al Sadr's insurgentscontrol the entire city, thus Najaf is nicknamed "Sadr City"


Liar:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...2/20051207.html (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051207.html)

"Iraqi And Coalition Forces Have Cleared And Are Holding The City Of Najaf. Ninety miles south of Baghdad, Najaf is home to one of Shia Islam's holiest places - the Imam Ali Shrine. As a predominantly Shia city, Najaf suffered greatly during Saddam's regime. About a year after U.S. troops liberated the city, it fell under the sway of a radical and violent militia. Fighting damaged homes and businesses, and the local economy collapsed as visitors and pilgrims stopped coming to the shrine out of fear for their lives. In the summer of 2004, the Iraqi government and Coalition decided to retake control of the city. Iraqi and Coalition forces rooted out the militia in tough, urban fighting. Together with the Iraqi government and the Shia clerical community, we forced the militia to abandon the shrine and return it

What cities in Iraq are truly in US control?

Let's see...

Falluja is in the process of being liberated of US troops, insurgents and citizens of the city are slowly retaking their homes

Sadr City, a sprawling slum of 2 million in Baghdad, is hardly in the control of US forces. This is one of the biggest cities in Iraq, also. The entire city hates the troops, and insurgents have relatively free reign in the area. Juba has been given vantage points to fire on the US troops.

Najaf isn't really under the control of the coalition. They won the first battle of the city, but US troops have a skeleton garrison there.

Al-Anbar province, one of the largest in Iraq, isn't controlled by the US. Every day I hear the US whining to Syria on how it has to fight insurgents in the province.

US troops aren't safe even if they control a city. Bombs are placed at the roadside, and wreck havoc among the US troops. Four-fifths of all Iraqis want troops out, and 45 percent support attacks on US troops. That probably means they are willing to give support to insurgents.

Iraq will be controlled by extreme-right groups even if there are so-called free elections.
Are you just throwing this stuff out or do you have a source? I gave my source, what is yours?

[Guerrilla22]

Why does your denail continue? Just concede the point!

Concede what point? The only thing you keep repeating is that elections equal progress. The entire country has to be put on lock down for these elections to take place with curfews. The insurgency will only continue to get stronger as it has over the past 2 and a half years. Why don't you concede the point that US troops are unable to stop the insurgency?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 01:23 AM
If you could read you would see that I acknowledged living standards would improve from their current standing. I fail to see how they will improve beyond Saddam-era standards when all the money is being siphoned out of the country by Bu$h's cronies however.
That is not true, Iraq's money is being reivested into the rebuiling.

[commiecrusader]

I dont know why this post exists... I didnt even write what was here previous to this edit...

[commiecrusader]

That is not true, Iraq's money is being reivested into the rebuiling.
of houses for people to work in Wester TNCs, and new TNC owned oil extractors, and to repair the damage done BY THE CAPITALI$T U$A!! Face it, without capitali$m, there wouldn't be all this rebuilding to be done.

[Phalanx]

[/QUOTE]
Are you just throwing this stuff out or do you have a source? I gave my source, what is yours? [/QUOTE]
BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4369350.stm)

Global Security (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/city.htm)

I even used capitalist newssources for you. Let's see you put out something nonbiased

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 01:24 AM

Why does your denail continue? Just concede the point!

Concede what point? The only thing you keep repeating is that elections equal progress. The entire country has to be put on lock down for these elections to take place with curfews. The insurgency will only continue to get stronger as it has over the past 2 and a half years. Why don't you concede the point that US troops are unable to stop the insurgency?
Where do you get the idea that the US is unable to repel the insurgency? Every major battle for control or Iraqi towns has gone to the US. Do you have a source for your claim? I gave mine.

The Iraqis themselves are tired of the insurgency. The insurgency doesn't even have a real center of gravity. It is made up of factions that often-times oppose each other as much as the coalition. And it does not continue to get stronger as you suggest. The insurgency peaked in 2004, but today is less of a factor that it was at it's height.

Realistically, we will not see the end of the insurgency as an isolated and pinpointed windfall event, but as a situation of attrition and loss of dedication over time, as Iraq ushers in a new era of democracy and the dead terrorists contiunue to accumulate.

Believe me or don't, buty we will all watch it happen.

[commiecrusader]

Believe me or don't
Don't you have an argument convincing enough to persuade us of your utopian point of view?

[ComTom]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Dec 16 2005, 01:08 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Dec 16 2005, 01:08 AM)
[email protected] 16 2005, 01:04 AM
Yes and if the white house claims something it must be true! :rolleyes:
Other sources have confirmed that the insurgency was defeated in Najaf. It's pretty well known.

The same has happened in all the ex-insurgent strongholds.

As I've said before, the insurgency is waning. They have been reduced from a force entrenched in major towns to a rag-tag group without a realistic objective or foothold in Iraq. [/b]
This is crazy. When the US forces defeated the insurgency and the presidency called it the Berlin of the insurgents. They claimed that this was their last battle and they were mortally maimed. But this was not true at all. Most insurgents escaped out of city before the battle even went on. This is the samething that happened in various westeren towns in the US offensives thier, they simply just crossed the border into Syria.

