Galloway is off the deep end

[Grooner Five]

I think this is a bit too much, and believe there's a real danger in lionizing this guy. He's actually rooting for the Iraqi insurgency later in this article, and describing the way they work in unison with the anti-war movement. I'm starting to understand why Blair let him go.


http://www.iraq-news.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=461&Itemid=113


M.B.H.S.: You often call for uniting Muslim and progressive forces globally. How far is it possible under current situation?

George Galloway: Not only do I think it's possible but I think it is vitally necessary and I think it is happening already. It is possible because the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. Their enemies are the Zionist occupation, American occupation, British occupation of poor countries mainly Muslim countries.

They have the same interest in opposing savage capitalist globalization which is intent upon homogenizing the entire world turning us basically into factory chickens which can be forced fed the American diet of everything from food to Coca-Cola to movies and TV culture. And whose only role in life is to consume the things produced endlessly by the multinational corporations. And the progressive organizations & movements agree on that with the Muslims.

Otherwise we believe that we should all have to speak as Texan and eat McDonalds and be ruled by Bush and Blair. So on the very grave big issues of the day-issues of war, occupation, justice, opposition to globalization-the Muslims and the progressives are on the same side.

[AuntiBush]

1. Most, if not all of the so-called "Insurgents" are Iraqi Citizens!

It's been reported a lot recently. Don't believe the propoganda on the tube. Enrollment is down. Like * ratings.

[Grooner Five]

6. They're also blowing up children and beheading aid workers

I have a very hard time ignoring that.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Just Me]

35. ROTFLMAO

[ET Awful]

12. You know who else is blowing up children? (WARNING GRAPHIC)

US and British bombs.



That wasn't an insurgent bomb, that was a US bomb.






Yup, all coalition bombs.

Do you have a hard time ignoring that too?

[Grooner Five]

19. Of course I find that horrible

But I don't understand what your point is.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Grooner Five]

38. Steer your self-righteous anger elswhere, Sugar.

You're debating the past. I'm living in the present. Surely you don't want to see an insurgency win in Iraq by force, when a clear majority of Iraqis are striving for peaceful self-governance under the existing structure?

[sui generis]

I want our asses out of there

that IS the present

If China invaded your backyard and blew up your kids you'd be out there insurge-ing with the best of them, and you certainly wouldn't have kind words like "get over it", and "you're debating the past".

[ET Awful]

BINGO!

Some people just need to quite their soap-box grandstanding and actually think about what they're saying.

[Ladyhawk]

422. I've got to agree with ET Awful on this one.

The US caused the problem. We were the ones who went into the country illegally and killed 100,000 Iraqis, nearly half of them children. I don't much like the beheadings, either, but if we got the fuck out of there, there would be no insurgency, as has already been pointed out.

Geez, I hate it when people justify the US's war crime by pointing out folks on our "side" who have died. In my opinion, the US is just as guilty for those deaths because it invaded a country illegally, with "intelligence" based on outright lies.

We need to get the hell OUT of Iraq.

[samsingh]

125. leaving Iraq will leave the country with enormous powers

here's the timeline of US involvement in Iraq

- 1980s sell weapons to Saddam and keep him in power
- no major complaints when Saddam's jet dropped a missile on a US warship or when mustard Gas was dropped on the Kurds.
- 1990 goad Saddam into invading Kuwait and use as an excuse to start a war
- 2001 make up excuses to go invade Iraq - spearheaded by the same people that were befriending Saddam in the 80s
- 2003 invade Iraq and kills 100,000+ Iraqi civilians

- who is going to clean up the mess? walking away is bad, so is staying.

[sui generis]

147. well it's pretty clear that whatever the hell we're doing there

right now isn't working.

If we want a different or better or more effective result we're going to have to do something different or better or more effective, and more of that and less of the shit that ain't working.

The fact is the republican administration of the U.S. fucked it up bad, and they want the rest of America and the rest of the world to bail them out.

I want to do what's right, but I also want to hang the lying sons of bitches that put us in there.

[LifeDuringWartime]

194. US involvement goes back farther than that

the CIA was involved with getting Hussein to power in the first place

[notadmblnd]

232. the CIA even provided Saddam with a list of the names

of his potential opponents which Saddam had murdered when he came to power.

[LynnTheDem]

217. You left out a lot. US installed the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, for starters.

US involvement (interference) with Iraq started long before the 1980s.

[DerekG]

148. Akin to people denigrating the tactics of Nat Turner

It takes a lot of gall to label men like Turner--or the warrior abolitionist, John Brown--"terrorists" when we haven't been afforded the "experience" of seeing one's father lynched, mother raped, or having one's siblings sold down the river.

Why do we expect the oppressed to suffer in silence when, in all likelihood, most of us would (rightfully) take arms to defend our families?

[WildEyedLiberal]

216. That may be true

However, his point is that the there ARE beheadings and carbombs aimed at fellow Iraqis from some of the radical insurgents. If China invaded the US, I'd fight Chinese soldiers, but I wouldn't blow up an American bus or behead an international aid worker, either.

Idealizing the Iraqi insurgents as universal freedom fighters is dangerous and looks for all the world as if we accept terrorism as an acceptable tool to combat "oppressors". Bombing and killing is wrong. Wrong when the US does it, wrong when the Iraqi insurgents do it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

243. Something for you to ponder, if you're able -

by a poster, called Kotkijet, to another forum:

"On the Eleventh of September 2001, 3000 westerners were killed in the worst terrorist attack the west had ever been bothered by (because we don't see the attacks commited by America on 21 countries since WW2 as terrorist - none of the countries emerging with stable, democratic rule)

On the Eleventh of September 2001 - 420,000 children died of starvation which could easily been prevented had the West

a) Not imposed global policys which favour fat wallets
b) Used the gargantuan wealth garnered from exploitation of the non rich to help people other than themselves for a change".

NOW who do you think are the terrorists?

I could express the issue more pointedly, but there are people, in the UK also, who show an unhealthy (to others) interest in muting dissenting voices, and they have a sliding scale of sanctions against "transgressors", not available to the public. I'd prefer not to court severe "off the record" sanctions by them, least of all when it looks like things are beginning to unravel for their employers, generally speaking (there are good guys, too), in terms of their favoured, political and economic scenarios. But I think the facts outlined are clear enough.

[Just Me]

253. ZACTLY!!!! US global corporate policies which have exploited humanity!!!!

Those policies have destroyed more lives than several wars combined. Add the fact those policies also led to assassinations and wars which further oppressed people and no one should ever wonder why anti-Americanism has been fiercely rising over the last 30 - 40 years.

These facts can no longer be hidden, suppressed or denied if we are truly concerned about others' freedom and about "democracy". Of course, the BushCo/neoCON administration is interested in FORCING others to abide by their modern-day economic slavery and power. They have NO concern about human rights, civil rights, morality or values. They live for the love of power and money, not humanity.

[WildEyedLiberal]

408. Oh, don't mistake my words for a defense of atrocious US policy

I am fully aware the evils that have been committed in "our" name. Like I said, killing is wrong, when the Us does it and when anyone else does it. The US needs to begin withdrawal from Iraq. The continuation of the occupation is killing needlessly thousands of innocents.

[Frederik]

246. It's not a question of idealizing

Anyone who opposes an illegal occupation of his country violently, is in his right to do so. It's a pillar of international law since the days of Grotius. Violence against civilians and aid-workers is not defensible, but it's a small minority of insurgents that do those things, even though the propaganda department in the Pentagon is doing its best to make it look like this is the mainstream of the guerrilla. Much of the violence in Iraq is also perpetrated by criminals who kidnap people for money, which should not be confused with the "insurgency".

[sui generis]

451. really? I challenge you to be honest

in your next answer:

so, if the Chinese recruited a few (former) Americans to go around and jail and shoot and torture "insurgents" for the better good, you would still not shoot a fellow "American"?

What if they instead raped your teenage son in front of you at Abu Ghraib/Leavenworth and rode your mother like a donkey? What if they shot your five year old daughter for running out into the street after curfew? What if a fellow American wanted to use the opportunity of the invasion to right some perceived wrong you did, like posting on DU or being a Democrat or being of Scottish or German descent?

The fact is, insurgency is a manufactured concept designed to mask the real word: civil war. I believe you wouldn't "shoot first", but I also believe that in the longer scheme of things, nobody is going to ask who did what first, and that's the problem with how we perceive the insurgency here.

