The Stalinists are marching again
- Thread starter DemoCoder
- Start date
DemoCoder said:
What's amazing is that the very bleeding hearts supporting immediate troop recall would be the same people blaming the administration for when the country erupted into a tripartite civil war.
So do you support tens of thousands of people disrupting traffic and the economy to protest for something which would be an unmitigated disaster if they got their wish?
What a conflict for you Clashman. Either you disagree with their call, but sympathize with them because they're your political soulmates -- nutty Marxists, or you agree with them, and you're a nut yourself.
What a conflict for you Clashman. Either you disagree with their call, but sympathize with them because they're your political soulmates -- nutty Marxists, or you agree with them, and you're a nut yourself.
Why do you assume that ending the U.S. occupation automatically means pulling everything out and replacing it with nothing?
And sorry if traffic is a bit rough, but there's a war going on, and as far as importance goes, I would tend to think that usurps your Saturday shopping trip.
And sorry if traffic is a bit rough, but there's a war going on, and as far as importance goes, I would tend to think that usurps your Saturday shopping trip.
So what do you suggest replacing it with.. The UN?
Sounds great, administration has been pushing them to come in for awhile now. But they are currently involved in child like petty bickering and feel the need to isolate the US. Its completely pathetic, they should have been there right after the war ended if they wanted any ounce of credibility whatsoever.
OK, so lets say they do get around to coming in. For all intents and purposes, it will be the same US troops and commanders there. We'll still be the ones fronting the majority of the bill. On an operational level, nothing is going to change much.
The other fact of the matter is, no matter what we do, we'll be portrayed in a bad light. If we go, we're deserting our little war, and leaving the Iraqis out to dry. If we stay, we're imperialists.
Collective -yawn- goes out to the peanut gallery.
In the meantime, we have succeeded in getting some modicum of self government at least on the table. The hard part is enforcing their legitimacy and protecting the beginnings of law and order (read the Iraqi police, who seem to be targetted a lot more than our troops)
Sounds great, administration has been pushing them to come in for awhile now. But they are currently involved in child like petty bickering and feel the need to isolate the US. Its completely pathetic, they should have been there right after the war ended if they wanted any ounce of credibility whatsoever.
OK, so lets say they do get around to coming in. For all intents and purposes, it will be the same US troops and commanders there. We'll still be the ones fronting the majority of the bill. On an operational level, nothing is going to change much.
The other fact of the matter is, no matter what we do, we'll be portrayed in a bad light. If we go, we're deserting our little war, and leaving the Iraqis out to dry. If we stay, we're imperialists.
Collective -yawn- goes out to the peanut gallery.
In the meantime, we have succeeded in getting some modicum of self government at least on the table. The hard part is enforcing their legitimacy and protecting the beginnings of law and order (read the Iraqi police, who seem to be targetted a lot more than our troops)
A UN solution like that proposed by the U.S. isn't a real UN administration, it's a rubber stamp approval for what we're doing. It makes no real effort to transfer any sort of authority to United Nations planners, and as you said, doesn't really change all that much.
It is possible, however, to give the United Nations, and Iraqis for that matter real authority and power in Iraq, and doing so would significantly increase goodwill towards this country around the world. I think it would also open the way up to get significantly more foreign troops out there, ones with more extensive peacekeeping experience, and significantly ease the burden on American troops. People seemed to forget that India originally was going to offer close to 15,000 peacekeepers to a mission under UN authority, but the Bush administration has repeatedly tried to keep the UN out of everything except a rubber stamp role.
It is possible, however, to give the United Nations, and Iraqis for that matter real authority and power in Iraq, and doing so would significantly increase goodwill towards this country around the world. I think it would also open the way up to get significantly more foreign troops out there, ones with more extensive peacekeeping experience, and significantly ease the burden on American troops. People seemed to forget that India originally was going to offer close to 15,000 peacekeepers to a mission under UN authority, but the Bush administration has repeatedly tried to keep the UN out of everything except a rubber stamp role.
I think the world needs to shut the hell up about what we do. When countrys like france grow the balls to free a country from a dictator adn loose hundreds of their sons and daughters in the fight to do that and spend hundreds of billions on the fight and the rebuilding then they can actually have a say in something. Till then they can just go play on the highway
Babel-17
Veteran
Are they really Stalinists?
I equate Stalin as being a murderer on the level of Hitler and very nearly as evil. If this group is made up of Stalinists I have nothing but contempt for them.
If they aren't Stalinists then perhaps the hyperbole regarding them should be rethought. Branding groups that support the war as Hitlerites is equally unproductive and imo rhetoric like that nips any useful debate or discussion in the bud.
So, assuming they are Stalinists, I would support this group being denied any permits to mount a protest and if they proceed illegally to protest anyway they should be dealt with as the law dictates.
I can't really comment on the issues behind the protest in the context of this thread.
I equate Stalin as being a murderer on the level of Hitler and very nearly as evil. If this group is made up of Stalinists I have nothing but contempt for them.
If they aren't Stalinists then perhaps the hyperbole regarding them should be rethought. Branding groups that support the war as Hitlerites is equally unproductive and imo rhetoric like that nips any useful debate or discussion in the bud.
