You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What the heck is going on over there?!?
- Thread starter Clashman
- Start date
Willmeister
Newcomer
We will have around 625 dead Coalition Soldiers by the one year anniversary of the war. (178 "during war" + (1.387x322 days)). That's a significant increase over the figure I estimated back in July, and the pace at which these happen has increased 14.93% since then. I think this may be starting to push into the realm of "militarily significant".
Can anyone tell me if the Usual Right-Wing Media Pundits (Hannity, Rush, Coulter) have already started blaming Clinton for this attack?
Why? Should they?Willmeister said:Can anyone tell me if the Usual Right-Wing Media Pundits (Hannity, Rush, Coulter) have already started blaming Clinton for this attack?
Not really. But they inevitably will, because well, chickenhawks tend to be predictable.
Edit: Although in reality, they'll probably blame all those "America-hating peaceniks" for not "supporting the troops". Because support is always measured by how many wars you send them to, or how much you can cut in Veteran's benefits.
Edit: Although in reality, they'll probably blame all those "America-hating peaceniks" for not "supporting the troops". Because support is always measured by how many wars you send them to, or how much you can cut in Veteran's benefits.
Of course, because "they" are all stupid like that.
RussSchultz said:Of course, because "they" are all stupid like that.
oh the infamous "they" are at it again.
RussSchultz said:Of course, because "they" are all stupid like that.
Yup, pretty much.
Well, here's what I love. International A.N.S.W.E.R. (you know, those Stalinists) staged a protest against the "Occupation". They interviewed one of the protesters and said "do you think they should pull the American troops out" (what the protesters were calling for), and the guy says "No, Bush made the mess, now he has to stay and clean it up." Say what?
Yeah, and it's great how major media, when they decide to actually cover an anti-war event, will interview some random kid in the crowd, who many times has never spoken on camera before and is more than a little unprepared. Yet when it's pro-war coverage all we ever see are retired generals and pentagon officials. Rarely do they ever take time to do a serious interview or debate with someone educated about the issues and comfortable dealing with the media, nor do they ever go and try to interview the guy at the counter-protest holding up the "Nuke France" sign. Fair and balanced my ass.
Well, maybe if these people had a coherent message, there wouldn't be a problem, but doesn't help that a handful are Stalinists, and the rest of stoner dudes and professional protesters who show up at events for completely unrelated reasons.
What do YOU suggest be done with the current situation. I assume, you also "protest the occupation", so what's your solution bub?
French, Russian, and German troops in? Withdraw of forces and let militias fight it out? What does ANSWER's protest accomplish? They add no solutions to the problem, except to try and stoke fire. These nuts are demanding that the troops be brought home IMMEDIATELY, and althought they are supposed to be against "war and racism", they seem to be completely ignorant to what will follow the power vacuum left behind.
Even if you were stridently opposed to the Iraq war, if you've got a shred of intelligence, you've got to realize that simply abandoning the country at this moment isn't the best course of action, and you may as well suck it up and endure what's going on now until a constitution and elections are run, and until more Iraqi police and army are trained, and that ain't gonna happen if the country decends into further anarchy.
If the coalition leaves now, almost instantly, the governing authority will be overthrown, various clerics with their militia will try to take power of their particular provinces, and Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis will be at their throats. And who knows what Iran will do if Shiite's start getting slaughtered and rush the border, or what Turkey will do if Kurds declare independence, or rush the Turkish border fleeing civil war. The current attacks on the police and American soliders are nothing compared to what will follow their withdrawl.
What do YOU suggest be done with the current situation. I assume, you also "protest the occupation", so what's your solution bub?
French, Russian, and German troops in? Withdraw of forces and let militias fight it out? What does ANSWER's protest accomplish? They add no solutions to the problem, except to try and stoke fire. These nuts are demanding that the troops be brought home IMMEDIATELY, and althought they are supposed to be against "war and racism", they seem to be completely ignorant to what will follow the power vacuum left behind.