There are people who would use political unrest to further an agenda we disagree with: absolutist religious authoritarianism, but when we fail to recognize that we are responsible for creating that opening, we are destined inevitably to lose this war and have to retreat back out of there.

When we occupied Germany after the war, we didn't have the same pervasive hatred of Americans in our overseas bases, but the poor students of history who think that Iraqis are going to welcome us with flowers and parades are simply and dangerously deluded.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftchick]

96. Guess what Sugar?

The US is STILL bombing and killing civilians daily in Iraq. And guess what else? The clear majority of Iraqis want the USA OUT! Last thought for the day... Colonizers rarely ever beat the resistance.

[cyberpj]

158. Never? Would Native Americans agree with that? nt.

[leftchick]

186. point taken...

I was thinking more in tems of British, French and US forays into Arab and Asian lands. I have amended my post.

[bahrbearian]

222. It was kind of hard to win against germ warfare,, Smallpox Blankets

May we should pass some blankets out in Iraq,,,Freedom Blankets.

[cyberpj]

288. Not to mention alcoholism.

But neither you nor I doubt that the germs will happen, do we? Or maybe mass civilian destruction plus depleted uranium for the survivors is good enough.

[starroute]

403. In Iraq, the germ effect goes the other way

The Iraqis have far more diseases that Americans are vulnerable to than the other way round. That's why US soldiers have to be fed a cocktail of innoculations before going over there.

Also, having a lot of soldiers cooped up in barracks together is a sure recipe for spreading disease. I believe that's how the pandemic at the end of World War I got started.

Disease hasn't been a factor yet in the occupation of Iraq, but it's possible we've merely been lucky. If, say, avian flu were to break out, the result for the US forces could be devastating.

[eridani]

347. You've pointed out the only way the US can 'win'

It would have to be the same kind of 'win' as the colonial victory over American natives, namely mass murder amounting to genocide.

[AuntiBush]

102. Might I ask "Grooner Five:" "What are you not over there fighting?"

Huh? Why are you out here on the Internet?

Head for your local office and sign-up! Walk your walk.

[ProfessorGAC]

106. Don't Be Ridiculous

There are over a million Iraqis who have had a friend or family member killed by the invading military. Simple exponential growth of close acquaintances to those million derives a majority of those who loathe the U.S. for those killings, accidental, intentional or collateral. There is no clear majority against the insurgency.

You, in fact, simply made that up.
The Professor

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[samsingh]

107. why is debating the past in some cases off limits?

and in other cases very important.

i think the Iraqi civilian bloodshed can't be ignored by saying it's all in the past - let's now move forward.

[AuntiBush]

112. Ah. That word, "Sugar!" You're a southern DU traveler. Aa-ha.

Rather then "shoot-off steam" here, why don't you "shoot-off" in Iraqi, since you seem to think it's ok that over 50% of those DEAD Iraqi's were Children and women, who will NEVER see the "light of day" in the name of Democracy.

[Bouncy Ball]

143. You must have missed the point that MOST of the insurgency

is MADE UP OF IRAQI CITIZENS!

You say you don't want the insurgency to win, you want the Iraqis to win, but those are, for the most part, the same people.

So you DO want the insurgency to win!

[LynnTheDem]

214. A clear majority of Iraqis want us the fuck out of Iraq and have done

from the start. And into Year #3, we're still there.

[Name removed]

241. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Frederik]

242. How do you know that?

"a clear majority of Iraqis are striving for peaceful self-governance under the existing structure"

[Frederik]

The past??

You think the occupation forces have stopped blowing children up? You don't live in the present, you live in CNN-land.

[tavalon]

386. I want us to leave now!

There are people who say that the country will collapse into civil war if we leave now. They are right. However, that will happen no matter whether we leave today or in 10 years (see Vietnam for a blueprint of what we have done wrong. It's deja vu time). We set them up big time. It serves no purpose for us to stay in a place we should never have been in to start with. The past collides with the present every single day in Iraq.

[northzax]

156. true, they'd all be in Hussein's army or in jail

but that's neither here nor there.

Yes, the US should never have invaded Iraq, but that does not give moral carte blanche to those who oppose the invasion and occupation. The US and British armies and air forces have undeniably killed many thousands of iraqi civilians. no doubt, and every one is a tragedy. The 'insurgency' has also undeniably killed many thousands of Iraqi civilians. Is one more morally acceptable than the other?

Is it more or less acceptable to kill civilian inadvertantly, through missed bombs, or to kill 60 people waiting to get a job?

You can argue yourself blue in the face that the US should never have invaded Iraq. Fine, I agree with you. But, unless you have some sort of Time Machine, there's nothing you can in fact do about that, is there? We are now faced with cleaning up the mess created by this invasion and the resulting acts of terrorism conducted by so-caled insurgents Frankly, the whole thing is awful, but we're stuck with a problem that needs solving, simply complaining about past actions doesn't help, and blaming one side only doesn't help either.

[ET Awful]

205. So now you're spouting the administration's line that they're all

Hussein loyalists or ex-criminals?

It hasn't entered your mind that many of those insurgents are normal every day Iraqis whose families were torn apart by US bombs? You think the father of that girl pictured above is going to love the US after they blew his daughters feet off?

Sorry, but to say "they'd all be in Hussein's army or in jail" is complete and utter bullshit. The majority of them would be home with their families.

[aneerkoinos]

230. Here's a moral carte blance for you

At the top is written: MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!

Which means that morality is not judgementalism of others, but first taking responsibility of one's own actions, as an individual and as a society.

Compassion is the beginning of all morality, and compassion means understanding. None of us really understand the reality in Iraq, we are not Iraqi. Actively helping others bears fruit only if there is genuine readiness and will to accept the kind of help we are offering. Passive helping is easier, it means that we stop causing suffering to others by our actions.

The moral case in Iraq could not be clearer, occupation, which is our primary responsibility, is the problem, it is not helping anybody but clicques of powerhungry puppets (now especially puppets of Iran :D), occupation causes immense suffering and makes Iraqi turn against Iraqi, it is solution to nothing but caused by US greed and hubris, occupation must stop. Only after that Iraqi people can start sorting out their own problems, of which they have more than enough.

[Frederik]

255. First of all:

the US occupation forces have killed many times more Iraqi citizens than the insurgents have, and they continue to do so unperturbed. But, of course, the propaganda office in the Pentagon prefers that we're told of atrocities committed by insurgents only.

Second, "cleaning up the mess" is not an accurate description of what US troops are doing down there, and neither are they capable of that - they aren't even capable of protecting themselves or securing the road from the Green Zone to the airport. Third, it's not a question of "moral carte blance". The Iraqis have every right to oppose the US occupation with violent means, but not of killing civilians and aid workers. Still, it's a minoroty that does those things. The majority fights the occupiers and the collaborators, which again is something the propaganda office would rather we ignore.

The fist step in bringing stability to Iraq is for the occupiers to pull out completely, as their presence is in itself the biggest cause of instability. It's not going to be all peaceful in Iraq after the US and UK pull out, but it can't possibly get much worse either. I think it is almost inconceivable that any kind of normalcy can come to Iraq while it is still occupied.

[bpilgrim]

29. the OCCUPYING INVADERS are raping TORTURING and MURDERING civilians

http://images.globalfreepress.com
even CHILDREN in front of their own MOTHERS.

we DEMAND that it STOP.

peace

[river2]

The Iraqi insurgents are blowing up innocent children

blowing them to pieces...

The American soldiers over there are not all the thugs you try and pretend they are...give it up man...you're coloring with a real broad brush.

It's not as black and white as some of you try and see it.

[ET Awful]

58. Really? Who shot this girls parents in front of her?

I'll give you a hint, they had red, white and blue patches on their uniforms.

You're the one trying to paint it as black and white.

[river2]

60. You know the full context of that picture?

I guarantee you that suicide bombers over there have killed plenty of innocent people.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[river2]

74. If you have the context of the picture I'd like to read about it - nt

[jayfish]

87. Not To Sound Crass,...

donate $10 and search the archives. They are extensive.

Jay

[ET Awful]

90. Here ya go.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/middle_east_shooting_in_tal_afar/html/3.stm

and while you're at it, please explain what this girl did:

[river2]

101. Yes I do remember that

It was tragic, but it was a mistake.

It was not done intentionally.

I didn't want to go into Iraq. But our soldiers aren't as bad as bpilgrim is making them out to be.

Nor are the insurgents all heroic.