The insurgency is a wacka moll game, its impossible to oust the moles forever. You just have to keep hitting them, and soon you will get tired of putting so many quarters in.... and so much time into it, you will get weary and not play anymore. That is what Iraq will be.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Chinghis [email protected] 16 2005, 01:34 AM

Are you just throwing this stuff out or do you have a source? I gave my source, what is yours? [/QUOTE]
BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4369350.stm)

Global Security (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/city.htm)

I even used capitalist newssources for you. Let's see you put out something nonbiased [/quote]
I don't deny the figures from BBC news, as I'm sure the Iraqis want everyone out, including the insurgents and the coalition, but again I addressed this issue in an earlier post. Take note toward the end of the article, under "Exit Strategy", it seems that the BBC is bordering on editorializing on the left, as they quote liberal democrats about an exit strategy, which gives about 4x the text that Condi Rice's and Jack Straw's positon of stying the course got.

That is objective?

As for your global security page, I've read that before. It only addresses the insurgency through 2004, which I already said in an earlier post was when the insurgency peaked. We have had 2 elections, and many coalition victories in which insurdgents have been stripped of control in any metropolitain area in 2005. Things have changed, and the insurgents are loosing any support that they had.

[ComTom]

Iraq voted to stablize the soceity, so they could rebuild their families, their homes, and to stop the conflict. This conflict, in the Iraqi's eyes, is created by the American soldier. Most insurgent groups in Iraq are the Sunni Nationalist groups, who are seeming to merge with the Islamic fundementalist groups. These groups advocate a free Iraqi state, without occupation. If we pulled our troops out, there would be stability in a sense, but then Iraq will be pulled into civil war.

Turkey would occupy Kurdish Iraq due to the American support of rebels occupying the region. A second jihadist campaign will begin in the region. The country's growing economic pressures could refuel the insurgency. This might be the case if we did pull out our troops, even if we did win the "plan for victory" outlined by Mr. Bush. We will have to see though, this is the future. This whole topic is about what the future of Iraq is, and that is something, none of us can determine.

It is caused by the American occupation. But even if the Americans remained, their would be so much division, it would be impossible to govern the state.

[YKTMX]

In unrelated news:


Good news from Saigon!

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote: Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here. Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president.

A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta. Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power…

Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent.

click (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/GRO502A.html)


Hopefully this'll mean an end to the activities of the terrorist NLF and peace and democracy in Vietnam.


Yay for America!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 01:44 AM

Believe me or don't
Don't you have an argument convincing enough to persuade us of your utopian point of view?
That is the point, I don't have to convince you. History will vindicate my claims.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 02:39 AM
In unrelated news:


Good news from Saigon!

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote: Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here. Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president.

A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta. Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power…

Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent.

click (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/GRO502A.html)


Hopefully this'll mean an end to the activities of the terrorist NLF and peace and democracy in Vietnam.


Yay for America!
Nice, but again this faills under vietnam analogies which most reasonable objective historians will tell you are inept and problematic.

[ComTom]

History will destroy your claims. A guerilla group that has been fighting Turkey ever since the 20s, is taking refuge in Northeren Iraq, and even receives arms from us and is in charge of security up there. Does that no worry you and your capitalist buddies? Sunni's have hated Shiites for a very long time, has that not worried you? There are 100s of thousands, maybe millions of jihadist all around the world, who are thinking of heading to Iraq, does that no worry you. Our nation has stuck themselves in a war that is impossible to win.

[YKTMX]

Nice, but again this faills under vietnam analogies which most reasonable objective historians will tell you are inept and problematic.


I agree, the situation is diffirent.

The Imperal language never changes though.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Come on , AS, get serious. Of course I know what my name implies, that is why I chose it. There is a difference between supporting a benevolent empire and capitalism, and supporting terrorism.

....and what difference is that? ....perhaps that your "benevolent" empire commits more atrocities than terrorism could ever hope to achieve?

The "terrorists" wish to build an empire, you support an already established empire. There is really not that much of a difference between supporting one or the other.


Picking out ticky-tack errors overlooked due to the pace of debate distracts from the original topic.

Then why did you decide to pick out a "ticky-tack error" in Intifada's post?


By the way, I am paid for my skills as a linguist, and I can almost guarantee my English and vocabulary is better than yours. If you want to start an english/grammar tally, we can.

However, you will lose.

I think anyone reading this thread will realise you have the English skills of a retarded monkey.

Indeed if anyone does actually pay you for your skills as a linguist, (I think your blowing smoke out your ass on this one) then they are quite frankly wasting their money.

[Zingu]

Weren't people like you saying things like this in the last Iraqi elections? :lol:

[Correa]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 15 2005, 02:19 PM
Voter turnout is even heavier than expected, they even have had to keep some polling places open later. Additionally, Sunnis are coming out en masse to be heard.

Best of all, violence has been kept to a minimum.

This is really indicative of what the leftist media has vehemently avoided and denied for the last 12 months: That the US war effort in Iraq is making incredible progress.

Every purple finger is a bullet in the heart of the insurgency. Compunding this is that the iraqi forces are becoming more adept at repelling terrorist activities every day.

I know that it tears you commie-pukes to shreds to hear that the mission in Iraq is being accomplished, being that you were jizzing your pants to irresponsibly throw out your next inept "vietnam" analogy.

Sorry to disappoint you.

