Fetayeen: Only in a Socialist Country

[Ghost Writer]

The Fedayeen got their start in the mid-1990's. This militia group loyal to Sadam Hussein were started by Saddam's son Ouday. Part of their tradition is to tear a dog in half and sink their teeth into the dog's internal organs. Likened to the German S.S. they employ terrorism inside their own state to maintain the fear of the citizenry. I hope we kill every last one of that inhuman bunch of deviants. Anyone that uncivilized automatically relinquishing their right to inhabit the earth, and should be destroyed like a mad dog on the street.

source: Fetayeen threatens to turn Bush into a dog. (http://www.msnbc.com/news/891794.asp?0cl=c1&cp1=1)

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 10:19 am on Mar. 30, 2003)

[CheGuevara]

I bet they eat babies too. ;)

We should nuke China and Korea while we're at it, their whole fucking countrie's eat dogs. I'm talking about South Korea, not just North.

[Politrickian]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 11:18 am on Mar. 30, 2003
I hope we kill every last one of that inhuman bunch of deviants.


You're not the only one. Although I would like to see every one of these bastards in court.

[Ghost Writer]

Why? They do not deserve such civilized treatment. Kill them and be done with it. Look at the complete mockery that Milosevic made of the Hague Tribunal. Whose going to foot the bill for all of the lawyers. No, this is not sonething that should be dealt with in the courts, especially since we have troops in the area that are fully capable of dealing with it in the manner I suggest.

[Politrickian]

I find sentenced for life much more cruel than death, imagine being in prison for the rest of your life. I'd rather die than spend the rest of my life in prison.

So i suggest we skip court and throw them in prison.

(Edited by Politrickian at 4:53 pm on Mar. 30, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

I don't see the value, economically or socially, in keeping them alive. The chances that they may escape, eat another dog, and train some more terrorists is a chance that I am not willing to take. If they are wearing civilian clothing, send them to Camp X-Ray, try them in secrecy, and then execute them military style. What's the problem?

[Pete]

Iraq is not socialist.

[Ghost Writer]

Tell that to the Baath Party. As far as I can tell they have modeled their society off of the two most notorious socialist systems, Nazi Germany, and more accurately the Soviet Union. Just because the upper echelon of the party leadership gets more perks, and squander the country's wealth on themselves doesn't mean they are not socialists. As far as I have seen this is the only socialism that has ever existed in the world. In an effort to supposedly rid the state of the farce of a two class system, the leadership has amplified a two class system, that makes them socialists, in my book.

[Pete]

Nazi Germany was far right wing.

The Baath Party may have socialist origins, but they are not socialist now by anystandards.

[Moskitto]

"One who enjoys his beef steak should not look down one one who prefers stewed dog" - anonymous vegetarian

[Ghost Writer]

The political spectrum is more of a loop, than it is a line. That is the reason the far left and the far right resemble each other so closely. Why don't you ask some of the people who lived in East Germany what the difference was between the Nazis and the communists? I think you will find their answers to resemble my thinking, more than it does yours. In fact, I have seen many interviews with people who lived under both systems, and they have stated as much.

[Ghost Writer]

""One who enjoys his beef steak should not look down one one who prefers stewed dog" - anonymous vegetarian"

How is this relevant, Moskitto?

[Moskitto]

saying they should be killed just because they eat dogs is like saying people should be killed for eating beef, in Western societies dogs are pets, they are "mans best friend" we are so shocked by people eating dogs in the east, but India cows are sacred, cows are allowed to sit in the middle of roads and you're not allowed to move them, they would be horrified by people eating them. If your main arguement about them is that they eat dogs, unless you are a vegetarian, you are a hipocrit.

of course, considering they are also an oppressive militia group terrorising civilians, they do deserve to die.

[Ghost Writer]

You don't see a difference between eating something for nutritional value, and eating something to evoke a sense of savagery? What about cooking your meat and not cooking your meat?

[Politrickian]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 6:21 pm on Mar. 30, 2003
What about cooking your meat and not cooking your meat?

Depends on how you like to eat it. Dutch people eat raw fish with unions on it, does that make them barbaric?