It's not a pretty black and white picture.

There are Iraqis that want us to stay to fix what we broke.

Many US soldiers are good people doing the best they can.

Some of the insurgents truly are bloodthirsty monster, power hungry.

The situation is more complex than US and troops bad, other side good.

[ET Awful]

103. So tell me . . . what part about pointing your gun at someone

and firing until they die is accidental? Is it the trigger squeeze or the fact that the weapon actually goes off?

You don't kill two people and spread their insides all over their children and then call it an accident.

[river2]

115. Huh?

You saying they wanted to kill a family? I don't think so. It's time to check yourself.

The car wasn't stopping, they thought it was a suicide bomber.

It's a perfect example of why we shouldn't have gone in, as chaos leading to death results, but the shooting was an accident, not those soldiers fault.

[ET Awful]

159. Sorry, it's not an accident when several soldiers shoot dozens of

rounds into a vehicle.

[river2]

162. Uh yeah

that can still be an accident.

You have a presumption of guilt - not very American.

[ET Awful]

173. When there's half a dozen soldiers standing around a car, and

all of them have smoking barrels on their rifles and there are dozens of holes in the car, I'd say that's pretty damned strong evidence.

[river2]

175. Well you can construct the scene in your mind anyway you want to

Ok - they killed the family just for fun.

[ET Awful]

202. I see, so in your mind the only possible reason besides "accident"

is "fun." Gee, you have an interesting perspective . . . some might call it a black & white viewpoint.

You might want to investigate one of the myriad shades of grey between "accident" and "fun" . . . like "they just don't give a fuck."

Using your argument, you'd have to also say that suicide bombers do it for "fun" since it wasn't an accident.

You really have an odd way of looking at things.

[Swamp Rat]

208. "You have a presumption of guilt - not very American."

So are PREEMPTIVE WARS!

Now that we know for a fact that Bush&Co lied about the need for war, anyone who participates is abetting/committing crimes against humanity.

This WILL be heard in an international tribunal someday.

Mark my words.

[Ladyhawk]

423. It sure as hell better be.

My perspective is that many US soldiers are victims, too. They didn't ask to fight an illegal war based on lies. Those fucking Republicans lied us into war. Now these kids are coming back with brain injuries and missing limbs.

Iraq is completely unstable, full of radioactive depleted uranium. The infrastructure has been bombed to bits.

No one wins when a dumbass president and his buddies decide to wage a war for the hell of it.

ET Awful: Another scenario would have been that the soldiers really were scared out of their wits that the car had a bomb in it. Either way, the fact is the US gov't is responsible because it lied us into that war. Every war death that has taken place in Iraq has happened because of a group of old, lying, incompetent white men who set their sites on a New American Century and instead have created a New American Tragedy.

Hell yes, deaths on both sides are awful, deplorable.

Who put all those people in that position, both American and Iraqi. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Bush, Rumsfeld. May they all be brought to justice in a Nuremberg-type trial.

[bpilgrim]

124. i am just posting the FACTS so don't attack the MESSENGER, please

it's VERY BAD though when we are setting up gulags all over and TORTURING CHILDREN, ain't it, but don't fucking blame me.

peace

[samsingh]

150. insurgents are bad, us involvement in iraq is bad

it's all bad. that's the problem

no winners, only losers.

innocents suffer terribly.

[river2]

154. THANK YOU

Liberals who argue against the way by attacking US troops and defending insurgents do their cause no favors.

[Name removed]

271. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[M155Y_A1CH]

278. Yeah, you're right

and republicans are assholes.

[Ladyhawk]

424. Yes...and keep reminding yourself who is to blame. n/t

[LynnTheDem]

224. The vast majority of Iraqis want us the fuck out of their country.

WE are the bad guys. WE INVADED a nation that had not been doing one damn thing to anyone.

It's OUR FAULT that there is an insurgency.

Period.

And the insurgency will continue until we get the fuck out of their country and leave them the fuck alone.

Period.

[noiretextatique]

460. american arrogance is no stranger to DU

as we see by all those who don't yet grasp this simple fact: the iraqis never wanted us in their country, they never asked us to come. they do not "love" us and they don't think dying for our ignorance and arrogance is their duty, as some americans seem to think.

they want to be left the fuck alone...what a concept, eh?

[eissa]

110. Here it is

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7784.htm

[samsingh]

144. there's no context to the Iraq war

except bush's duplicity and evil.

[jayfish]

72. And If We Didn't Overthrow...

Iraq, how many innocents would be killed by suicide bombs? I would also hazard to guess that everyone on this thread knows the exact context of that picture.



Jay

[river2]

83. That is true

The chaos is there is Bush's fault, he was warned.

That doesn't morally absolve the suicide bombers, who randomly kill.

[ET Awful]

113. So, when the US razed Fallujah and basically killed everyone left

in the town, was that random?

Sorry, your "random" argument doesn't fly. There are over 100,000 dead civilians in Iraq, and I guarantee you that there are as many that were killed by indiscriminate US bombing as by any suicide bomber.

[Swamp Rat]

209. The razing of Falluja = War crime n/t

[LynnTheDem]

Actually 85% of the 100,000 were killed by US/UK bombing

NOT by the insurgents.

(I can go look out the link to that 85% if wanted)

[ET Awful]

228. I don't doubt it, I just couldn't find the info quickly. n/t

[bpilgrim]

94. 'I saw the heads of my two little girls come off' (GRAPHIC)

April 2 2003, 11:38 AM

An Iraqi mother in a van fired on by US soldiers says she saw her two young daughters decapitated in the incident that also killed her son and eight other members of her family.

The children's father, who was also in the van, said US soldiers fired on them as they fled towards a checkpoint because they thought a leaflet dropped by US helicopters told them to "be safe", and they believed that meant getting out of their village to Karbala.

Bakhat Hassan - who lost his daughters, aged two and five, his three-year-old son, his parents, two older brothers, their wives and two nieces aged 12 and 15, in the incident - said US soldiers at an earlier checkpoint had waved them through.

As they approached another checkpoint 40km south of Karbala, they waved again at the American soldiers.

"We were thinking these Americans want us to be safe," Hassan said through an Army translator at a Mobile Army Surgical Hospital set up at a vast Army support camp near Najaf.

The soldiers didn't wave back. They fired.

more...
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/02/1048962796085.html?oneclick=true

just 1 incident of many...

still looking for the story of the OP image but they were just another family, innocent civilians fired upon by OUR troops in the HELL we created over there.


http://images.globalfreepress.com

:cry:

peace

[noiretextatique]

120. death is death to the DEAD

they don't feel better because americans or british troops kill them or if they are killed by suicide bombers.

[jayfish]

133. Brilliant!

Did you come up with that yourself? It is very good.

Jay

[noiretextatique]

179. yes...a response to the INSANE notion

that american and british bombs and bullets are somehow more....i don't know that the argument here is really, but...the notion that killing by americans and british is 'different' than killing by suicide bombers. it's an absurd notion, apparently advanced even by some who are against the war :crazy:

[Name removed]

244. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Frederik]

266. Suicide bombers

Does that in some twisted way justify the occupation?

If there were no occupation, there wouldn't have been any suicide bombers. Before March 19, 2003, there had never been suicide bombers in Iraq.

And it's an undeniable fact: the vast majority of those who are killed and maimed are the victims of American violence.

[jayfish]

66. Whoo Whoo Another One.

"It's not as black and white as some of you try and see it."

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You just keeping telling yourself that freedom is on the march and all will be well.:rofl:

Jay

[river2]

69. I don't think 'freedom is on the march'

All I'm saying is that not all US troops are thugs, and the insurgents aren't all patriotic angels.

That's what I'm saying, don't like it, then...

[jayfish]

79. No One Said They Were.

But the ones who are, well...

Jay

[bullimiami]

no probably most us troops are not thugs

but they are engaged in a thuggish illegal war.

they dont have any say in the matter unless they want to desert.

[bpilgrim]

134. No One Said They Were...

sounds like you are now trying to build a straw man.

peace

[Just Me]

67. I get the impression that you are NOT one of those soldiers.

Some are ordered to kill everything that moves regardless of sex or age. Soldiers are trained to kill,...not create "democracy". Besides, this war was never about democracy,...it was for the corporacrats who don't give a damn about you or me or our soldiers or the Iraqi people.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[river2]

73. I hate Faux News - nt

[bpilgrim]

76. we are RAPING and TORTURING CHILDREN in front of their Mothers, hello...

as well as BLOWING THEM TO BITS.


http://images.globalfreepress.com

psst... pass the word

peace

[river2]

86. Give me a break - that picture doesn't show jack

You're way into the hyperbole though.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[river2]

127. Yeah abu graib

I already know about that. Not all soldiers partook in that. Give it up.