The reality is that the Iraq is fast becoming a success. Most leftists want defeat for the US in Iraq because it fits their anti-US agenda, without regard for granting Iraqis democracy and freedom in the region. Make no mistake about it, your liberal agenda is much more interested in seeing America fail than it is in the good of the Iraqi people. Luckily, the USA is a leader, and not a follower. We have stayed the course in the face of spineless bodies like the UN, france, spain, and Al Franken, and have done what is right. Now we find ourselves peering towards the horizon, and can see in the distance the birth of a new democracy.

And the left hates it.

So, for all of you red pundits who insisted Iraq would be a failure, how do you like your crow served?
I can't believe that a capistalist scum bag such yourself with 3000+ post on this board would refer to us as "liberals", attack "Al Franken" who is a piece of shit capitalist bourgeoisie "liberal" on your side of the fence, and pretend to be taken seriously. I don't think you know who you are talking to asshole. :marx: :hammer: :engles:

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Dec 16 2005, 01:42 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Dec 16 2005, 01:42 AM)
[email protected] 16 2005, 01:24 AM

Why does your denail continue? Just concede the point!

Concede what point? The only thing you keep repeating is that elections equal progress. The entire country has to be put on lock down for these elections to take place with curfews. The insurgency will only continue to get stronger as it has over the past 2 and a half years. Why don't you concede the point that US troops are unable to stop the insurgency?
Where do you get the idea that the US is unable to repel the insurgency? Every major battle for control or Iraqi towns has gone to the US. Do you have a source for your claim? I gave mine.

The Iraqis themselves are tired of the insurgency. The insurgency doesn't even have a real center of gravity. It is made up of factions that often-times oppose each other as much as the coalition. And it does not continue to get stronger as you suggest. The insurgency peaked in 2004, but today is less of a factor that it was at it's height.

Realistically, we will not see the end of the insurgency as an isolated and pinpointed windfall event, but as a situation of attrition and loss of dedication over time, as Iraq ushers in a new era of democracy and the dead terrorists contiunue to accumulate.

Believe me or don't, buty we will all watch it happen. [/b]
Where do I get the idea that the US is unable to repel the insurgency? I get that idea from the fact that an attack happens on a daily basis and US soldiers are dying on a weekly basis, if you don't believe me, read any newspaper.

This isn't a war for territory, every time the US move sin on part of the insurgency, for example Fallujah the insurgents simply relocate elsewhere and continue their attacks.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Yeah. We don't have honest elections here in the USA. Pull on your ear and let some of the air out. Got to love guillable people, rock on Bushes little helper.

[Free Palestine]

The Iraqi "elections" were orchestrated by the Bush administration based on a schedule, and for purposes that have nothing to do with Iraqi interests and what the Iraqi people want. We have to remember that this is a country under foreign occupation. There is no way you can have reliable, free elections in a country with the presence of 160,000 troops from another place.

Also remember Seymour Hersh's article in the New Yorker months after the last round of elections that revealed (and this was not disputed) that the US and Britain interfered to rig the elections in order to boost the fortunes of their own puppets like Alawi and with all our taxpayers money that they spent on his campaign, he still didn't capture more than 14% of the vote!

And I also believe that the US is running way too many elections in Iraq, I think they need that to validate the Bush doctrine. In the absence of any gains or victories for the US and its agenda, they need to show these images to the American public to give them the false pretense of "progress" in Iraq. And voting in itself is not "democracy" necessarily.. If anything, this is not even a modern ritual, it is an attempt by many Iraqis to assert their democratic weight. These sectarian Iraqi groups (Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds) are going to the ballot boxes in order to chart for themselves a piece of this ever-decreasing pie.

[Intifada]

CI, I am still waiting for you to address my points about the Iraqi insurgency, and the fact that the majority of Iraqis want an end to the US-led occupation.

(Capitalist Idiot)

I'm dealing with facts here, not rhetoric

You are avoiding the facts.


By the way, your nickname indicates that you could be a terrorist sympathizer, and thus your legitimacy may be compromised.


Right, because my nickname means uprising; shudder; awakening, in Arabic, I am a terrorist sympathiser.

The word is derived from the word nafada which basically means to shake off. Intifada is used to describe the shaking off of the chains of occupation.

I think the fact that I call you an idiot is backed up by the ignorance you have shown so far.

You have shown that you have a negative and stereotypical view of all things Arabic.


The reality is that the intelligence was in fact faulty.


Even if we assume this excuse to be true, it shows that US intelligence is unreliable when it comes to Iraq. They want us to believe that they are succeeding in Iraq, but the facts are that US troops are not safe in a country which wants them out.

Until the US are removed from Iraq, there will be no peace.


Thus, the USA established this as an understandable pretext for liberation

Yes, because occupation equals liberation...

[Andy Bowden]

If the US are really confident about their acceptance by the Iraqi people, why don't they hold a referendum on their prescence in Iraq, along side the national elections?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Atlas [email protected] 16 2005, 11:31 AM
Yeah. We don't have honest elections here in the USA. Pull on your ear and let some of the air out. Got to love guillable people, rock on Bushes little helper.
You're a simp.

Why don't your try something more original and analytical that the off-the-shelf "you're brainwashed and gullible" one liner. It is cliche, lazy, and innacurate.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are gullible and you are enlightened.