[Moskitto]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 5:21 pm on Mar. 30, 2003
You don't see a difference between eating something for nutritional value, and eating something to evoke a sense of savagery? What about cooking your meat and not cooking your meat?


Sorry, I misunderstood you, I thought your complaint was just that they eat dogs, not that they eat dogs to make themselves look savage.

I see no difference between cooking and not cooking meat, I rather enjoy sushi and certain italian uncooked meats myself.

[Ghost Writer]

Fish take on a whole different connotation in the dietary world, so I would have to say no. However, one of the main differences between civilied cultures and uncivilized cultures is in how they prepare their food. It is no accident that modern cultures came after the discovery that you can cook your food.

The fedayeen was not eating this meat to get 100% of the USDA suggested intake of protien. More than likely they were eating it in the center of town to terrorize the people with violent imagery. It is this sort of terrorism that warrants killing them, not the food they eat. I just thought this was a pretty telling story, that accurately decribes the mentality of Hussein's henchmen.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 1:06 am on Mar. 31, 2003)

[Pete]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 11:52 am on Mar. 30, 2003
The political spectrum is more of a loop, than it is a line. That is the reason the far left and the far right resemble each other so closely. Why don't you ask some of the people who lived in East Germany what the difference was between the Nazis and the communists? I think you will find their answers to resemble my thinking, more than it does yours. In fact, I have seen many interviews with people who lived under both systems, and they have stated as much.


I believe it is more a Cartisean plane Like here (http://www.politicalcompass.org)

[Som]

Of course its convienent for you to label socialist and even find socialist in their name, but its obvious thats a crock of shit.

Its the same idiotic reasoning that attaches socialist to nazi germany.

All in all, it completly jumps over the simple fact that they are CAPITALIST countries.

Socialism is public ownership, obviously none of that in Iraq, just as there wasn't in nazi germany.

I'd say saddams baathists are probably closest to the mussolini style fascists.

[Pete]

Iraq does have free health and education. I know that. Yet that is only the result of the Ba'ath's parties socialist roots. It has nothing to do with what they are today.

[kelvin90701]

Saddam is a good Stalinist:

"Do we know whether or not Saddam has actually studied Stalin's tactics?

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Saddam studied Stalin. Stalin is his hero. Stalin came from a humble background. Stalin was brought up by his mother. Stalin used thugs. Stalin used the security service. Stalin hated his army. And so does Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein models himself after Stalin more than any other man in history."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ws/aburish.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html)

[LeonardoDaVinci]

Baathists are not socialists. Hell, England has free healthcare and education that does not make it a socialist state. The closest ideological description for Baathists would be Stalinist Nationalists.

The Baath party came to power with the aid of the CIA (naturally of course) who were sceptical of Abdul Karim Qasim, the leader who led the insurrection against the British imposed Monarchy and reversed the monarchy's pro-Western policies, attempted to rectify the economic disparities between rich and poor, and began to form alliances with Communist countries. As they always do, the CIA decided that this is not in the greater interest of America and so went ahead with their standard policy of overthrowing popular regimes and installing blood thirsty despots as their regional puppets.

The first thing that the Baathists did when they came to power was to attack the then popular Iraqi communist party and arresting as well as murdering it's leaders and members, with the enthusiastic participation of Saddam, according to several accounts by Iraqi emigres. Though the first Baath regime quickly collapsed, the party seized power a second time in a bloodless coup in 1968. With his cousin al-Bakr in power, Saddam worked tirelessly as second-in-command, seizing control of the security agencies and accumulating power by taking on administrative tasks, just as Stalin had done while Vladimir Lenin ruled the Soviet Union.

To Americans now, Saddam Hussein has come to stand for brutality to his own people and menace to other countries. But at earlier times, U.S. officials valued Saddam for other qualities; one of those officials was Donald Rumsfeld, who visited Baghdad in 1983 as Ronald Reagan's envoy to patch up relations.

Basically, what we are witnessing here is another classical CIA related fuck up in which a crazy psychopath is helped to power only then to rebel against his master and cause them more headache than they have originally anticipated. Just like Noriega, just like the Taliban.