[bpilgrim]

145. NO. not JUST Abu Gharib, it's ALL over the ME

and then there is GITMO and TORTURE and IGNORING the GC is now our POLICY.

this has got to STOP but it won't if we bury our collective heads in the sand.

WAKE UP and PASS the WORD!


http://images.globalfreepress.com

peace

[river2]

152. I agree it's got to stop

That still doesn't make the insurgents who kill innocents good people - they're still murderers in my book.

[bpilgrim]

171. you got it

That still doesn't make our soldiers who kill and TORTURE innocents, even CHILDREN, for Christ's sake, good people - they're still murderers in my book.

peace

[river2]

174. Fine

But "our soldiers" seems like such a blanket term - that's what bugs me...

[bpilgrim]

178. war is hell and i blame our LEADERS for letting slip the dogs of war

but individual solders must be held to account for their crimes as well and must NOT be ignored.

peace

[jayfish]

128. 2nd On That Welcome.

And I'm serious about donating the $10. :hi:

Jay

[LynnTheDem]

229. "hyperbole" What part is "HYPERBOLE"??? The RAPING part?

The BLOWING TO PIECES part?

NONE of it is "hyperbole".

[Frederik]

286. I'm sure you wouldn't object

if Chinese troops stormed into your home and handcuffed your daughters.

[Andrushka]

351. It "doesn't show jack"?

:wtf:

It shows a US soldier cuffing what appears to be an unarmed 12 year-old girl in her own house. That sits OK with you?

[AuntiBush]

130. The poor Iraqi's are paid 100.00 to defend their country

And are caught in the middle of something they did not ask for, nor invite.

Look at those photos. Look at them real hard. If they're all insurgents, how are they getting-in? Are you saying the trillions of dollars spent on Iraqi for this war, based on all lies is doing no good?

Are you saying our military can't handle it? Maybe they can't because they're not part of the elite Halliburton members on soil.

Next time you hold up a purple finger, add blood. Seems you're divorced from reality, Sugar.

[Bouncy Ball]

149. The soldiers are under orders to do what they do.

The soldiers are just a hammer. It is the arm wielding the hammer I have a problem with, buddy.

And YES we are blowing up and killing Iraqis, all the time, and have been for two years.

FOR WHAT???

[LynnTheDem]

223. Who just did the "black & white" Who just used a real broad brush?

Why, that would be YOU'

"The Iraqi insurgents are blowing up innocent children"

[Frederik]

260. It is, actually

The country was invaded illegally and is now occupied illegally. The occupiers have caused and continue to cause untold sufferings for the people of Iraq. The occupiers should get the hell out. The fact that certain factions of the guerrillas comprise really bad people, and the fact that many of the occupying soldiers are very nice people, though both undeniably true, are completely irrelevant.

This is not a morally grey question, it really is black and white.

[KansDem]

160. That photo is so sad...

If I recall correctly, when that photo was taken, the little girl's parents (both of them) were just murdered by American troops at a checkpoint. I have a copy of that photo in my security card/hang tag I wear around my neck at work (one side is my photo ID, the other side is that photo of the little girl). I wear it as a reminder that, had George W. Bush never been born, that little girl's parents would still be alive...

PS I've got a son about that age...

[bpilgrim]

177. i have a daughter her age and it kills me to know this is going on

and why i can't keep my mouth shut. :cry:

together we will make this STOP and hold them ACCOUNTABLE.

:hi:

peace

[eissa]

187. I have it posted outside my office door

I also have a daughter that age. I just can't imagine the horror that child and her siblings witnessed -- and for what?

[Bok_Tukalo]

172. Without a doubt one of the most gut wrenching photos of this war

Harsh harsh harsh.

Only the inhuman would fail to be moved by it.

[AuntiBush]

98. Exactly! Some sure hate to see the truth!

Sad, but much needed post! :thumbsup:

[ryan_cats]

343. There's a certain place in hell

There's a certain place in hell for the people that caused that. Damn Damn Damn!!!!!!!!

[jayfish]

21. So Are We...

we just use more "sophisticated" weaponry to get the job done.

Jay


PS; I'm going to predict that your response will have the phrase "moral equivalency" in it.

[Grooner Five]

32. I'm not arguing that our bombs are good

I'm just questioning the wisdom of rooting for the insurgency in Iraq. They are clearly the minority there, and horribly violent.

[jayfish]

37. If They Are Clearly The Minority,...

why haven't they been rounded up? You cannot do what they are doing without support from the general populace. You just can't.

BTW I really don't think anyone knows exactly who or what the insurgency it. Especially not US intelligence.

Jay

[Tansy_Gold]

165. One government's insurgents may very well be

an oppressed people's freedom fighters.


It's all a matter of perspective.

[bpilgrim]

41. what about our GULAGS and TORTURE?

http://images.globalfreepress.com

FYI: the insurgency wouldn't be there if they didn't have the support of a MAJORITY of the population and they wouldn't have the support of a majority of the population if NOT for OUR atrocities on a MASSIVE SCALE.

peace

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[elehhhhna]

45. Gol, since you have it all figured out, perhaps enlistment is in order.

Thanks in advance and good luck. Please end this mess asap & report back!

[bullimiami]

64. grooner. it seems like you start from the premise that it is ok

that we are there.
creating a government of our choosing and forcing the people to submit to a neocon dream.

that you think it is reasonable that there should be rulers (the us government and its powerful friends) and the ruled (poor iraqis).

I do not, and maybe because of that I dont take offense at what Galloway said.

[Bouncy Ball]

157. If they are such a minority why haven't the overwhelming US

forces defeated them?

Huh?

:crickets chirping:

Face fact, they are NOT a minority. And you need to ask yourself how YOU would feel if a foreign country came in and attacked your home and family. I guess you'd just sit there, right? Sha. Right.

[Frederik]

275. When the US troops conducted

their operation in western Iraq recently, they noticed that one village would warn the next of the approaching Americans by turning off all the lights in the village. The insurgents are not a minority. The Iraqis want the occupiers OUT, many are actively resisting, and most are passively resisting.

[noiretextatique]

108. remember who started this war?

why on earth do americans believe the irqais shouldn't fight back?

[SouthernDem2004]

62. Incorrect. They are Saudis:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051401270.html

[leftchick]

121. Juan Cole believes differently

as well as many other real journalists in Iraq. The resistance consists of Sunni, Shiia, Iraqi Islamic fundamentalists and indeed a few "foreign fighters" most of whom come are Saudi (that we know of).
The bottom line is the majority of Iraqis want the USA out.

One article in the discredited WaPo isn't very impressive. I rely on the folks who have lived and breathed what is going on there. The US troops are fomenting the attacks. Time to bring them the hell home.

[Frederik]

279. Oh give me a break

:rofl:

Yes, all the insurgents are Saudis, the Iraqis just want to live in peace with their neocon overlords.

Sure, a big percentage of the suicide bombers are Saudis, but the vast majority of insurgents are NOT suicide bombers, they are guerrilla fighters.

[AuntiBush]

418. I wrote that wrong: Long day...

What I was referring to was a report thru Link TV was that many of the insurgents (the usage of the word in itself) is manipulated by many.

The poor Iraqi police being trained to protect their country are paid about 100 monthly; lousy life-styles obviously.

I'd never put our troops down, less they're violent and abusive, hence...

[bryant69]

2. Prepare to be flamed

That said, this doesn't look that sinister, just goofy and wrongheaded - be interesting to see how far he would go with this argument though.

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Grooner Five]

164. You weren't kidding

[Karenina]

3. He sounds quite reasonable to me. n/t

[whistle]

4. You mean that George Galloway is really a communist.....

:popcorn:

[BurtWorm]

5. Scratch A.N.S.W.E.R. a little, and you'll find the same positions.

I don't think the insurgency is anything to pin your hopes on, if you want Iraq for the Iraqis personally. But I agree with Galloway and A.N.S.W.E.R. on more than I agree with the Republicans on.

[ET Awful]

8. So, in your opinion saying that Muslims share a common goal

with the anti-war movement, which is to say they don't want ANYBODY occupying force running their country is a bad thing?