Even if you were stridently opposed to the Iraq war, if you've got a shred of intelligence, you've got to realize that simply abandoning the country at this moment isn't the best course of action, and you may as well suck it up and endure what's going on now until a constitution and elections are run, and until more Iraqi police and army are trained, and that ain't gonna happen if the country decends into further anarchy.
If the coalition leaves now, almost instantly, the governing authority will be overthrown, various clerics with their militia will try to take power of their particular provinces, and Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis will be at their throats. And who knows what Iran will do if Shiite's start getting slaughtered and rush the border, or what Turkey will do if Kurds declare independence, or rush the Turkish border fleeing civil war. The current attacks on the police and American soliders are nothing compared to what will follow their withdrawl.
CosmoKramer
Newcomer
Let me get this straight; if you're opposed to the war you are a Stalinist?
Try a reading comprehension and logic course.
Assert(International A.N.S.W.E.R., Run by Stalinists)
Assert(International A.N.S.W.E.R, Opposed to War)
Assert(Many other people, Opposed to War)
Query(?X, Opposed to War)
Solve for X.
X=A.N.S.W.E.R.
X=Many other People
Query(?X, Stalinist)
X =International A.N.S.W.E.R
Clear?
ANSWER is a front for the WWP, one of the few unrepentant Stalinist groups left. These are not your garden variety leftists or greens, people who might want more social programs. No, these are died-in-the-wool hardcore *stalinists*
For an example, just check out the hilarity of this recent WWP piece whitewashing NK, by touting their "achievements" and mentioning NONE of the negatives of the system. http://www.workers.org/ww/2003/nkorea0306.php
Oh, and I love this ANSWER quote:
Unconditional? Doesn't matter how many people the resistance kills or the means used? If they're anti-war, shouldn't they be preaching pacifism?
So yes, it is newsworthy and legitimate target to criticism at anti-war protests run by Kim Jong Il's psychological relatives, a group that in fact, does not call for peace, but rather, armed resistance. The people marching with ANSWER should run their own protests, lest they be associated with these idiots, so they should know is really organizing them, and what they are really about.
Assert(International A.N.S.W.E.R., Run by Stalinists)
Assert(International A.N.S.W.E.R, Opposed to War)
Assert(Many other people, Opposed to War)
Query(?X, Opposed to War)
Solve for X.
X=A.N.S.W.E.R.
X=Many other People
Query(?X, Stalinist)
X =International A.N.S.W.E.R
Clear?
ANSWER is a front for the WWP, one of the few unrepentant Stalinist groups left. These are not your garden variety leftists or greens, people who might want more social programs. No, these are died-in-the-wool hardcore *stalinists*
For an example, just check out the hilarity of this recent WWP piece whitewashing NK, by touting their "achievements" and mentioning NONE of the negatives of the system. http://www.workers.org/ww/2003/nkorea0306.php
Oh, and I love this ANSWER quote:
The anti-war movement here and abroad must give its unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance.
Unconditional? Doesn't matter how many people the resistance kills or the means used? If they're anti-war, shouldn't they be preaching pacifism?
So yes, it is newsworthy and legitimate target to criticism at anti-war protests run by Kim Jong Il's psychological relatives, a group that in fact, does not call for peace, but rather, armed resistance. The people marching with ANSWER should run their own protests, lest they be associated with these idiots, so they should know is really organizing them, and what they are really about.
CosmoKramer
Newcomer
Wow, are you telling me that there not only still exists Stalinists but they exist in the USA?
Yes, we have our share of morons, and somehow, they were able to run a high profile antiwar group that got big time celebrities onboard without anyone knowing until later.
Keep in mind that I posted back in March that I was opposed to the war on grounds I reiterated recently, and I am not a Stalinist. But I do object to the people who can't see past their own hatred and bias. Ok, the WAR HAPPENED. NOW WHAT! Campaigning "against the war" is ludicrous. It happened, it's over. Campaigning against the occupation is even more ridiculous. If removed too soon, many times more damage will be done to Iraq.
It's time to get constructive and stop rerunning arguments that were relevant in March.
