How American quislings are running Iraq

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by London Times
Exodus of the Iraqi middle class

Shia militias are driving out professionals in Baghdad

COLLEAGUES were astonished when Hussain, a nurse at Kadimiyah Hospital in Baghdad, turned up for work in a new suit with a pistol strapped around his waist and announced that he was now in charge.

A doctor who ridiculed the idea of this 34-year-old appointing himself administrator of the 700-bed hospital was slapped across the face by his new boss, who ordered armed security guards to escort the medic from the building.

The expulsion was a brutal warning to other staff who might question the right of the al-Mahdi Army, a Shia militia, to install one of their own to run the hospital.

The same is happening in schools and colleges, the Civil Service and government ministries and leading businesses as Baghdad’s middle classes are sacked to make way for militia apparatchiks. For many professionals this assault on their livelihoods and expertise is the final straw, and they are leaving Baghdad in droves.

Head teachers complain that they have been usurped by militia loyalists who do not have the necessary qualifications or experience. They say teachers are afraid to discipline children of militia gunmen, or give these youngsters anything but the highest marks. The headmistress of a junior school in Gazaliyah, west Baghdad, was murdered for rebuking the ten-year-old son of a local militia leader. Her husband was waiting at the school gates to drive her and their daughter home. Two cars ambushed the family and shot dead all three in full view of other parents.

A Baghdad University professor, who is too afraid to give his name, said: “We are all victims of this new thought police. No longer content to intimidate us with violence, these militias want to control our every move, so they appoint the administrators and managers while dissenters lose their jobs.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2174643,00.html

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[theraven]

now i may be a stupid cappy...but didn't we fight sadrs forcse? can they really be called our "quizlings"

[Andy Bowden]

Moqtada Al Sadr and the British forces in the south of Iraq have came to an "understanding" <_<

[JudeObscure84]

There isnt an understanding. There is a we dont mess with you if you dont mess with us or an the enemy of my enemy is my friend kind of deal. I wish the American force would just take down the Shia Militia groups but that would escalate the already started proxy war with Iran.

[Andy Bowden]

They&#39;ve been established into the police and are working with the Brits in the south of Iraq. Thats as close as you can get to an "understanding".

[Oh-Dae-Su]

i just got one question&#33; how is America guilty of this again? :blink:

so...Shia militant&#39;s actions are now our fault too?? :rolleyes:

[redstar2000]

Everything bad that has happened in Iraq since the first Gulf War is the direct responsibility of U.S. imperialism&#33;

That goes as well for everything bad that will happen in the decades to come...the wrecking job that U.S. imperialists have done on that country is like 1,000 Hurricane Katrinas.

You want to see what Cuba would look like if the U.S. reconquered it? Take a look at Iraq, you gusano dumbass&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Everything bad that has happened in Iraq since the first Gulf War is the direct responsibility of U.S. imperialism&#33;

That goes as well for everything bad that will happen in the decades to come...the wrecking job that U.S. imperialists have done on that country is like 1,000 Hurricane Katrinas.

where is your evidence?, yeah everything is soooo bad because of us, even a retard can say that, but tell me the linkage? show me your evidence? ahh you can&#39;t huh&#33;? hahahahah looser



You want to see what Cuba would look like if the U.S. reconquered it? Take a look at Iraq, you gusano dumbass&#33;

umm actually NO, there is a big difference between Cuba and Iraq&#33;&#33; DUMBASS&#33;&#33; to start off, they are in 2 very different regions of the world, 1 in which there are no religious fanatics and where there is actual love for the Americans, and the other which is totally different.....so that is total bullshit, if not look at South Korea, i guess if we go by that example , Iraq should have already been like South Korea, but since they are 2 very distinct and different countries the outcomes are different.....i mean this is something that is logical you stupid LOOSER&#33;&#33; even a person with half a brain can tell that the outcomes in different countries will differ....MORON&#33;&#33;&#33; why don&#39;t you start thinking and using your brain cells&#33;&#33;

hahaha i rip you appart every time....no wonder you changed my Member Title twice, redstar crusher ;)

[JudeObscure84]

Everything bad that has happened in Iraq since the first Gulf War is the direct responsibility of U.S. imperialism&#33;

How can you liogically assert that? Do not the insurgents operate on thier own mandate as well?