Hmmm, I think not.

[Name removed]

251. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bloom]

9. Who are you rooting for?

And if it's the Iraqi civilians - who is going to get them their country back?

[Grooner Five]

13. I'm rooting for the folks who voted in those elections

...way more than I'm rooting for people who would use terrorism to achieve their goals.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stand and Fight]

31. Terrorism?

They are fighting the INVADERS of THEIR country. Step away from the god-damn Kool-Aid!

[eissa]

55. Sean Hannity would be so proud of you

I'm willing to bet that if the American Revolution were to have taken place in today's environment, Patrick Henry, George Washington, etc. would all have been labeled "terrorists" or "insurgents" rather than patriots.

[bullimiami]

75. Henry, Washington etc Im sure were labeled terrorists or insurgents...

by the british.

of couse the winners wrote the history books.

[bpilgrim]

313. they were, but some Brits like William Pitt the Younger Denounced the WAR

and was 'rooting' for the American PATRIOTS...

He was rarely emotive but was a very impressive speaker who used a wide vocabulary. For example, when speaking of the American War, he called it 'most accursed, wicked, barbarous, cruel, unnatural, unjust and diabolical'. Pitt was most concerned about the American War and in 1782 he moved for a Select Committee to consider a reform of parliament with the intention of consolidating middle-class power and restricting the influence of Crown; the motion was defeated. He spoke rarely until 1783 when he became PM and he refused ‘minor office’ under Rockingham. Pitt was influenced by Shelburne and was never a democrat. He also had powerful friends.

source...
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/pms/pitt.htm

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." — Thomas Paine, Dissertations on First Principles of Government (1795)

peace

[jayfish]

78. Did You Know That Prior To The Invasion...

Iraq had nearly 100% turnout for it's elections. Why the big falloff?

Jay

[slaveplanet]

168. You mean the ones who were

Voting for food rations?

The turnout was nonexistent to low in central and northern Iraq, with the exception of parts of Baghdad and the Kurdish regions. There was no voter registration. The government arbitrarily declared that 14 million people were eligible to vote using the food ration system developed under the Oil for Food program. Voters were sent to food ration centers to vote and there was widespread suspicion that the renewal of food ration cards would be tied to voting.

The puppet electoral commission at first declared that 72 percent of the voters had turned out. It then reduced that to 57 percent, with 8 million voting. This was long before the votes were counted. The communications system in the country is in a shambles and it was physically impossible to come up a count so quickly.

The numbers were given out by Farid Ayar, spokesperson for the Independent Iraqi Electoral Commission--a stooge of the Allawi government and the U.S. When asked at a press conference about the numbers given, Ayar said, "Percentages and numbers come only after counting and will be announced when it's over... It's too soon to say that those were official numbers."

Dahr jamal-
http://tinyurl.com/d8dmx

[Frederik]

291. So you think none of the people who voted,

believing that their vote would actually lead to THE OCCUPIERS LEAVING THEIR COUNTRY AND A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT INSTALLED, is also resisting violenty? What do you base that on? And, what's your point with saying that?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

448. a Hannity and Coulter disciple eh?

[Stand and Fight]

10. WRONG.

The "insurgents" are Iraqi patriots. Don't like the term patriot? Tough. Because there's a little history behind that term in our own country. You do know that our founding fathers were also called insurgents, and that we referred to them as patriots? Just who the hell are you rooting for? Bush, Cheney, Halliburton? I'm not rooting for the insurgents, but I sure as hell know that what the Neo-Cons are doing is EVIL. The insurgents want to banish the Neo-Cons' evil from their land. Can you blame them?

I won't even go into the specifics of just how wrong you are, because I am positive that there are people on here who can do a far better job than I can. I'll just say it again very clearly:

You and the author are totally WRONG.

[Grooner Five]

24. What aboutpulling for the folks who voted in their elections?

They had a higher turnout than we did last time. I want what they want.

[ET Awful]

33. You don't really know much about those "elections" do you? n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

449. i do know that 2.5 to 3 million of the the Iraqi voters were EXPATES

SOME WERE EVEN SECOND GENERATION AMERICAN CITIZENS THAT WERE ALLOWED TO VOTE IN THE iRAQI ELECTIONS


if you could prove that your grandparents were Iraq notn you were allowed to vote in the iraq elections here in the USA

[bpilgrim]

34. lol

don't drink the kool-aide... it's simply catapulted PROPAGANDA.

peace

[Cell Whitman]

170. Hey!! has anyone done that graphic??

have a kid with a Kool Aid stand selling Grape, Orange, and drawing from a tub of "Catapulted Propaganda"...hah

You could have prices of a nickle for the grape and orange and the price of the "catapulted propaganda" would be "your freedom" or something like that.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BillZBubb]

49. Are you sure you want what they want? Do you have a clue?

The Shiites all voted. The Kurds all voted. The Sunnis did not vote. The "election" was a sham.

The Shiites want a theocratic Iraq based on Islamic law. They will be aligned with Iran.

The Kurds want an independent Kurdistan. This will lead to a war with Turkey and civil war inside Iraq.

The Sunnis want control back. They will fight to the end to get it.

The "elections" mean civil war in Iraq.

[underpants]

50. By the way Bush never wanted any elections Sistani forced his hand there

The original plan (look it up) was for US military officials to appoint governors and the like. Sistani said "Uh, no" so THEN the plan became to have regional caucuses (picked by the US military) and they would pick the government again Sistani said no and staged a MASSIVE march demanding elections-one man one vote. W quickly ran out to a microphone and announced that he too was for elections. Sistani said elections in May 2004-W (not really him) couldn't have that (what if the "insurgency" continued after that *GASP*?) and Sistani went along with it.

That is the timeline. Look it up if you don't believe it.

[mirrera]

438. I read the elections were for a different reason,

There is a great article by Naomi Klein that mentions the election as a way for us to temporarily (3 months or so) NOT be considered occupiers so that we could sell off the 200 or so state businesses in Iraq. It is illegal as an occupier to do that, so none of the lined up companies jumped at the offer. The interim government was supposed to sign onto this constitution so the "free market" people could carry on. It all seems to have gone to hell from there. We were STEALING their businesses. We imported cement to make walls to protect the green zone when Iraq had something like 17 cement companies that we just "couldn't" get going? I will find the article...

Here is a link: http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html
This article is so important that I also posted it in my web site in case it ever disappears:

http://mariasart.com/insurgency.html

Believe nothing from our TV news...




www.nobullshirt.com

[Coexist]

61. they want the armed forces to stop killing them

they want to help rebuild their own country - but we won't let them, only Haliburton/KBR get that privilege. So the unemployment rate is hovering at about 50%. No wonder they are killing civilian contractors - they want them out so they can get JOBS other than joining the Iraqi Army or Police - where they will get KILLED.
<snip>
"BuzzFlash: Is it true that the reconstruction money is being spent on employing American companies like Halliburton and that the Iraqi unemployment rate is 50%?

Riverbend: It is true. The Iraqi unemployment rate is atrocious. People literally wander the streets looking for some sort of employment. Factories have shut down, companies, ministries, etc. and the decision to disband the Iraqi army has resulted in hundreds of thousands of unemployed Iraqis. Many Iraqis currently graduating from college spend months and months looking for work, even if it isn't related to what they studied.

Many American companies are getting millions of dollars for reconstruction contracts and then giving the work to Iraqi sub-contractors who have 'relations.' Reconstruction work right now is not about the good job a contractor can do, but just who he is related to or how many people he's bribed to get the contract. This has resulted in shoddy work, and millions of dollars literally going to waste, because the contract is given to American companies for very large sums of money and then to Iraqi sub-contractors for a pittance.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=3000
<snip>
Riverbend: The White House makes it very simple when talking about the insurgency -- foreign, Islamic terrorists. It's hardly that simple. I guess most Iraqis believe there is resistance and there is terror. Resistance is coming from various sources -- former Iraqi army people, Islamists, Ba'athists, nationalists and ordinary people who hate this new way of life Iraqis are being relegated to. Terror is also coming from various sources and in many cases it is a complete mystery. Many people believe the attacks against the police force and security forces are the work of outsiders or people who want Iraqis to hate the resistance. It's difficult to tell at this point just what is going on. Some attacks are meant to cause sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shia, but those are quite easy to see through (for example the bombing of Sunni mosques or Shia Husseiniyas) and Iraqis have proven over the last two years that they are far too tolerant to fall for such underhanded techniques."