Of course, I wouldn't expect an uneducated and generally stupid anarchist dolt like you to understand that.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 16 2005, 12:59 PM
If the US are really confident about their acceptance by the Iraqi people, why don't they hold a referendum on their prescence in Iraq, along side the national elections?
Because the Iraqi people may think they want the US out now, but it would not be in their interests.

Leaving now would be tatamount to surrender, which won't happen, and additionally Iraq would be much worse off if we left now as opposed to letting transition occur organically and within due time.

[Ownthink]

Of course, I wouldn't expect an uneducated and generally stupid anarchist dolt like you to understand that.
Flaming, warning point is deserved here!


Because the Iraqi people may think they want the US out now, but it would not be in their interests.
Because that makes alot of fucking sense! Do their thinking for them, since they are clearly too stupid to decide for themselves or have their opinions!

I mean, it IS their country!

[Intifada]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Dec 16 2005, 06:11 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Dec 16 2005, 06:11 PM)
Andy [email protected] 16 2005, 12:59 PM
If the US are really confident about their acceptance by the Iraqi people, why don't they hold a referendum on their prescence in Iraq, along side the national elections?
Because the Iraqi people may think they want the US out now, but it would not be in their interests.

Leaving now would be tatamount to surrender, which won't happen, and additionally Iraq would be much worse off if we left now as opposed to letting transition occur organically and within due time. [/b]
In other words, the opinion of the Iraqi people does not have as much value as the opinion of Washington.

What a democracy!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 12:02 PM
CI, I am still waiting for you to address my points about the Iraqi insurgency, and the fact that the majority of Iraqis want an end to the US-led occupation.

(Capitalist Idiot)

I'm dealing with facts here, not rhetoric

You are avoiding the facts.


By the way, your nickname indicates that you could be a terrorist sympathizer, and thus your legitimacy may be compromised.


Right, because my nickname means uprising; shudder; awakening, in Arabic, I am a terrorist sympathiser.

The word is derived from the word nafada which basically means to shake off. Intifada is used to describe the shaking off of the chains of occupation.

I think the fact that I call you an idiot is backed up by the ignorance you have shown so far.

You have shown that you have a negative and stereotypical view of all things Arabic.


The reality is that the intelligence was in fact faulty.


Even if we assume this excuse to be true, it shows that US intelligence is unreliable when it comes to Iraq. They want us to believe that they are succeeding in Iraq, but the facts are that US troops are not safe in a country which wants them out.

Until the US are removed from Iraq, there will be no peace.


Thus, the USA established this as an understandable pretext for liberation

Yes, because occupation equals liberation...
I told you Intifada, I read your post, and I found that was totally broad, rhetorical and rehashed in this and other threads.

As I've said before, the Iraqis want the US out, as they want an end to the violence, period. However, they don't want Iraq to be left in shambles and in the hands of fundamentalist hardliners.

Pollsters can get any results they want with the right questions.

By the way, where do get that the insurgents were supporting the vote?

I would like to read about it.

[Intifada]

(Capitalist Idiot)

By the way, where do get that the insurgents were supporting the vote?

I would like to read about it.

It was quite well reported here in the UK.

Here are a few articles:

Iraqis flock to polls as insurgents urge Sunnis to vote (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1668829,00.html)

Iraq insurgents reject al Qaeda election threat (http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=65848)

Ba'athist insurgents to protect Iraq elections (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/11/uirq.xml)


I told you Intifada, I read your post, and I found that was totally broad, rhetorical and rehashed in this and other threads.


Ignoring my arguments...


As I've said before, the Iraqis want the US out, as they want an end to the violence, period. However, they don't want Iraq to be left in shambles and in the hands of fundamentalist hardliners.


The Iraqis want the US troops out as soon as possible.

That is a fact.

End of story.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 06:15 PM

Of course, I wouldn't expect an uneducated and generally stupid anarchist dolt like you to understand that.
Flaming, warning point is deserved here!


Because the Iraqi people may think they want the US out now, but it would not be in their interests.
Because that makes alot of fucking sense! Do their thinking for them, since they are clearly too stupid to decide for themselves or have their opinions!

I mean, it IS their country!
Make no mistake about it, many Iraqis are uneducated peasants and have been fed lies by local clerics and others as well as the propogandist Al Jazeera about the realities of the US presence and status of the nation. Additionally, they are under religious pressure, which, as we all know, is a powerfull control tool.

Their opinion is not necessarily a totally informed one.

This is not a slight against Iraqis, it is just a reality that reflects typical third world populations.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Intifada+Dec 16 2005, 06:17 PM--> (Intifada @ Dec 16 2005, 06:17 PM)
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 16 2005, 06:11 PM

Andy [email protected] 16 2005, 12:59 PM
If the US are really confident about their acceptance by the Iraqi people, why don't they hold a referendum on their prescence in Iraq, along side the national elections?
Because the Iraqi people may think they want the US out now, but it would not be in their interests.

Leaving now would be tatamount to surrender, which won't happen, and additionally Iraq would be much worse off if we left now as opposed to letting transition occur organically and within due time.
In other words, the opinion of the Iraqi people does not have as much value as the opinion of Washington.

What a democracy! [/b]
Do you actually think that the USA leaving Iraq now is the right thing to do? Do you actually think that it would be good for Iraq?

Be honest, really think about it.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 07:06 PM

The Iraqis want the US troops out as soon as possible.