And so it always comes to the same conclusion. The US, in its usual celf-centred and short sighted approach to foreign policy fucks up, and people in Panama, Afghanistan or Iraq pay the blood price.

However, as they say every cloud has a silver lining. And in this case, it is at least comforting to know that the American mercenaries in Iraq are going to face the same monsters they helped to create, and that includes the Fedayeen. So please, don't expect my sympathy when you learn that 4 american soldiers died in the hands of some maniac that they have inadvertently created. And furthermore, do not have the audacity to pinpoint the blame for such horrific crimes on socialists. You reap what you sow.


(Edited by LeonardoDaVinci at 1:47 am on Mar. 31, 2003)


(Edited by LeonardoDaVinci at 1:50 am on Mar. 31, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

Why shouldn't I place these crimes at the feet of another socialists government? You said so yourself. You have absolutely no compassion for our men that are being targeted by homocide bombings. To you this is just. Only those who have a sick sense of justice, like yourself, subscribe to socialism. Nothing could be more damning to your mode of thought than the ideas you just admitted to. Only a socialist would defend Hussein's regime over the American government. We may have helped them out of ill-will for the Iranians. However, that does not make us more responsible for the crimes than the people who actually committed them. All in all, you are a disgusting piece of shit, Da Vinci.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 2:02 am on Mar. 31, 2003)

[Pete]

Norman. We do not care for your opinion. I do not understand how you can support a system that oppresses people inherently. It is part of the capitalist theory that for one to get ahead another must fall. And it is even worse in pratice than in theory. You are one sick fucker.


The Irony of using your style against you eh?

(Edited by CrazyPete at 11:36 am on Mar. 31, 2003)

[LeonardoDaVinci]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 2:01 am on Mar. 31, 2003
We may have helped them out of ill-will for the Iranians. However, that does not make us more responsible for the crimes than the people who actually committed them. All in all, you are a disgusting piece of shit, Da Vinci.



That's what I love about you cappies, when you get cornered you just resort to childish name calling. I love you too man ;)

[LeonardoDaVinci]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 2:01 am on Mar. 31, 2003
We may have helped them out of ill-will for the Iranians. However, that does not make us more responsible for the crimes than the people who actually committed them. (Edited by Ghost Writer at 2:02 am on Mar. 31, 2003)


Well, it's a shame that these dumb CIA fucks repeat the same mistake time after time. In Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Panama, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Laos, CAmbodia, Chile, Indonesia...etc.

And furthermore, you helped those sick bastards to assume power in the first place and then gave them the financial and military backing to establish their despotic totalitarian states and now claim that it is not your fault. At least have the God damn decency to accept responsibility for the big part you played in terrorising all these countries. I think some introspection would be in good order.

[Dhul Fiqar]

As a sidenote, Tartar is I believe a very expensive delicatessen made with raw beef.

--- G.

[Cassius Clay]

Jesus are you people serious. Both the Nazis and the Bathists first actions when coming to power was to jail and murder Communists and Socialists in concentration camps. Saddam was funded by the CIA. Some Socialists.

Oh and what does Stalin have to do with Saddam? Nothing, so what if some Fascist buys his own propaganda about the man.

[Xvall]

Actually; the man who was in power before Saddam Hussein was leaning towards socialism and communism. That all changed whem Hussein took power. Saddam Hussein has persecuted various communists throughout the course of his history. Iraq is most certainly not a socialist county.

[Cassius Clay]

I belief he was guy whose name begin's with K. Anyway he was a sought of Nasser type guy who was leaning towards the Soviet Union. Saddam and a bunch of guys attempted to assasanaite him in 1958. Anyway Coup follows Counter-Coup and eventually Saddam as part of the Bath Party comes to power in the early 60's when the CIA teaches him the best torture methods.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Ahmad Hasan Al-Bakr was the name, secularism and persecution of Kurds was his game.

When Saddam took over from him in '79 he held a meeting with all the main influentials in the government and video taped it. During the meeting many of them are led out into the hallway and executed right there while he decides who's next.

This tape was distributed all over the country, so obviously he wanted people to know who was in charge now.