I am pretty sure they want control back of their natural resources (oil) - who is making money off of it right now???

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/4216853.stm

[eissa]

63. You want a Taliban-like government?

Because that's what those who voted want. Since we encouraged the shut-out of the Sunni majority -- who happen to be the more secular population -- the remaining Shiites were brought in by the droves by their local mosques, promising a more religious-based government once they came to power. And it's happening already, with laws being pushed by those candidates limiting what women wear and certain marriage laws.

[muriel_volestrangler]

189. Just on a point of fact - the Shia are the majority

Very roughly, Iraq is 60% Shia, 20% Sunni, 20% Kurd (using the main divisions, even if they are a mixture of religious and ethnic).

[eissa]

191. I don't know

I don't believe the Sunni population is at only 20%. Also, once the Kurds are factored in -- who are 99% Sunni -- the gap is even closer.

[ovidsen]

197. Highly innacurate!

The Sunnis are NOT the majority in Iraq. They make up less than 1/3 of the population.

Furthermore, the Sunnis who boycotted the election did so because they did NOT want legitimize a vote that rejected their ruling class status under Saddam.

You are correct in saying that many Shiites want a more religion based government. But it's not the Shiites who are terror bombing. It's Sunnis, from Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan as well as Iraq.

And lately the Sunni bombers have been wasting a LOT more civilians than both the US and the so-called Iraqi military put together.

From today's Manchester Guardian (a liberal British paper)

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Insurgents killed 39 people in a series of rapid-fire attacks Thursday, as they ratcheted up a bloody campaign against the Shiite-led government that left at least 814 dead. One month after taking office, it claimed its first success in a brutal struggle to eradicate the insurgency, claiming to have arrested at least 700 ``terrorists.''

Angry leaders of the Sunni Arab minority, complaining they are being targeted by the latest government crackdown, threatened to boycott the drafting of Iraq's new constitution - a crucial document the U.S. hopes will help stabilize Iraq and let it eventually withdraw its troops.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5048463,00.html

I think river2 and Grooner Five make some valid points.

[eissa]

198. I still questions those percentages

The Iraq my family left was more evenly split between Sunni and Shi'a, especially when the Kurds were factored in. I had many Iraqi friends and family laugh at this new geographic location called "the Sunni triangle" as a new place that never existed before bush came in. I think it's to this administration's favor to try and paint the Sunni population as a minority group ruling over an oppressed majority. That simply was not the case. Furthermore, we do not know for certain who the insurgents are; to think the Shi'a are entirely on our side is really far-fetched, especially when you consider that the type of government they wish to install is not one in line with our idea of democracy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

201. It's the figures that are typically given

eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2931903.stm

60% Shia Arab, 20% Sunni Arab, 17% Kurd, 3% other

and those are the rough figures I've always seen. Perhaps the percentages have changed a little since your familty left. Are you saying they (or you) knew some census figures, or it just seemed that the split was fairly even? It's very difficult for any of us to judge demographic figures with any accuracy over an entire country, no matter how well travelled we are.

[eissa]

203. I have seen earlier figures

that reported a more even split, but of course, I have no links. And the picture I get from family and friends is that split was not only more even, but more importantly, IRRELEVANT. Many view this whole emphasis on Sunni/Shi'a as a "divide and conquer" technique used (as always) by a colonizing nation. Though a vast majority of Iraqis naturally hated Saddam, the mainstream from all religious groups were at least comforted by the fact that he kept the religious freaks (both Sunni, Shi'a and all others) away.

[muriel_volestrangler]

210. I can see your point

Unless a country is going to be a theocracy, the division between 2 branches of a religion shouldn't be that politically important in the modern world. It appeared to me that the successful coalitions in the elections did play up the divide though - and Allawi, who was favoured by the Americans, didn't do so well with a secular list, I thought.

[Frederik]

310. I think it's obvious

that the Bush admin./Pentagon are over-emphasizing the sectarian differences. They need to spin the violence as "sectarian" rather than patriotic. They may also be contributing more directly to institgating a civil war, as more and more rumors are indicating.

[LynnTheDem]

237. ‘Fresh Statistics’ Show Iraq's Sunnis In Majority

And anyone tries attacking the messenger again (me) just FO in advance. :)

Fresh statistics by an international organization suggested that Iraq's Sunnis are in a clear majority, as Shiite scholars conceded that Shiites could make up as much as 40 percent of the whole population.

The statistics, released by a reliable international humanitarian relief agency in 2003, suggested that Sunnis make up 58 percent of the Iraqi population and Shiites 40 percent.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/archive25.htm

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-01/29/article02.shtml

http://occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=2784

[muriel_volestrangler]

339. Interesting - though how that ties in with your post #234, I'm not sure

because if lots of Shiites boycotted the election, and they were a minority anyway, you wouldn't expect the Shiite coalition to have done so well.

Nevertheless, everything else still seems to take the 'Shiite majority' line - not just western reporters, but academics like Juan Cole. Here's an intersting bit from his blog, about a month after the islamonline article:

The Kuwaiti newspaper al-Qabas reports that it had a further confrontation with Muhsin Abdul Hamid, leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party and February's president of the Interim Governing council. Al-Qabas and other news sources reported recently that Abdul Hamid maintained that Shiites constituted less than 40% of Iraq's population, i.e. that they are a minority. When Abdul Hamid visited Riyadh recently, he denied having made the statement. Actually, he denied having said that Sunni Iraqis would impose their will on Shiites because Sunnis are the majority.. On his return he stopped off in Kuwait and met with the press. Al-Qabas presented him with an audiotape cassette containing his statement that Shiites are a minority and challenged his allegation that he had been misquoted. (Al-Qabas had not in any case reported that he said Sunnis would impose their will on Shiites; that was some news service.) On the cassette, Abdul Hamid clearly says, "The Sunnis are the majority in Iraq."
...
Social scientists estimate that Shiites are between 60 and 65 percent of the Iraqi population, but many Sunni Iraqis have trouble coming to terms with this social fact. Abdul Hamid is outgoing as president of the IGC as of March 1.

http://www.juancole.com/2004/02/abdul-hamid-confronted-over-his.html

[LynnTheDem]

360. It "ties in" because #234 is my post, and tje "Sunni = majority" post

was simply a response to posters wondering over the ethnic divisions in Iraq who'd read somewhere that it was more evenly divided. That's all.

My post #234 was going with the "standard wisdom" of a Shia majority.

I included posts from Iraqis who listed the Shia groups that did not vote.

Grab your calculator.

Use whatever total voting pop figure you like, say for this 100,000.

65% of 100,000 = 65,000 Shia
20% of 100,000 = 20,000 Sunni

Number of total votes; 56%
Less Kurd/other votes; 20%
Number of Shia votes, assuming NO Sunnis voted whatsover; 36%.

Therefore 65%- 36% = 29%

Total number of Shia that didn't vote; 29% of 100,000 = 29,000.

Total number of Sunni; 20,000.

[LynnTheDem]

234. More SHIA boycotted than Sunnis. And the Sunnis didn't vote

because the "election" wasn't legitimate.

Which is also why so many Shia and Kurds didn't vote;

Contrary to many Western press reports which depicted the debate over the election date as polarising Iraq along sectarian lines -- with the majority of Shia pro-election, while the Sunnis are pro-delay -- Iraqi political activist Mussa Al-Husseini (Shia) told the Weekly that there were also large sections of the Shia population who are committed to boycotting the elections.

Al-Husseini, who describes himself as a secular Shia, went on to point out that there are large numbers of Iraqi Shia who will boycott the elections despite Sistani's calls to go to the polls, because they believe that the whole process is merely a charade intended to bestow legitimacy on an illegitimate order.

"The real issue is not about a Sunni boycott versus Shia participation," Al- Husseini insisted. "It is about whether you are against the occupation and support the national resistance. And there are as many Shia as there are Sunnis in that camp."

http://why-war.com/news/2004/12/02/tovoteor.html

"This is a statement issued and signed by 69 independent political groups, religious authorities ( marjyia ), tribal leaders and independent public figures," Mothana Hareth Al-Dari, spokesman for the influential Sunni Muslim Cleric's Association (MCA) said. The statement advocated an "absolute boycott" of the elections. No vote, it continued, "promoted by the occupation forces" can result in sovereignty and independence for the Iraqi people. It cited "vicious" attacks by the occupation on Iraqi cities like Najaf, Karbalaa, Samara, Mosul, Baghdad and "especially the genocidal war launched on Falluja", as among the reasons for boycotting the elections. "The undersigned realise that...the results of the vote have already been decided in favour of those supporting the occupation."