That is a fact.

End of story.
Only a simpleton dumbass such as you would think in such absolutes and simple logic.

Address the notion of how an immediate coalition pullout would be good for Iraq.

Do you want to encourage terrorism? Because that is certainly what a pullout will do. It will basically state that with a little holdout, the US can be defeated by terrorists. Spain may take that position, but the US is made of sterner stuff. This, such surrender is unacceptable.

I think you just want to see a US pullout because you could hang your hat on a US surrender, even if terrorists carry the day. You are a defeatist, plain and simple, like most of the pacifying, lay-down, accomodate-at-all-costs, sycophanitic extreme left.

[Free Palestine]

Can we just ban this idiot? I'm tired of explaining things to him over and over.

[Intifada]

(Capitalist Idiot)

Do you actually think that the USA leaving Iraq now is the right thing to do?

Yes.

The country is already in chaos, and US occupation will not help alleviate the security problems, but worsen them.


Do you actually think that it would be good for Iraq?


Yes.

Iraq, at the moment, is controlled by a Washington-friendly puppet government, which has no problem with treating Iraqis like shit.

As an anti-imperialist, I believe a pullout of US troops would most definitely be good for the Iraqis.

The Iraqis themselves believe this, and that is why they want the occupation to end as soon as possible.


Be honest, really think about it.

You accuse the uneducated Iraqis of believing lies fed to them by various people.

Get your head out of your ass, and realise that the US has always acted in her own interests, and never in the interests of indigenous populations.

An Iraq free of US imperialism is the best thing for Iraq.

Just ask the Iranians, or Nicaraguans.


Do you want to encourage terrorism? Because that is certainly what a pullout will do.

Terrorism came to Iraq after the US occupation.

Furthered occupation will only help the terrorists.

Do you honestly think that Muslims worldwide will just let bygones be bygones, and forgive America for the crimes they have committed, in the name of freedom and justice?

The longer the US acts as it has done in Iraq, the more terrorists the US will create - worldwide.


I think you just want to see a US pullout because you could hang your hat on a US surrender

No.

I want a US-pullout because I am an anti-imperialist.

And you talk about the same rhetoric being regurgitated by the extreme left...

:rolleyes:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Do you want to encourage terrorism? Because that is certainly what a pullout will do. It will basically state that with a little holdout, the US can be defeated by terrorists. Spain may take that position, but the US is made of sterner stuff. This, such surrender is unacceptable.

Attacks on an imperialist power illegally occupying another sovereign nation isn't terrorism, you stupid cock end.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 16 2005, 07:43 PM
Can we just ban this idiot? I'm tired of explaining things to him over and over.
Don't worry.

CI reached 100% on his warn level today.

The poll seems to be going in favour of a ban, at last.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 16 2005, 07:43 PM
Can we just ban this idiot? I'm tired of explaining things to him over and over.

Can we just ban this idiot? I'm tired of explaining things to him over and over.

Can we just ban this idiot? I'm tired of explaining things to him over and over.

See? I can say it too, FP, it doesn't mean anything.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Intifada+Dec 16 2005, 07:50 PM--> (Intifada @ Dec 16 2005, 07:50 PM)
Free [email protected] 16 2005, 07:43 PM
Can we just ban this idiot? I'm tired of explaining things to him over and over.
Don't worry.

CI reached 100% on his warn level today.

The poll seems to be going in favour of a ban, at last. [/b]
I'm not surprised by that at all. I knew that you commie-pukes couldn't handle a real voice of lucidity and reason for too long.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

[Ownthink]

Liberalism is a mental disorder.
And Ann Coulter is a total asshole, kinda like you.

Oops, I guess that could be considered flaming.

But I don't consider Capitalist Imperial to be a person worthy of getting so worked up over.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Dec 16 2005, 08:36 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Dec 16 2005, 08:36 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 07:50 PM

Free [email protected] 16 2005, 07:43 PM
Can we just ban this idiot? I'm tired of explaining things to him over and over.
Don't worry.

CI reached 100% on his warn level today.

The poll seems to be going in favour of a ban, at last.
I'm not surprised by that at all. I knew that you commie-pukes couldn't handle a real voice of lucidity and reason for too long. [/b]
Actually, we are simply fed up with your inability to debate with any rationality and intelligence.


Liberalism is a mental disorder.

I agree.

Communism is a much better ideology.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 16 2005, 08:36 PM
I'm not surprised by that at all. I knew that you commie-pukes couldn't handle a real voice of lucidity and reason for too long.
Quit masturbating over your own self-aggrandisement, nobody's impressed apart from yourself. You've been here for a good while, so quit the bullshit persecution complex.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 09:25 PM

But I don't consider Capitalist Imperial to be a person worthy of getting so worked up over.
Your posts indicate otherwise. Your own outbursts betray you.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 09:47 PM
Actually, we are simply fed up with your inability to debate with any rationality and intelligence.


Please provide an example where I have been irrational to a degree unacceptable in this forum.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Dec 16 2005, 06:16 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Dec 16 2005, 06:16 PM)
[email protected] 16 2005, 09:25 PM

But I don't consider Capitalist Imperial to be a person worthy of getting so worked up over.
Your posts indicate otherwise. Your own outbursts betray you. [/b]
Ha, you call those outbursts?