That goes as well for everything bad that will happen in the decades to come...the wrecking job that U.S. imperialists have done on that country is like 1,000 Hurricane Katrinas.

So you assume this a priori?

[overlord]

...the wrecking job that U.S. imperialists have done on that country is like 1,000 Hurricane Katrinas.


This is due to the pure brute power that is the U.S. military machine. Saddam was doing too much business with the Russians. I hope Kim and Castro are taking note of what will soon happen to their ridiculous states should they continue to cross American business.


You want to see what Cuba would look like if the U.S. reconquered it? Take a look at Iraq, you gusano dumbass&#33;


Iraq is a rich country. If al-kaida hadn&#39;t taken over we would be seeing the Halliburton skyscrapers going up by now. Look at Dubay and Rhiad.

[Janus]

Saddam was doing too much business with the Russians.
He hardly did any and it seems that they supplied him with wrong info. about the invasion as well.


should they continue to cross American business.
Wow&#33; Such aggression. Why doesn&#39;t the US just invade any country that "crosses their business"? :lol:


If al-kaida hadn&#39;t taken over we would be seeing the Halliburton skyscrapers going up by now. Look at Dubay and Rhiad.
:blink: Are you talking about Al-Qaeda? You are seriously misled on certain issues. Al-Qaeda has and never will take over. You seriously think that without the insurgency, Iraq would&#39;ve been built that quickly?

[JudeObscure84]

He hardly did any and it seems that they supplied him with wrong info. about the invasion as well.

Are you kidding Saddam was supplied with 56% of arms by the USSR. Later he opted to go with france which supplied him with about 20% of his weapons, China constituted 13%, and the US with 1% ( which were mainly civilian aircrafts).

During Saddams Al-Anfal campaign and the Iran-Iraq War, the US only exported spores and samples (dual use material) to Iraq which constituted only 5% of its exports of samples throughout the world. US Congress prosecuted several companies for evading export restrictions and the US Democrats were the most vocal second to the Scandanavian countries about Saddam&#39;s Kurdish genocide.

the only thing the US is guilty of is taking a blind eye stance for too long and keeping arms length diplomatic ties with Saddam via the paleo-con Republicans. All this while USSR, China and France were arming him to the tee.


Wow&#33; Such aggression. Why doesn&#39;t the US just invade any country that "crosses their business"?

Its in the national security stradegy. Its no secret. Its publicly documented. Any nation that harbord Islamic terrorists or terrorists with ill will towards the US is subject to sanctions, severing of diplomatic ties, and a pre-emptive strike if there is an extreme case.


Are you talking about Al-Qaeda? You are seriously misled on certain issues. Al-Qaeda has and never will take over. You seriously think that without the insurgency, Iraq would&#39;ve been built that quickly?

No Al-Queda will not take over. Not while US Marines and the Kurdish Peshmerga are there. But Al-Queda is not the only insurgency, there are countless Baathist, Sunni Nationalist ones too. There is hardly a people&#39;s vangaurd like the VietCong for there to be any take over of Iraq.

And yes, the nation would&#39;ve had most of thier infrastructre rebuilt had it not been for the ongoing violence in the Sunni Triangle. Northern Iraq was built up by the Kurds in a span of three years because of the Clinton imposed No Fly Zones, and it contrasts central and sourthern Iraq drastically. If you look at Halliburton porfolio and net profits, they are downed heavily in losses. There is hardly any war profiteering at all for they are losing net profits by the millions. I guess you can thank the lovely anti-globalization militias that also like to cut off peoples heads and blow up mosques. But then again any anti-globalization movement is good enough for you guys, right?
Point is all companies are losing money because of the insurgency and the occupation troops shoddy attemps to keep the peace. The insurgency is infiltrating the police, the army and the regional politics trying to destroy a federal Iraq. Something that not even the trade unions want in Iraq.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

well said Jade, it&#39;s what iv always been saying, to sum it up, if the Iraqi&#39;s were intelligent, they would not do these stupid insurgencies and let the Americans do the work, and in a while we will be gone, with of course a small reduced presence of military personel in some distant air base or something....BUT NO&#33;&#33;&#33; WE ARE THE NASTY INFIDELS&#33; ok fine, then let your country not get any advancements in what looks like a loooooooong time and rot....