That being said, Al-Bakr was not exactly a sweetheart. He persecuted Kurds relentlessly and declared all other political organizations apart from Ba'ath to be illegal, under penalty of death for anyone organizing opposition.

The Ba'ath is an anachronysm, it came out of the post-WW2 turmoil.

--- G.

[von Mises]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 4:18 pm on Mar. 30, 2003
Nazi Germany was far right wing.

The Baath Party may have socialist origins, but they are not socialist now by anystandards.


It maybe hard for you but the fundament of national socialism has never been racism, but socialism. The national interest was more important than the collective interest which was more important than the individual interest. In short, national interest is allmost synonimous for collectivism or solidarity. As a Dutch nazi once said "nationalism without socialism is like smoke without fire and vice versa". Unity was more important than the class struggle.

The fact that nazi's prosecuted communists was that they saw both marxism and capitalism as ideologies that were used by the jews to weaken their socialist fundament.

The mere fact that you call them right wing doesn't prove anything. Funny is also that the extreme right and extreme left find each other once again in the anti globalization movement. An anti capitalistic, anti-liberal and anti-american group of people. The parallels between now and the nazi era are very obvious, as the nazi's also saw that both capitalism and marxism are both internationally oriented ideologies and a danger to the unity.




(Edited by von Mises at 12:23 pm on April 1, 2003)

[Cassius Clay]

von Mises, what you appear to be ignoring is that both Nazi Germany and Iraq were and are Capitalist societies. This is FACT. Hell a number of Capitalist company's made huge amounts of profit from the death camp system.

Hitler declared he was for private property in the 20's and the aim of the Nazis was to protect that property. In 1932 he met with two of Germany's biggest Industrialists to expalin that he was the only 'Alternative to Communism'. Weimar Republic was Capitalist, and it was the Hindenburg who made Hitler Chancellor.

My point here is the Nazis have nothing to do with Socialism. Not only are you trying to deflect the blame for WW2 and the Holocaust from Capitalism but are trying to blame it on some form of Socialism.

Sorry but it don't stand up to the FACTS.

[von Mises]

I am nothing talking about Iraq here and surely not here to blaim the death of 6 million jews to socialism.

So, are these your arguments to prove I am wrong? Just google a bit and try to find the program of the NSDAP. I have some points for you for now

- All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.

- It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.

- The abolition of incomes unearned by work.

- The breaking of the slavery of interest

- We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

- We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

- In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.

O yes, these filthy capitalists pigs.

Unfortunately your sense of history proves nothing. The fact that Hindenburg made him chancellor was for different reasons, as you would have know had you read more about the situation in Germany at that moment.

[Som]

"We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order." - Adolph Hitler

The big flaw here is that Von Mises seems to equate the capitalist definition of collectivist with socialism.

I say the capitalist definition of collectivist because collectivism is an anarchist (socialist) economic theory that clearly has absolutly nothing to do with the capitalist hijacking of the word.

Generally speaking, the definition of socialism is public ownership, no more. With that, the capitalist definition of collectivism, socialism are completly independent and far from synonamous, which seemed to be the basis of your argument.

The property remains in private hands, its simply not socialist.

[von Mises]

It is the same thing when I say that communism caused more deaths than any other system. The mere fact that Hitler's definition of socialism is not correct according to your opinion
does not prove that he was a capitalist.

Hitler was made chancellor in a time that Germany was capitalistic with a very not so capitalistic program. The reason for this was that in that days you had uprisings all over Europe thanks to Marx, and by allowing the nsdap to take control over the "capitalist" society they thought they could control him and his party.

Compare it to Austria and Haider. Had they not let him into the government, he would have gained more support. Now his is in the government, people see that he is not the solution and his support diminishes.

In Germany things didn't turn out this way, but there were other reasons for that.

[sc4r]

Hitler was not a capitalist by any reasonable definition. Neither however was he a socialist.

Its easy (and convenient) to cast ideolgies as being of the left or of the right but really it is more complex than that. Sometimes left / right more or less encapsulates the position because there are not many genuine idealist capitalists like von mises and inside america not many Marxist socialsists.