I call them insults, but whatever. Twisting words is what you do best! :lol:

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by NoXion+Dec 16 2005, 10:05 PM--> (NoXion @ Dec 16 2005, 10:05 PM)
Capitalist [email protected] 16 2005, 08:36 PM
I'm not surprised by that at all. I knew that you commie-pukes couldn't handle a real voice of lucidity and reason for too long.
Quit masturbating over your own self-aggrandisement, nobody's impressed apart from yourself. You've been here for a good while, so quit the bullshit persecution complex. [/b]
Then why is there actually a refrendum regardingby banishment?

[The Grey Blur]

Guardian2 Article
Twenty dinar - the price of democracy

Ghaith Abdul-Ahad -
Wednesday December 14, 2005

The majority of the Iraqi community in Amman congregates in the bustling markets and sewage-filled streets of downtown; eating in Iraqi restaurants, seeking work or selling faked Iraqi antiquities, smuggled cigarettes and old currency with pictures of Saddam on it to nostalgic pan-Arabs.
Yesterday, in the middle of one such market, stood six buses, five of them plastered with posters of the former Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi. At first I thought they were advertising the Iraqi elections; after all, billboards featuring Iraqi politicians are now competing with those of McDonald's or KFC in the Jordanian capital, host to one of the world's biggest Iraqi expatriate communities.

With a dark blue background, Allawi's posters are a bit sinister. He has two postures: one is serious, with a frown like someone holding his breath. The other looks like the cover to a Sopranos DVD, Allawi - as fat and chubby as Tony - wincing and giving off a foxy smile.
As I stood next to the buses, slightly puzzled, a kid came up to me and asked: "Do you want to vote?"

"Yes, maybe," I replied, voting in the elections having started a day earlier outside Iraq. "Why?"

"Don't accept less than 10 Jordanian dinars. Yesterday they paid us five."

At that moment I realised the entire crowd around me was bartering their votes. An old woman was demanding an extra 10JD for bringing her sister and husband. A man with a brown suit and a moustache appeared to be running the show - he had two mobile phones in his hands, talking and hurling people into different buses.

The man with the suit shouted at one driver to head to the polling station at Wihdat, and as people sheepishly climbed into the bus, I followed. The old woman and her relatives came, too.

As the bus bumped along, the only discussion was about how much we would get. What if they only got five dinars like the poor people yesterday?

"My brother said if they don't pay me $50, I shouldn't vote," one woman said. Another replied: "Even five is good - we can buy potatoes for a week."

After 15 minutes' driving, we reached the polling station. The bus parked at the end of the street less than 10m from the Jordanian police securing the station. There we were given the good news: today's price was to be 20JD.

Asked to sit in the bus and wait, we were approached by a long-haired kid who gave us each a blue and green leaflet with Allawi's smiling, wincing face on one side and on the other his manifesto. "Integrity and fighting corruption," read one of his pledges. "Keep these papers and hand them back when you come out," said the kid. "Make sure you get your money as you cast your vote."

An announcement was made that a 1JD commission would be taken from our 20JDs, and a fight nearly broke out. But soon, everything was sorted out and the 18 Iraqis on the bus went off to participate in Iraq's new democracy.

Outside the station people showed their purple fingers and their Allawi receipts. The organisers handed out the money as fast as possible before driving away to bring a new group of voters. The long-haired kid told me we were the 12th group that day.

A few minutes afterwards, the old woman and her family emerged to find no one outside. They waited for 20 minutes, but no one showed up. "And they talk about democracy," said the woman. "What democracy - they didn't pay us our money!"

Loving that liberty Capitalist Imperial :D

[Capitalist Imperial]

Thuis it typical of the middle east, and has little to do with the USA

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Dec 16 2005, 06:05 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Dec 16 2005, 06:05 PM)
Atlas [email protected] 16 2005, 11:31 AM
Yeah. We don't have honest elections here in the USA. Pull on your ear and let some of the air out. Got to love guillable people, rock on Bushes little helper.
You're a simp.

Why don't your try something more original and analytical that the off-the-shelf "you're brainwashed and gullible" one liner. It is cliche, lazy, and innacurate.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are gullible and you are enlightened.

Of course, I wouldn't expect an uneducated and generally stupid anarchist dolt like you to understand that. [/b]
From looking at your post it is an accurate assumption. Your arguments are so idiotic it seems as though you are a closet leftist afraid to come out. Someone who eats all the shit the government feeds them and defends it is a pretty good indicator your brainwashed. I don't recall implying I was enlightened. I wasonly implying that you are a brainwashed jackass and Im sticking to it. Anyone whose hero is the muddled brained, cowardly actor Reagan does not deserve much time or effort anyway. Doesn't Fox have a forum you can post on Jack ass? :blink: :( :rolleyes: :P

[The Grey Blur]

Thuis it typical of the middle east
Corruption? Of course it is, it is also typical in all Capitalist societies (i.e America)


and has little to do with the USA

Well let's see...

It's an American presense in Iraq that's orchestrating this election, it's American money that is funding the elections, it's an American-embracing platform that the majority of Candidates are running on, it's American "democracy" that is being duplicated and, fundamentally, these elections are an attempt at legitamising America's presense in Iraq.