[JudeObscure84]

well said Jade, it&#39;s what iv always been saying, to sum it up, if the Iraqi&#39;s were intelligent, they would not do these stupid insurgencies and let the Americans do the work, and in a while we will be gone, with of course a small reduced presence of military personel in some distant air base or something....BUT NO&#33;&#33;&#33; WE ARE THE NASTY INFIDELS&#33; ok fine, then let your country not get any advancements in what looks like a loooooooong time and rot....

Exactly. The occupation troops are there to rebuild iraq and establish a federal iraq to do business with in the future. its all in the national security stradegy issued sept of 2002. there is no secret about this. I laugh at the countless times far left radicals keept trying to turn this into a grab for oil, war profiteering conspiracy theory.

They wont accept the findings of the two bi-partisan commission much like JFK grassy knoll nuts wont accept the Warren Commission. All of this oil nonsense coming from the WEST furthers Islamic insurgencies in the EAST. Islamists eat this all up and recruit people with anti-western, anti-semitic, garbage they feed them in order to get them to join thier "resistence" movement.

Socialist brothers, I am telling you are on the wrong side of history. Atleast be like the Trade Unions, against occupation and against terrorism, but are FOR A FEDERAL IRAQ.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Oh&#045;Dae&#045;[email protected] 12 2006, 05:02 AM
where is your evidence?, yeah everything is soooo bad because of us, even a retard can say that, but tell me the linkage? show me your evidence? ahh you can&#39;t huh&#33;? hahahahah looser
Heres some evidence (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) you fuckwit, it will tell you were, when and how all 35,000 iraqis died, and its updated regularly, because iraqis keep getting killed. I&#39;m not saying that Saddam was a good ruler, but if this carrys on then the amount of iraqis killed in the occupation compared to how many died under his rule is going to look pityful, not to mention that the U.S was killing iraqis before they entered iraq with the sanctions they imposed.

[Lord Testicles]

And for anyone who thinks America will be leaving in the near future even if hostilities die down, i found this gem for you
http://www.iranbodycount.org/images/map.png
Do you honestly believe that America will build all those bases and then just leave them there? Dont be naiive.

[JudeObscure84]

Heres some evidence you fuckwit, it will tell you were, when and how all 35,000 iraqis died, and its updated regularly, because iraqis keep getting killed. I&#39;m not saying that Saddam was a good ruler, but if this carrys on then the amount of iraqis killed in the occupation compared to how many died under his rule is going to look pityful, not to mention that the U.S was killing iraqis before they entered iraq with the sanctions they imposed.

First of all the numbers are inflated. If you check the data from the report submitted by Iraqi Body Count 81% of the casualties are men and over 90% of the casualties are adults in a country where 45% of the people are under 18. So I knew something was off until I read that the Iraqi Security forces and Army recruits are counted as civilians as well.

So then it is not an accurate portrayl of civilian deaths. An accurate portrayl of civilian deaths is rounded at around 7,000-10,000 deaths. and most of the deaths have been attributed to insurgents killing Coalition supporters.

The fact that people are dying in Iraq as a result of war is spurious because many try to portray the civilian deaths as a result of American occupation and not of insurgency&#33; Civilian deaths(collateral damage) constituted 13.8% of the deaths during the initial invasion while they only constituted 3.8% after a full two years in occupation. Like Human Rights Watch Reports, the bulk of the initial civilian deaths are due to insurgents NOT coalition troops.

If you were to factor this in and compare it to Saddam&#39;s calculated slaughter of opposition which runs in the figure of 350,000 (not counting the Kuwaiti or Iran war), then the US caused a 90% decline in Iraqi deaths since Saddams 24 year reign. If you were to count the Iran-Iraq War and the Kuwaiti invasion then Saddam&#39;s tally rises up to 600,000-800,000 deaths according to Iraqi Human Rights groups and the French Doctors without Borders.

A left wing killer file site (which I personally wouldnt trust, but you guys proly would) has Saddam&#39;s killer tally at 1.5 million people after all of his endeavors.

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_dossier...s_2003-2005.pdf (http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_dossier_of_civilian_casualties_2003-2005.pdf)


And on Sanctions:
http://www.meforum.org/article/548

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 07:29 PM
Like Human Rights Watch Reports, the bulk of the initial civilian deaths are due to insurgents NOT coalition troops.
But there wouldnt be insurgents there if the coalition hadn&#39;t invaded.