The signatories include Sunni, Shia, Christian, Turkman, Kurdish, Islamic and secular groups.

A Shia electoral list was announced last week, with the blessing of Iraq's senior Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani. Significantly, it did not include supporters of Al-Sadr. The 275 candidate list is expected to dominate the Iraqi parliament and has created the false impression that the boycott is essentially Sunni, while Iraq's Shia are happy to vote.

"You must realise," cautioned Al-Ali, "that there is a big difference between a Shia list and the Shia list. Yes, there is an electoral list, but it doesn't represent all the Shia. Don't forget that the Al-Sadrist movement is influential in the Iraqi street and it is boycotting the elections." The elections' opponents, he stressed, include both Sunni and Shia.

"I speak now as a Shia," he told the Weekly, "and what they are doing is dividing the nationalist line. We will not hesitate to expose those who do that."

And, according to the MCA's Al-Dhari, "one quarter of the election boycott front is Shia."

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/721/re7.htm

Remember; Shia are 60%, Sunni 20%. More Shia boycotted the elections than Sunnis. But your MSM won't figure that out, and if they do, they won't print it.

[LynnTheDem]

235. "not the Shiites who are terror bombing. It's Sunnis" ...BULLSHIT.

Total absolute utter BULLSHIT.

But hey, gotta stick with the bushCo "it's all them bad Sunnis doing it, all over the entire ccountry" propaganda. Why let facts get in the way!

[ovidsen]

377. You can SCREAM all you want

But that doesn't mean what you write is correct.

I am not an apologist for bushCo. And you are not documenting your assertions. Please answer this. Who IS behind the Iraq bombings?

The answer to that question, sadly, is academic. If we all look at the big picture, it's almost irrelevant whether it's Sunnis or Shiites doing the bombing. The bottom line is that whoever is doing the bombing is killing lots and lots of Iraqi civilians. If these "freedom fighters" are so intent on ending the US presence, why aren't they targetting Americans more often?

Historically, Sunnis and Shiites do not get along. They've been at eachothers throats since around 680 AD, when the prophet Muhammad's grandson was murdered. (But you knew that, right?) It would be nice for Iraq and for Islam if adherents of these two sects in Iraq could unite in their opposition to American occupation, but judging by the efficiency and ruthlessness of Muslim on Muslim attacks in Iraq, they are incapable of doing this.

We can rant at eachother until we're blue in the face about whether Sunnis or Shiites have a majority in Iraq, or which faction is responsible for the most bombings. We can argue over how many Iraqis have been killed by the US vs. how many by Zarqawi vs. how many by Saddam Hussein. But any way you add them up, it's clear that the biggest threat, by far, to any Muslim in Iraq these days is another Muslim. And that's a damn shame.

[LynnTheDem]

407. Iraqis and a very very small number of non-Iraqis are behind it.

Ethnically, that includes Shia (have you read about Basra lately? Have you read about the Shia militias lately?) Sunni, and Kurd.

You are incorrect; historically Sunni and Shia DO get along. That is FACT. They inter-marry, they worship at the same mosques, they live together and that is FACT.

And the Shia & Sunni keep saying those FACTS over & over again, but some people just refuse to listen, and instead they spout bullshit about the Sunni & Shia not getting along. And that IS bullshit.

And again you are incorrect; FACT is, of the 100,000+ Iraqis killed since bush invaded, 85% were killed by the US. The US is killing more Iraqis than anyone else is, and more than anyone else has, since the first Gulf War.

[LynnTheDem]

416. Some links;

The Sunni Versus Shia Myth

Much that has been written about the ‘division’ between the Sunni and Shia in Iraq is not only a total distortion of the demographics of the Iraqi population, it also feeds into the propaganda campaign of ‘divide and rule’ tactics that even opponents of the war and occupation can fall into the trap of accepting as true...

http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0156.html

Odd, isn't it? There never has been a civil war in Iraq. I have never heard a single word of animosity between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq

I ask myself why are the Americans are rubbing this Sunni-Shia thing so hard. Let's turn the glass round the other way. If a violent Sunni movement wished to evict the Americans from Iraq - and there is indeed a resistance movement fighting very cruelly to do just that - why would it want to turn the Shia population of Iraq, 60 per cent of Iraqis, against them? The last thing such a resistance would want is to have the majority of Iraqis against it.

http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles360.htm

As regards the Shias in the south, their divide from Baghdad has been much exaggerated as part of the anti-Saddam propaganda. It is totally overlooked that the historic Sunni-Shia divide no longer exists.

http://asianaffairs.com/may2003/us_invasion.htm

On Iraq Division

Iraq does not divide logically or neatly between Sunni Arab and Shia Arab. They live intermixed in much of Iraq and in Baghdad, where an estimated 60 percent of the population is Shia, 20 percent Sunni Arab, and 20 percent Kurd and Turkman. Sunni Arabs live in the southern cities of Basra and Zubayr and along the borders with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Iraq's Arabs-Sunni or Shia-do not now and never have sought division.

There is a long tradition of inter-communal cooperation and intermarriage. Many Sunni Arab clans and families, including Saddam's, have Sunni and Shia branches. Iraq's Sunni and Shia Arabs are Iraqi first and pan-Arab last. Arab nationalist sympathies have a long history in Iraq.

http://www.menavista.com/articles/yaphe.htm

Sowing The Seeds Of Civil War In Iraq

Bush and Blair continue to peddle the myth, beloved of old colonialists, that Iraqis will start a civil war if the "benevolent" presence of the occupation forces is removed.

It is the US-led presence itself which is dividing Iraqis...

http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-ramadani030704.htm

Dahr Jamail; Unembedded in Iraq

The Shia/Sunni rift is largely a CIA generated myth. There are countless tribes and marriages alike that are both Shia/Sunni. There are mosques here where they pray together.

There is the possibility of war if the Kurds go independent, but the more likely possibility of that war would be Turkey invading Kurdistan before any Shia/Sunni action would occur regarding this.

Another Iraqi man pointed out that if there were a civil war, no Shia or Kurdish attack on Fallujah could ever possibly compare to the devastation the US military has caused there. I think he makes a good point.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/20669

End the Iraq War

The Bush administration has promoted the idea that Iraq will descend into civil war and chaos without the occupation. This argument is no more credible than the “terrorist base” argument.

Unlike the United States, Iraq has never had a full-fledged civil war. There have been various revolts and revolutions, but never a full-fledged civil war on the scale of the American civil war. This propaganda about the inevitability of civil war if the US pulls out plays off stereotypes and prejudices many Americans have about “third world” peoples – that “they” are extremely unstable, have lots of civil wars, frequent coups and major ethnic tensions. Such stereotypes simply do not apply to Iraq.

http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/Iraq.html

Iraq has no history of sectarian Shi'a-Sunni violence...

http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/irq040303.html

There was newly cooked meat and fresh juice and scalding cups of tea and much talk of the close relationship between Shia and Sunni in Ghazzalia. As the doctor's cousin, Raqid, said, the family is from the Dulaimi tribe which includes both Sunni and Shia. Hashem's wife is a Shia. "Only the Americans want a civil war here," he repeated.

http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles381.htm

"Shia and Sunni intermarry a great deal; A friend of mine jokes that he is "Sushi."

http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/resources_files/TheMessageFrom_theSunniHeartland.html

"But it‘s been—basically Sunni and Shia get along here. They intermarry. They think of themselves as brothers and brother Muslims and brother Iraqis."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4685506/

Shi’ah and Sunni Muslims form close relationships and even intermarry. Sunni and Shi'ah often make accommodations for the differences in their beliefs and live quite harmoniously. Their sectarian difference is lost in the wider commandments of Islam that transcend race, tribe and ethnic differences uniting all Muslims as one.

http://www.allianceforsecurity.org/shiah

There is almost no history of conflict between Iraq’s Shia and Sunni. There is a long tradition of united mass Iraqi resistance to colonial occupation.

http://irishantiwar.org/news/item.tcl?news_item_id=100760

Q: THE MEDIA in the U.S. are especially focused currently on the split between Shia and Sunni Muslims in Iraq. How has this division affected the resistance?