Keep in mind that I posted back in March that I was opposed to the war on grounds I reiterated recently, and I am not a Stalinist. But I do object to the people who can't see past their own hatred and bias. Ok, the WAR HAPPENED. NOW WHAT! Campaigning "against the war" is ludicrous. It happened, it's over. Campaigning against the occupation is even more ridiculous. If removed too soon, many times more damage will be done to Iraq.
It's time to get constructive and stop rerunning arguments that were relevant in March.
CosmoKramer
Newcomer
I agree. Actually, I don't think anyone on these boards disagrees.
RM. Andersson
Newcomer
CosmoKramer said:Wow, are you telling me that there not only still exists Stalinists but they exist in the USA?
There is no real difference between Stalinist and Leninists anyway. Stalin only finished what Lenin had started.
It´s rather bad that we have parties such as kpml(r) in sweden. People that support bloody revolutions and organized massmurder.
But it´s worse that they are respected by people that could be expected to know better.
It makes me angry every time I see people like that with communist symbols screaming on the streets.
My solution, which I don't define as optimal, but rather making the best of a bad situation, would involve the United Nations, which will probably cause you to dismiss what I'm saying right from the beginning. But oh well, here goes.
The United States should turn over all authority to the United Nations as well as the members of the interim council without ties to Washington. That means Chalabi's gotta go. Anything else will look like the United States is trying to control the political situation in Iraq, (which right now, we are). Even then, there are valid arguments that many view the United Nations as a front for the US, but I think that most of the militants will probably go home after finding out the United States is leaving.
I think it's important to separate the militants attacking U.S. soldiers with RPGs and the people blowing themselves up outside the Red Cross. I tend to believe that most of the suicide bombers are not Iraqis resenting the occupation but rather foreign fanatics, while I think those fighting the U.S. troops directly are much more likely to be Iraqis fed up with the occupation. There have been numerous instances where members of the militant groups have gone on record after a suicide bombing to condemn it, and I think that most of them see those bombings as an evil foreign prescence similar to how they view the U.S. occupation. Even if Saddam loyalists are financing the attacks on U.S. troops, I very much doubt that most of the people fighting are Saddam loyalists, and I think that once the U.S. was out, the majority of them would no longer listen, and the resistance would lose most of it's popular support. Saddam's day is done, and I doubt very much that people will follow him back into power.
I would stop the privatization of Iraq's industry, especially to foreign companies, until such a time as Iraqis can democratically decide for themselves if that is the road they want to pursue.
As this is happening, the United States, in particular the presidential administration, should issue a formal apology to the Iraqi people and to the UN member nations. Although we will no longer be in control of the situation, we should completely finance it, because the rest of the UN shouldn't have to pay for a war we waged in defiance of international law. There should be a serious investigation into possible war crimes and human rights violations committed during the occupation. These investigations should also carry some measure of punitive power for people found to be violators.
U.S. troops may be able to stay in a peacekeeping role under UN authority, but if I were in charge I would try to replace them with foreign peacekeepers ASAP, not just because I want other countries to share the burden, or because I think trained peacekeepers are better at keeping their cool and avoiding turning residents against them, but also because I think every U.S. soldier in Iraq has the potential to serve as justification for guerrilla attacks.
I think that's kind of a start. There are plenty of other people articulating views on what should happen. And there are also plenty of people on the left criticizing ANSWER and NION. For a good read on that, go to number 8 of an article written by Michael Parenti and Stephen Shalom, called the Q&A on anti-war organizing: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=2527
The short answer to ANSWER is that, while many of us abhor their views, they're the ones with the resources, who are able to get people out. And so, on a national level, you have to attend their events and hope to win people over to your side while you're there. On a local level, I am proud to be from an ANSWER-free area, and our movement here is a homegrown one.
And once again Demo, I would just like to reiterate that it is not that the left doesn't have answers, but that the mainstream media likes to ignore them, or to turn to people who obviously don't. Again, why is it that we never here the news focus on the people at the counter-protests with signs reading "Nuke France" and "Kill All Muslims"? If that who was on TV instead of the retired generals and the presidential administration, everyone would be decrying the right as racist Nazis.