I'd say it has a lot to do with America Capitalist Imperial.... :rolleyes:

These elections are (as stated above) just another attempt to legitimise America's presense in Iraq but how can any results be trusted when corruption is so prevalent?

Would you personally trust the results of an election where corruption is so prevalent that voters are being openly bribed?

(Oh wait, of course you do; that's how Bush was elected! Ho-ho-ho!...no seriously, answer the question)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Dec 16 2005, 11:40 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Dec 16 2005, 11:40 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 10:05 PM

Capitalist [email protected] 16 2005, 08:36 PM
I'm not surprised by that at all. I knew that you commie-pukes couldn't handle a real voice of lucidity and reason for too long.
Quit masturbating over your own self-aggrandisement, nobody's impressed apart from yourself. You've been here for a good while, so quit the bullshit persecution complex.
Then why is there actually a refrendum regardingby banishment? [/b]
Because we've finally gotten sick of your bullshit?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by NoXion+Dec 17 2005, 12:36 AM--> (NoXion @ Dec 17 2005, 12:36 AM)
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 16 2005, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 10:05 PM

Capitalist [email protected] 16 2005, 08:36 PM
I'm not surprised by that at all. I knew that you commie-pukes couldn't handle a real voice of lucidity and reason for too long.
Quit masturbating over your own self-aggrandisement, nobody's impressed apart from yourself. You've been here for a good while, so quit the bullshit persecution complex.
Then why is there actually a refrendum regardingby banishment?
Because we've finally gotten sick of your bullshit? [/b]
Which specific posts are considered bullshit above and beyond the norm in this forum?

I've asked this twice now, and no one has pointed one out.

[Intifada]

The fact that you have ignored half of my posts, and when asked for sources by Free Palestine you refused.

Why do you want to stay here enyway?

Do you not have anything better to do?

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by Intifada+Dec 16 2005, 07:50 PM--> (Intifada @ Dec 16 2005, 07:50 PM)
Free [email protected] 16 2005, 07:43 PM
Can we just ban this idiot? I'm tired of explaining things to him over and over.
Don't worry.

CI reached 100% on his warn level today.

The poll seems to be going in favour of a ban, at last. [/b]
Why ban him? I don't like what he stands for but don't see a need to ban him. If he annoys you so much don't post in opossing idealogy. He is not going to sway anyone into his way of thinking, he is not a danger to anyone. Sadly he reminds me of my brother, whom I love very deeply even though he is a brainwashed right wing ditto head moron(polictically, he is very intelligent otherwise). C.I. is good for entertainment purposes kind of like the village idiot :)

[Intifada]

Why ban him? I don't like what he stands for but don't see a need to ban him. If he annoys you so much don't post in opossing idealogy. He is not going to sway anyone into his way of thinking, he is not a danger to anyone. Sadly he reminds me of my brother, whom I love very deeply even though he is a brainwashed right wing ditto head moron(polictically, he is very intelligent otherwise). C.I. is good for entertainment purposes kind of like the village idiot

Bullshit is tolerable up to a certain point.

[Ownthink]

Just "don't go to OI" if he annoys us that badly? That's disrupting the board, ban him.

[The Grey Blur]

Can we keep this on-topic please? If the Commie Club is debating about his banning can y'all keep it in the clubhouse? Thanks

Otherewise CI might be distracted from my brilliant arguments :P

[Free Palestine]

You don't think he'd come up with an excuse to ignore substantive posts anyway?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 10:00 AM
The fact that you have ignored half of my posts, and when asked for sources by Free Palestine you refused.

Why do you want to stay here enyway?

Do you not have anything better to do?
I can't tell you how many times I've been accused of ignoring posts when in fact the accuser was too lazt yto go back and look. If you link me to the posts in question, I will in fact respond and provide sources.

[Free Palestine]

So this is your idea of a "successful" election?

"Political parties complained of violations ranging from dead men voting to murder in the streets."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5121701021.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121701021.html)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 18 2005, 11:22 PM
So this is your idea of a "successful" election?

"Political parties complained of violations ranging from dead men voting to murder in the streets."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5121701021.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121701021.html)
First of all, the Washington post is a leftist rag.

Secondly, yes, of course I do. About 200 unsubstantiated complaints in a naton of tens of millions that had a 70% turnout? I never saisd it was perfect, but it certainly was an overall success.

[Correa]

First of all, the Washington post is a leftist rag.

This just goes to show how little you understand the "left". The Washington post is a liberal newspaper far from "left wing". I'm afraid they are your allies in the fight against capitalism. :P

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 12:27 AM

First of all, the Washington post is a leftist rag.

This just goes to show how little you understand the "left". The Washington post is a liberal newspaper far from "left wing". I'm afraid they are your allies in the fight against capitalism. :P
You really are dumb aren't you?

I am quite familiar with the Washington post. I don't care what your interpretation of the Post is, but mine stands.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Dec 18 2005, 08:02 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Dec 18 2005, 08:02 PM)
[email protected] 19 2005, 12:27 AM

First of all, the Washington post is a leftist rag.

This just goes to show how little you understand the "left". The Washington post is a liberal newspaper far from "left wing". I'm afraid they are your allies in the fight against capitalism. :P
You really are dumb aren't you?