[JudeObscure84]

Do you honestly believe that America will build all those bases and then just leave them there? Dont be naiive.

The US had just as many if not more bases stationed all over Europe during WWII. Most are dismantled except for strategic points in Germany and Spain. We still have troops on the 38th parrallel in South Korea jeeping up a UN mandate against Communist imperialism. So this is nothing new.

[JudeObscure84]

But there wouldnt be insurgents there if the coalition hadn&#39;t invaded.

does this statement bring legitimacy to the insurgency? There wouldnt be insurgents had Islamist, Baathist and Nationalist elements accepted the removal of Saddam in favor of a federal Iraq. Most of thier grievences and pledged "legitimacy" fall under dogmatic conspiracy theories about zionist takeovers and massive purging of thier oil. I have yet to find one insurgent group that isnt racist, nationalist, islamist or doesnt recruit people with wild canards.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Jade your killing this guy HAHAHAHAHA i feel sorry for him....

anyways, in that website ironically enough it tells you OF what these innocent people died, and i would say 90+% of the incidents say : Suicide bomber, road side bomb, etc.. etc... how is this the fault of the Americans? ITS THE OWN IRAQIS KILLING IRAQI CIVILIANS&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[JudeObscure84]

Jade your killing this guy HAHAHAHAHA i feel sorry for him....

anyways, in that website ironically enough it tells you OF what these innocent people died, and i would say 90+% of the incidents say : Suicide bomber, road side bomb, etc.. etc... how is this the fault of the Americans? ITS THE OWN IRAQIS KILLING IRAQI CIVILIANS&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


Well I wish no ill will towards my socialist brothers. But I just cannot see the logic of remaining in the anti-US camp for the sheer reason of its past history against socialism. I mean Jalal Talibani, the Kurdish leader of Iraq was once persecuted by Saddam. He is a socialist&#33; He was a socialist guerilla fighting against fascist dictatorship for over 20 years&#33; But like "Condi Rice isnt really black", "Talabani isnt really a socialist". As if to be a socialist you have to be a priori anti-american. :rolleyes:

There are some shady dealings by the americans in the corporate scheme to try and war profiteer, which isnt happening due to the fighting so Iraqi national and arab companies are taking over soon enough. The Iraqi government is keeping a lot of american powers in check. but the only thing keeping the insurgents in check is american fire power.

[redstar2000]

No end to the sleazy apologetics for U.S. imperialism, is there?

Oh-Dae-Su (gusano) and JudeObscure84 (social democrat) compete to see who can kiss Bush&#39;s ass with the most enthusiasm.

One can only hope that they both will find themselves doing occupation duty in the Middle East "in loyal service to the Empire"...and end up on the receiving end of some fatal criticism from the Iraqi resistance.

We do not expect the expression of any kind of "progressive" views from the people restricted to this forum. But I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve seen as stomach-churning a pile of imperialist vomit as these two servile fucktards have expressed in the history of this board.

A poll to ban both of you shitheads will be introduced.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[JudeObscure84]

No end to the sleazy apologetics for U.S. imperialism, is there?

what apologetics? I am only calling it as I see it. If you want to throw ad hominem attacks then I could say you&#39;re an apologist for the Islamic extremism.


Oh-Dae-Su (gusano) and JudeObscure84 (social democrat) compete to see who can kiss Bush&#39;s ass with the most enthusiasm.

I did not mention Bush at all in my rebuttals. this fight doesnt consist of him. you guys keep proving that you&#39;re insecure about a marine doing the right thing that everything negative in this war has bush&#39;s smirking face on it. how obsessive can a group be about a US president?


One can only hope that they both will find themselves doing occupation duty in the Middle East "in loyal service to the Empire"...and end up on the receiving end of some fatal criticism from the Iraqi resistance.

I have been trying for weeks to get tickets to go to Iraq. I want to join a Kurdish Peshmerga squadron in Northern Iraq. Hopefully they wont be sucked into the Iraqi Army by then because you have to be an iraqi citizen to join. I would fight for the Peshmerga before the US Marines. But I dont count the Marines as an imperial force.