So, assuming they are Stalinists, I would support this group being denied any permits to mount a protest and if they proceed illegally to protest anyway they should be dealt with as the law dictates.
I can't really comment on the issues behind the protest in the context of this thread.
Depends on where you go. There are some very strong organizations with what I would term as dark roots. In my area, (Twin Cities), they don't really have any sort of prescence. Most Twin Cities activists fit into Christian Democrat, plain' ol Democrat, Green, Anarchist, Pacifist, or Social Democratic circles, to name a few.
In any event, while they are powerful in the sense that they are able to organize mass protests, I would say that most, (And by most, I mean 97+ percent), protesters do not align themselves with their underlying ideologies.
In any event, while they are powerful in the sense that they are able to organize mass protests, I would say that most, (And by most, I mean 97+ percent), protesters do not align themselves with their underlying ideologies.
Babel-17
Veteran
I see, thanks Clashman.
I suspect they are of the type I'm familiar with from my time at college (SUNY at Stony Brook) in the 70's. Real long on the rhetoric and only loud in groups (by and large). I'd hate to see them get their hooks into the unwary.
I could be way off base of course, I'll google up on them later if I have some time.
I suspect they are of the type I'm familiar with from my time at college (SUNY at Stony Brook) in the 70's. Real long on the rhetoric and only loud in groups (by and large). I'd hate to see them get their hooks into the unwary.
I could be way off base of course, I'll google up on them later if I have some time.
Clashman, they are going to be given "real authority" on June 30th, and then thereafter, they will hold elections. What more do you suggest be done? Either way, whoevers in power will have to give into US influence, because we hold the purse strings on reconstruction money. Unless other UN countries are willing to pony up alot more cash for reconstruction, the US will retain control over how Iraq is rebuilt, if not through outright control, than through restrictions on the loans/grants.
And if the US is to withdraw its occupation, what do you suggest replacing it with? What European country will want to station troops in Iraq under the UN peacekeeping banner after Madrid? And if it's not the Europeans, do you think Iraqis want Arabs or Hindus as occupiers? They have emphatically stated they do not in most polls.
Like most of the alternative proposals, they are short on details, or reality.
And if the US is to withdraw its occupation, what do you suggest replacing it with? What European country will want to station troops in Iraq under the UN peacekeeping banner after Madrid? And if it's not the Europeans, do you think Iraqis want Arabs or Hindus as occupiers? They have emphatically stated they do not in most polls.
Like most of the alternative proposals, they are short on details, or reality.
Washington Post said:
WWP still uncritically supports North Korea. The group might not be majority populated with WWP members, but the upper echelons are run by the WWP, and if you've ever seen a ANSWER protest, you know that the group is somewhat eccentric and erratic in its political views. There is no real coherent overall message except a vague anti-capitalist anti-US one.
Its a mistake to move out (apparently Poland is now thinking about doing same like Spain tho Spains is conditional on letting the UN take care of the political side of things).
But its also unrealistic to think if the parties intend to commit to civil war that it can be stopped as theres no number of troops that can stop that. The troops can stop the fundies and fanatics tho and thats all there seems to be there atm. Its important they stay...
You seem pretty worried about those americans who openly call themselves commies there demo... cant be that many of them now can there?
But its also unrealistic to think if the parties intend to commit to civil war that it can be stopped as theres no number of troops that can stop that. The troops can stop the fundies and fanatics tho and thats all there seems to be there atm. Its important they stay...
You seem pretty worried about those americans who openly call themselves commies there demo... cant be that many of them now can there?
To the best of my knowledge, poland has decide to stay but did not like being "lied/misled" to about the WMDs. But they are staying.pax said:
later,
epic
i should add that thai soldiers are going into iraq in the next couple of days. Even with all the hoopla, their leaders are sticking with the US and/or Iraq.
later,
epic
later,
epic
pax said:
Thw wholew idea is that99% of the population does not war, however 1% is very capable to create one, if they are left in a country which doesn't have the means to stop them. At the moment western forces are there to create independant Iraq gov/military etc... and until that is done + rebuilding work; Taking army out would be even more irresponsible than starting the war in the first place. If Bush was to pull out the troops now or until Iraq is sorted he deserves to be impeached IMHO. And all these protestors need to chill out. Let them protest for a while and they'll go home.
Druga Runda said:
That's a very realistic take on the matter. The protestors will always be there. I don't think though that any presidential candidate at the moment is considering pulling out. America seems pretty committed to the cause. While many did not agree with how Saddam was removed there is not a whole lot of opposition voicing that the US ought to pull out. IMO I don't think that there was any other way to remove the dictator other then a mass assault. Even if he were simply murdered by an assassin there would have been some military coupe to fill the vacuum. The way things are now though with America overseeing the transition the government will be considerably more legitimate then would have been otherwise. These left wing protestors suggesting the removal of troops from Iraq are really distancing themselves from the mainstream train of thought, I say let them protest. As long as their message is as ridiculous as "pull our troops out now" they will be regarded as a fringe movement.. Spain's wholesale removal of their troops IMO is irresponsible as well and it should be ridiculed as such.
Similar threads