Hitler was Fascist. Which is not remotely the same as lassez faire capitalism because it emphasises the state (the opposite of lassez faire). Its not the same as socialism vecause it emphasises the importance of the state for its own sake rather than emphasing society and how it has to be organised to maximise the welfare of the individuals. The latter is a more subtle difference but just as important.

It is a fact (unfortunately) that Socialsm can be reasonable easily (and almost invisibly) be perverted into Fascism; its something we do need to be constantly on guard against.

Hitler (and other Fascists) often claim to be socialists because it sounds attractive but you must judge people by what they do, not what they say they are.

The USA is not capitalist either. It is (as VM said) a mixture of socialist and Capitalist principles (and others which are neither). Unfortunately this mixture (IMHO) allows it to deliver in some ways the worst aspects of both without the checks and balances of either.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Bwah, what about Al-Bakr, can't we get back to the incredibly obscure topic I happen to know just enough about to sound more knowledgable than I am? :biggrin:

--- G.

[Cassius Clay]

Okay for a moment I will accept that Hilter himself was not a Capitalist (although that quote sought of proves that claim to be rubbish). What was Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945 though?

''He banned strikes, put Communists and labor activists into jails and concentration camps. Between 1934 and 1938, while actual wages dropped, capitalists' profits soared by 50 percent. German capitalists made huge profits from the war, both from armaments and slave labor of `untermenschen' (the Jews, Gypsies, people of Eastern Europe, prisoners of war, etc.).''

Who was Mr Schindller? A Capitalist. I provided a list of a number of German manufactoring companies who profited from the death camp system a while back and surprise, surprise nobody responded.

The Chinese claim today to be 'Socialists', and I'm sure I could come up with a party programme from the 40's that said they stood for Communism. Doesn't change the reality that today China is Capitalist.

[von Mises]

Cassius, I already told you Hitler's objections to communists. Strike's weren't in the interest of the unity, and I can't remember any German ceo who wasn't a member of the nazi-party.

Let's take one step back and do not let your hate for capitalism trouble your views. I think sc4r made a good remark.

[sc4r]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 10:59 am on April 2, 2003
Okay for a moment I will accept that Hilter himself was not a Capitalist (although that quote sought of proves that claim to be rubbish). What was Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945 though?

''He banned strikes, put Communists and labor activists into jails and concentration camps. Between 1934 and 1938, while actual wages dropped, capitalists' profits soared by 50 percent. German capitalists made huge profits from the war, both from armaments and slave labor of `untermenschen' (the Jews, Gypsies, people of Eastern Europe, prisoners of war, etc.).''

Who was Mr Schindller? A Capitalist. I provided a list of a number of German manufactoring companies who profited from the death camp system a while back and surprise, surprise nobody responded.

The Chinese claim today to be 'Socialists', and I'm sure I could come up with a party programme from the 40's that said they stood for Communism. Doesn't change the reality that today China is Capitalist.


This is very difficult to explain unless perhaps u have been there on both sides and seen your ideals denigrated for what they are not. I am in the rather unusual position of having been a fairly ardent supporter of capitalism (VM's version which is lassez faire capitalism) when I was younger, and a very ardent Socialist now that I am older and wiser.

I am also today a pretty enthusiastic admirer of the idea of Anarchism, but I am not an advocate for it because I perceive that, like Lassez faire Capitalism, it has honourable motives but simply could not work as it is intended to (IMHO) in a large society without a fundamental shift in human nature*

I am sure that all socialists have experienced multiple instances of being told they are undemocratic etc. I am sure that it greatly pisses you off (it does me) when the people doing it refuse to acknowlege that what they call socialism is not we do. They are attacking an idea of socialism which only exists in their minds and which is much better termed Fascism. VM is similarly dicked off to have ideals which are not his called Capitalism. I actually do think there is more excuse for this latter mistake because the same wankers that say socialism is not democratic also think that what they support is capitalism (it isn’t). I’d honestly say to you VM that if you just called yourself an Objectivist or whatever this would be the sensible way out.