We do not expect the expression of any kind of "progressive" views from the people restricted to this forum. But I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve seen as stomach-churning a pile of imperialist vomit as these two servile fucktards have expressed in the history of this board.

I dont get this logic. I am not pushing for imperial corporate power in Iraq. I am against many of things within the occupation of Iraq, but I am for a Federal Iraq free of Islamist, Baathist and Sunni Nationalists. The corporate underpinnings are minimal compared to the devastation the insurgents are taking on the iraqi population. The Americans should be replaced by UN troops, like all Iraqis wish for under UNSCR 1511. This is as far as I go when critisizing the US in this fight other than the human rights abuses.


A poll to ban both of you shitheads will be introduced.

But this is the restricted forum. this is where I get to challenge the views of people in Che Lives. Why would you ban me?

[Janus]

Its in the national security stradegy. Its no secret. Its publicly documented. Any nation that harbord Islamic terrorists or terrorists with ill will towards the US is subject to sanctions, severing of diplomatic ties, and a pre-emptive strike if there is an extreme case.
I&#39;m aware of that. But we doesn&#39;t the US invade every country that "crosses their business" which would be just about every country.



No Al-Queda will not take over. Not while US Marines and the Kurdish Peshmerga are there. But Al-Queda is not the only insurgency, there are countless Baathist, Sunni Nationalist ones too. There is hardly a people&#39;s vangaurd like the VietCong for there to be any take over of Iraq.

And yes, the nation would&#39;ve had most of thier infrastructre rebuilt had it not been for the ongoing violence in the Sunni Triangle. Northern Iraq was built up by the Kurds in a span of three years because of the Clinton imposed No Fly Zones, and it contrasts central and sourthern Iraq drastically.
3 years? I&#39;m not sure about your definition of built up, but it seems that they&#39;re still building up. Northern Iraq also has a good supply of oil as well. With or without the insurgency, the bumbling US administration could&#39;ve never rebuilt Iraq so quickly eespecially when it is interested in some of Iraq&#39;s precious assets.

[JudeObscure84]

I&#39;m aware of that. But we doesn&#39;t the US invade every country that "crosses their business" which would be just about every country.

I think they were refering to rogue states that support terror networks that want to attack the US or US allies.


3 years? I&#39;m not sure about your definition of built up, but it seems that they&#39;re still building up. Northern Iraq also has a good supply of oil as well. With or without the insurgency, the bumbling US administration could&#39;ve never rebuilt Iraq so quickly eespecially when it is interested in some of Iraq&#39;s precious assets.

The Kurdish region does not look like a US state or a European country but since the imposistion of the Clinton No Fly Zones, Kurdistan&#39;s economy has shot up and has been redistrubuted in capital wealth across the region. It contrasts quite differently with Southern and Central Iraq when in control by Saddam. Saddam&#39;s oil for food program and wealth was concentrated among Bagdhad and his inner circle. I was just saying that in three years time, the Kurds did a remarkable job in comparison to what they once were subject to while under Baathist control.

The US helped rebuild Japan, Germany, and South Korea when they intervened in direct invasion and occupation. Im pretty sure once the insurgency dies Iraq would be another United Arab Emirates or Kuwait. The US looks more for trading partners not outright plundering.

[Janus]

The US helped rebuild Japan, Germany, and South Korea when they intervened in direct invasion and occupation.
Yes, and they had a reason which was to pump up those countries so that they would act as a buffer against communism. But Iraq is different. Is it simply a coincidence that the US chose to invade one of the largest producers of oil based on some sketchy information.

[JudeObscure84]

Yes, and they had a reason which was to pump up those countries so that they would act as a buffer against communism. But Iraq is different. Is it simply a coincidence that the US chose to invade one of the largest producers of oil based on some sketchy information.


One of the biggest misconceptions about the Iraq invasion was that this was a new war. That the US just woke up one day after 9/11 and decided to invade a helpless country. Well the war between the US and Iraq never ended since the implementation of the cease fire aggreement. There has been an ongoing war with Iraq since 1993 when Saddam refused to comply with his cease fire terms, and GWHB began the first raid against Iraq. Since then its been followed up by Clinton and ended under GWB. Every UN Resolution passed by the council on the situation was titled Iraq-Kuwait Conflict.