I am quite familiar with the Washington post. I don't care what your interpretation of the Post is, but mine stands. [/b]
Dumbass; I don't think you get it. He is trying to tell you that being "Liberal" does in no way make you part of the Left at all. It simply makes you a bourgeois capitalist who is critical of the current system and thinks that pacifism and being a pussy are the coolest things ever.

[Capitalist Imperial]

It simply makes you a bourgeois capitalist who is critical of the current system and thinks that pacifism and being a pussy are the coolest things ever.

Just like I said, your typical leftist. The left's very M.O. is pacifism at all costs, equality without quality, self paralysis by way of political correctness, and Anlgophobia.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2005, 05:14 AM

It simply makes you a bourgeois capitalist who is critical of the current system and thinks that pacifism and being a pussy are the coolest things ever.

Just like I said, your typical leftist. The left's very M.O. is pacifism at all costs, equality without quality, self paralysis by way of political correctness, and Anlgophobia.

Were the Anarchists being passive in Spain? .....or were the Russians being passive in 1917? .....or perhaps the German Communists were being passive when they were fighting in the streets with Nazi's? .....or when the militant left fought with Mosleyites in Britain, they were being passive?

Honestly you can't have it both ways. You start threads saying the left has killed a zillion people and then you say the left is passive. Take your head out of your ass and make your mind up.

[Guerrilla22]

It simply makes you a bourgeois capitalist who is critical of the current system and thinks that pacifism and being a pussy are the coolest things ever.

There are quite a few people on this board, some who claim to be leftist who tpacifism is great. Just look at the 10,000 threads about FARC that have been on this board.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Dec 18 2005, 10:10 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Dec 18 2005, 10:10 PM)
[email protected] 17 2005, 10:00 AM
The fact that you have ignored half of my posts, and when asked for sources by Free Palestine you refused.

Why do you want to stay here enyway?

Do you not have anything better to do?
I can't tell you how many times I've been accused of ignoring posts when in fact the accuser was too lazt yto go back and look. If you link me to the posts in question, I will in fact respond and provide sources. [/b]
The bottom of page three of this thread...

[Ownthink]

Just like I said, your typical leftist.
Typical liberal.

Jesus, you're fucking slow at learning.

[spartafc]

Now that we've seen 2 responses comprised of nothing but hateful rhetoric and obvious denial, lets look at the facts ......
Democracy:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20051212-1.html

Rebuilding:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...2/20051207.html

The training of Iraqi domestic security forces:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...1/20051130.html

i'm sorry - but you tell us you're going to show us the facts and then provide three US Gov press releases!

Surely you see the funny side and won't begrudge this communist a good hardy laugh.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by rioters bloc+Dec 15 2005, 11:32 PM--> (rioters bloc @ Dec 15 2005, 11:32 PM)
Capitalist [email protected] 16 2005, 10:16 AM
Human death is not the only measure of progress or lack therof.
do you think it's "progressive" that the living standards of almost all the people in iraq is now considerably lower than it was before the occupation? [/b]

Right-wingers always measure progress by thy yardstick of "fair elections," not by what is actually going on.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

100,000 Iraqi's have died, the standard of living for Iraqis has greatly decreased, human rights are worse now than they were under Saddam (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/fp16r.html), women's rights are gone, gasoline in Iraq costs six times what it did under Saddam, the Sharia courts (based on Islamic law) have returned and the majority of the people in Iraq, in the U.S., and in the world overall think that the war should have never happened and that it should be ended immeditely.

Sounds like a success to me.

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 15 2005, 09:19 PM
Voter turnout is even heavier than expected, they even have had to keep some polling places open later. Additionally, Sunnis are coming out en masse to be heard.

Best of all, violence has been kept to a minimum.

This is really indicative of what the leftist media has vehemently avoided and denied for the last 12 months: That the US war effort in Iraq is making incredible progress.

Every purple finger is a bullet in the heart of the insurgency. Compunding this is that the iraqi forces are becoming more adept at repelling terrorist activities every day.

I know that it tears you commie-pukes to shreds to hear that the mission in Iraq is being accomplished, being that you were jizzing your pants to irresponsibly throw out your next inept "vietnam" analogy.

Sorry to disappoint you.

The reality is that the Iraq is fast becoming a success. Most leftists want defeat for the US in Iraq because it fits their anti-US agenda, without regard for granting Iraqis democracy and freedom in the region. Make no mistake about it, your liberal agenda is much more interested in seeing America fail than it is in the good of the Iraqi people. Luckily, the USA is a leader, and not a follower. We have stayed the course in the face of spineless bodies like the UN, france, spain, and Al Franken, and have done what is right. Now we find ourselves peering towards the horizon, and can see in the distance the birth of a new democracy.

And the left hates it.

So, for all of you red pundits who insisted Iraq would be a failure, how do you like your crow served?
I don't hate it you fucking ignorant piece of shit. If you respected Iraqi democracy, you would leave because they want you to leave. Fucking ignorant retard.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 19 2005, 05:14 AM


Just like I said, your typical leftist. The left's very M.O. is pacifism at all costs, equality without quality, self paralysis by way of political correctness, and Anlgophobia.
Just because someone does not support wars whose main purpose is to make your scumbag heroes money does not make them a pacifist. Maybe in your warped mind killing and starving thousands of people who were never a threat to the United States so they can have a bullshit fixed election, makes it justifiable. You are just a cheerleader like your boy Dumbya.