The problem lies in taking one (important) principle of an ideology in isolation and saying that if it exists then the ideology is in place; but this is not so. Ideologies are more profound than single principles precisely because they contain complimentary dynamics which modify and balance each other so as to produce a particular result. So :

Hitler believed in the concept of private ownership of the means of production but not for everyone and not immutably, not did he (pretty self evidently) believe in non violence. Unless he has these characteristics he cannot be a capitalist in the sense VM uses it. All he does is take one idea used by Capitalism not the complete package.

Likewise Hitler certainly cannot be a Socialist in the sense we use it because he did not believe in democracy or common ownership of the means of production for the benefit of all.

Similar comments in different ways can be applied to the USA today (which actually is technically a Liberal Democracy, but in a more subtle way has now ceased to function in the way Liberal Democracy as an ideology is supposed to).

Frankly it is almost futile to criticise an ideology on the basis of a practical realisation unless it can be shown that the practical realisation is an inevitable consequence of the theory. You can say that the USSR was bad but not say anything about socialism as a consequence; you can say the USA is going bad if you like, but say little about Capitalism because of it. This is what our opponents do all the time and we should not fall into the same trap. Socialism can be perverted, so can Capitalism, so can Liberal Democracy. So can anything, because they all depend both upon the way they are implemented and the nature of the people in control (which in socialism must be the people not the leaders). Any condemnation of an actual state belongs to that state not to the ideal. The only issue for the ideology itself is how likely it is to deliver what it promises; how likely it is to become perverted, and whether you actually like what it says it will deliver (not just what a few uneducated supporters say it will deliver, but what it really says). Our ideology is without a shadow of a doubt prone to become nasty unless a democratic principle is very strongly imposed and ensured. The problem is resolved if you do this, but its dangerous to think you can ignore it.

Fascism BTW is barely an ideology as such, just a loosely cobbled together set of disparate positions with no well worked out mechanism of any sort. It would be recognised by a powerful state or elite which operates primarily in its own interests and is usually both militaristic, highly nationalistic, and oppressive of some people, but like I say its so vague as to be more a convenient bucket description for many things which are intrinsically evil.

In conclusion I would say that VM is being naïve to think he can prevent Socialists talking about capitalism as meaning basically private ownership of the means of production and a free(ish) market given that people who do believe only in that do call themselves Capitalists, but I can see his point. I’d say that we are being a little optimistic to think that we will easily stop misrepresentations of socialism abounding but we do at least have the excuse that at least we don’t have a large body of people (hmmm except China and NK) calling themselves Marxists who are not. Its actually bloody silly really to argue about the words rather than the ideas behind the words, but at the same time one needs a rallying call. I’ll happily call myself a Cuban Socialist or a Che-Lives socialist if it makes it clear what I really am (and of course even having done that it doesn’t fully express what I believe is the best system because I believe that is a version of market Marxist socialism :) )

AS to China I would honestly say ‘who the hell can tell’. Right now it is allowing outside investment but still retaining a fair bit of state control, it isn’t very democratic I think, but it does have some democracy. Will it hold to its agreements? or will it eventually show the finger and laugh at the Capitalists it has fooled. Who can tell? It is still a question within a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Right now I would oppose its road because to me it looks like it is going astray, but I don’t know and luckily I don’t have to make a decision :)

God I’m a wordy Bastard, No?

Best Wishes and Viva Castro (another wordy bastard of course :) )


* BTW Von Mises I think there are actually other technical problems with Lassez faire'ism even given a profound human nature shift. If the opportunity ever arises I will be happy to discuss them since I perceive you to be an honest and decent chap, albeit misguided :), and the only OI currently posting who is actually trying to discuss OI’s rather than abusing hospitality and simply attempting to slag off Socialism.

[Cassius Clay]

Good post sc4r, I think you've got some good points in there, but at the same time I disagree with alot of what you said. I think you can probably tell what points I would disagree with so no point in arguing over again.

[von Mises]

I have read to little of Rand to call myself an objectivist sc4r. But as I already posted in another topic, the fact that our beliefs are different doesn't necessarily mean we haven''t got a common interest.

[suffianr]

What's all the fuss? I always thought the Fedayeen was the Iraqi equivalent of the NRA. And stop calling Iraq a socialist country.