The United States should turn over all authority to the United Nations as well as the members of the interim council without ties to Washington. That means Chalabi's gotta go. Anything else will look like the United States is trying to control the political situation in Iraq, (which right now, we are). Even then, there are valid arguments that many view the United Nations as a front for the US, but I think that most of the militants will probably go home after finding out the United States is leaving.
I think it's important to separate the militants attacking U.S. soldiers with RPGs and the people blowing themselves up outside the Red Cross. I tend to believe that most of the suicide bombers are not Iraqis resenting the occupation but rather foreign fanatics, while I think those fighting the U.S. troops directly are much more likely to be Iraqis fed up with the occupation. There have been numerous instances where members of the militant groups have gone on record after a suicide bombing to condemn it, and I think that most of them see those bombings as an evil foreign prescence similar to how they view the U.S. occupation. Even if Saddam loyalists are financing the attacks on U.S. troops, I very much doubt that most of the people fighting are Saddam loyalists, and I think that once the U.S. was out, the majority of them would no longer listen, and the resistance would lose most of it's popular support. Saddam's day is done, and I doubt very much that people will follow him back into power.
I would stop the privatization of Iraq's industry, especially to foreign companies, until such a time as Iraqis can democratically decide for themselves if that is the road they want to pursue.
As this is happening, the United States, in particular the presidential administration, should issue a formal apology to the Iraqi people and to the UN member nations. Although we will no longer be in control of the situation, we should completely finance it, because the rest of the UN shouldn't have to pay for a war we waged in defiance of international law. There should be a serious investigation into possible war crimes and human rights violations committed during the occupation. These investigations should also carry some measure of punitive power for people found to be violators.
U.S. troops may be able to stay in a peacekeeping role under UN authority, but if I were in charge I would try to replace them with foreign peacekeepers ASAP, not just because I want other countries to share the burden, or because I think trained peacekeepers are better at keeping their cool and avoiding turning residents against them, but also because I think every U.S. soldier in Iraq has the potential to serve as justification for guerrilla attacks.
I think that's kind of a start. There are plenty of other people articulating views on what should happen. And there are also plenty of people on the left criticizing ANSWER and NION. For a good read on that, go to number 8 of an article written by Michael Parenti and Stephen Shalom, called the Q&A on anti-war organizing: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=2527
The short answer to ANSWER is that, while many of us abhor their views, they're the ones with the resources, who are able to get people out. And so, on a national level, you have to attend their events and hope to win people over to your side while you're there. On a local level, I am proud to be from an ANSWER-free area, and our movement here is a homegrown one.
And once again Demo, I would just like to reiterate that it is not that the left doesn't have answers, but that the mainstream media likes to ignore them, or to turn to people who obviously don't. Again, why is it that we never here the news focus on the people at the counter-protests with signs reading "Nuke France" and "Kill All Muslims"? If that who was on TV instead of the retired generals and the presidential administration, everyone would be decrying the right as racist Nazis.
RM. Andersson
Newcomer
The terrorists attacked both the red cross and the UN. They are well organized and prepared to take over Iraq as soon as they get a chanse.
To them there is no difference between the UN and the US. They don´t want democracy in any form or way.
So it´s important to stop the terrorists first. And to do that all borders must be better controled and more soldiers and police must be patroling the streets in all cities.
Most countries in the UN will not be interested in getting involved and send troops. Sure they want to get involved politically. But they don´t want to fight a war against terrorist that will hate them and do everything they can to kill UN soldiers.
So I think it will be very difficult to get any serious help from the UN at this point.
It will probably be possible to get some money from the UN. But no military help.
To them there is no difference between the UN and the US. They don´t want democracy in any form or way.
So it´s important to stop the terrorists first. And to do that all borders must be better controled and more soldiers and police must be patroling the streets in all cities.
Most countries in the UN will not be interested in getting involved and send troops. Sure they want to get involved politically. But they don´t want to fight a war against terrorist that will hate them and do everything they can to kill UN soldiers.
So I think it will be very difficult to get any serious help from the UN at this point.
It will probably be possible to get some money from the UN. But no military help.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 31
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 27
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 213
- Views
- 26K