The reason behind the invasion of Iraq is to create a buffer against Islamic extremism and authoritarian states in the region. Its outlined in the National Security Stradegy. There is no secret mastermind to steal oil simply because Iraq has oil.

the sketchy information was just analytical misjudgements laid out by an imcompetant CIA. During a poll conducted by the Washington Post, I believe, I could be wrong, it said that there were practically only two people in the world that didnt believe Saddam had WMD; Scott Ritter and Vladimir Putin. And both were being handsomely paid off by the Baathist regime under third medium contracts.

[MysticArcher]

The reason behind the invasion of Iraq is to create a buffer against Islamic extremism and authoritarian states in the region. Its outlined in the National Security Stradegy.

The problem with that explanation is that buffers tend to seperate two things. If you hadn&#39;t noticed Iraq is in the middle of the frickin&#39; Middle East. It&#39;s in the heart of so called Muslim extremism.

That&#39;s like the US in the &#39;50s taking Vladivostok as a "buffer" (Vladivostok is inside the former Soviet Union for those who don&#39;t know)

It just doesn&#39;t work as an explanation.



the sketchy information was just analytical misjudgements laid out by an imcompetant CIA. During a poll conducted by the Washington Post, I believe, I could be wrong, it said that there were practically only two people in the world that didnt believe Saddam had WMD; Scott Ritter and Vladimir Putin. And both were being handsomely paid off by the Baathist regime under third medium contracts.

Everyone believed it, so it must have been the case. :rolleyes:

[Janus]

Its outlined in the National Security Stradegy
And do you support that policy like overlord?

[JudeObscure84]

The problem with that explanation is that buffers tend to seperate two things. If you hadn&#39;t noticed Iraq is in the middle of the frickin&#39; Middle East. It&#39;s in the heart of so called Muslim extremism.

That&#39;s like the US in the &#39;50s taking Vladivostok as a "buffer" (Vladivostok is inside the former Soviet Union for those who don&#39;t know)

It just doesn&#39;t work as an explanation.


So instead they invade a country in the middle of the mideast for oil? thats like robbing a bank surrounded by police stations. look there is no revenue that will come out of iraq that can pay for the reconstruction costs, not even from oil. the US is losing money on Iraq.


Everyone believed it, so it must have been the case

actually if it wasnt the case, there wouldnt have been a 15-0 vote on Resolution 1441.

[JudeObscure84]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 09:49 PM

Its outlined in the National Security Stradegy
And do you support that policy like overlord?
in character but not content. i am only in as much support for it as it opposes totalitarianism and islamic extremism. but i am opposed to the free market absolutism about it. But so far Iraq and Afghanistan have more progressives in office then ever before since the ousting of thier dictorial regimes.

I am more of a means to an end kind of guy. Similar to Karl Marx during the Civil War and his support for the North to abolish slavery and the autocratic southern regime. Similar to George Orwell and his support for the Western Allies against the Fascists in WWII and Soviet totalitarianism during the Cold War. Similar to Sidney Hook, the Marxist turned Democratic Socialist against Communism.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

wow this redstar guy needs to get a hold of himself, he doesnt say anything productive except flame against me and Jade because we totally crush him in every post, because we use reason and he can&#39;t fight it, so he want to ban us because we are commenting on something which is contradictory to his views but which is allowed BECAUSE THIS IS THE OPPOSING IDEOLOGY FORUM&#33;&#33;&#33; DUHH&#33;&#33;&#33;

plus, what the hell, we aren&#39;t fascists, we aren&#39;t extreme right racists or homophobes, what the hell is wrong with you redstar, stop *****ing and get in here and do a decent argument instead of threatening us with a ban...i swear if we get banned, redstar has to be the owner of this website or something, there is totally nothing that should make me or anybody else at least in this board get banned...

i think other administrators should take a look at redstars actions because he is flaming, and he supposedly started a vote which is unfair for no reason and nothing to back it up that we did something wrong....

so to all other restricted members watch out for redstar, the guy will use his powers over you .. ;)

[overlord]

Hehehe, this little detante illustrates my point as a nice little explanatory microcosm for why the so called &#39;democratic communism&#39; espoused by the members of this board cannot exist. People have different ideas&#33; We will never have a majority voting to give up human nature&#33;

And to Redstar, will you assign yourself a warning point or will the human nature that doesn&#39;t exist disallow this action?