I THINK that this split is highly exaggerated and is often based on lack of knowledge and understanding of Iraqi society and history. There are Shia living throughout Iraq, including Kurdistan, and similarly, there are Sunnis and Christians who have peacefully coexisted for many centuries.

There is no history of communal strife or civil war in Iraq, and the degree of socio-economic integration and unity of purpose among the Iraqi people is often underestimated. There is also a powerful secular tradition in Iraq that transcends all religions and sects.

U.S. and British mainstream commentators were confidently predicting that large-scale attacks by Shia against Sunnis would be unavoidable after the downfall of Saddam’s regime. To their embarrassment and dismay, millions of Iraqis--of all sects and none--marched in the streets, denouncing the occupation and chanting “La Shia, La Sunna, hatha al-balad menbi’a” (“No Shia or Sunni, this country we shall not sell”).

It was also noticeable that people from most parts of Iraq were collecting aid for the peoples of Najaf, Falluja and Sadr City while the U.S. and British media were busy peddling sectarian myths.

On the historical tribal roots, it has also to be stressed that nearly all Iraqi tribes have Sunni and Shia “branches” within them.

http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/528/528_06_Ramadani.shtml

[mrfrapp]

452. Good Research

If you haven't done already, please consider posting this as a seperate article. It would be a shame for it to be lost in a long thread like this.

[LynnTheDem]

456. Just about every day you can find articles in LBN that quote Iraqis saying

there is no sectarian strife, never has been, it's agitators trying to cause strife.

Fact simply is, Iraqis are tribal and most all tribes have Sunni and Shia branches, the joke is "Sushi" (a Sunni and a Shia for parents = Sushi kids) and they've been marrying and worshipping and living together without ever having civil wars or serious fights against each other.

And that's more than America can say.

Anyhoo thanks! I have actually posted about this a time or two previously on DU but maybe 'tis time to do so again. :)

:hug:

[ovidsen]

457. Great post... but

It doesn't answer the question I raised above; one I don't have an answer to, either.

If Sunni, Shia and Kurd are united in their desire to get the US out of Iraq, why are they killing eachother?

Last month alone, nearly 900 Iraqis died in bombings, firefights, ambushes, etc. Most of them were civilians, killed in and around non-political targets like stores and restaurants.

If there have been pleas among Iraqi clergy for a halt in the seemingly random killings of civilians, I've missed them.

This is not a flame. Your research is admirable, and serious food for thought. Thanks.

[eissa]

458. Thank you Lynn

I hate to add on to an already long thread, but you've made some excellent points. As I stated earlier, this Sunni/Shi'a "split" is really played up by this administration. "Divide and conquer" is a well-known game played by any colonizing force. The FACT is that Sunnis and Shias DO get along in the Muslim world. I'm afraid the poster who argues otherwise is buying into the lies of this administration. It's like saying Catholics and Protestants don't like each other because they've been at war with one another for decades in Ireland.

[aneerkoinos]

238. What about those who didn't?

The Sunni part of the population would have voted for strictly anti-occupation candidates, decreasing the political influence of pro-US kurdi and ended the "legitimicy" of occupation.

So level Falluja, a free city controllod by Iraqi people, to cause such outrage among the Sunni that boycott was guaranteed.

The folks you are actually pulling for are the Iranian puppets, and Iran wants a Shia controlled Iraq and doesn't mind US troops staying bogged down fighting Iraqi resistance; keeps them from threatening Iran...

[eridani]

355. What they want is for the US to leave

That was the platform of the party that got the most votes.

[bpilgrim]

11. the same TIRED canards, yawn.

at least we got a LION out there fighting the good fight!

real Americans are always against tyrants who MURDER innocent civilians and patriots to STEAL their RESOURCES.

though some may call us crazy it's an old tradition.

:hi:

peace

[TexasLawyer]

14. I don't see the objectionable language.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stand and Fight]

42. Thank you...

Somebody hit the fire alarm! It's going to get hot in here very quickly.

[BrklynLiberal]

16. On a totally objective, philosphical level, Galloway is right.

They have the same interest in opposing savage capitalist globalization which is intent upon homogenizing the entire world turning us basically into factory chickens which can be forced fed the American diet of everything from food to Coca-Cola to movies and TV culture. And whose only role in life is to consume the things produced endlessly by the multinational corporations.

You can call it Fascism, Corporatism or Capitalist Globalization..it all looks the same floating around in the universal toilet bowl.
Do you honestly think the Muslims are any less opposed to be taken advantage of than the rest of us?

[Just Me]

17. Um. All humanity has "the same interest,...

,...in opposing savage capitalist globalization".

Are you denying that predatory capitalism and global dominance is the neoCONs' underlying motives for the war in Iraq? If so,...gee,...:shrug:

[KelleyKramer]

18. Question: Are you saying 'Muslims' are the enemy?

You said he is 'actually rooting for the Iraqi insurgency'.

But in the quotes you provided, it says Muslims around the world and the Progressive movement.

Question: Are you saying 'Muslims' around the world ('globally') are the enemy?

[elehhhhna]

47. This thread is starting to dissassemble.

[Grooner Five]

65. This is the quote that bothered me

Maybe some of you don't mind showing unity with the insurgency in Iraq, but I do. I hadn't even considered that position as "moderate" until seeing the response to this thread.


http://www.iraq-news.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=461&Itemid=113

Galloway: Well, the world wide anti-war movement didn't stop the war on Iraq that is true. But it came quite close to pulling Britain out of war. It has pulled Spain and I think it will soon be able to pull Italy. It is soon too pull Ukraine and Philippines and the El Salvador out of the foreign occupation of Iraq and that is a very significant achievement between the hammers of the Iraqi resistance and the worldwide anti war movement.

<snip>

So I think the anti-war movement was given a terrific boost in Beirut on that day. And I think that we should not fail to learn the lesson of that. On the 19th of March just a few days ahead all over the world you would see massive demonstrations against the ongoing occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and against any more Bush wars. I think *the Iraqi resistance and the anti war movement have made it more than Mr. Bush can chew that he has beaten off. In fact the Iraqis are chewing him*. So the danger of an American invasion on Iran or Syria is now residing. *They still try to weaken, destabilize and undermine many Muslim countries. They still have a big plan for the Muslim world but Alhamdu’li’llah, thanks to the Iraqi resistance they are able to attack any one else just at this moment.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Grooner Five]

84. Um...

Did you read the quote?

[Stand and Fight]

89. I read the quote.

And YOU are distorting what Galloway is saying in the most insidious fashion. Your intentions are all too transparent.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stand and Fight]

So, you think DU is a looney-bin?

That's a question. Now answer it.

Unlike you, I'm not going to distort things.

[jayfish]

119. You Keep Saying That....

"The anti-war movement and the Iraqi insurgency is not my idea of a healthy partnership."

What part of "you have been proved wrong" don't you understand?

Jay

[Grooner Five]

135. What part of this don't you understand?

that is a very significant achievement between the hammers of the Iraqi resistance and the worldwide anti war movement

[jayfish]

140. See Post #131 -NT-

Jay

[Grooner Five]

142. Post 131 seems unrelated

Why not just answer for yourself?

[jayfish]

184. Bu, Bu, But...

aw forget it. :banghead:

Jay

[Just Me]

153. The corporacrats have already tossed you into the "loony-bin".

They have hidden the horrors they have delivered around the world from you. They have utilized economic oppression to throw hundreds of millions of human beings around the globe into poverty and violence.

I have a suggestion: go pick up a book called, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". You will get a better feel of "reality" if you bother to read this book which provides documented info concerning the corporacrat machinery.

Moreover, I do hope you will do a bit of research into what the Bushco/neoCON war on the M.E. is really about,...money & power.

[Name removed]

311. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

240. Agreed absolutely, Stand & Fight.

That's twist & spin taken to new heights.

[bicentennial_baby]

92. I think you have a reading comprehension issue

"I think *the Iraqi resistance and the anti war movement have made it more than Mr. Bush can chew that he has beaten off. In fact the Iraqis are chewing him*. So the danger of an American invasion on Iran or Syria is now residing. *They still try to weaken, destabilize and undermine many Muslim countries. They still have a big plan for the Muslim world but Alhamdu’li’llah, thanks to the Iraqi resistance they are able to attack any one else just at this moment."

He's not equating the anti-war movement with the insurgency. He's saying that both groups have weakened the * admin's resolve to spread the "freedom" further afield in the ME. He's saying that the * admin has big, bad plans for the rest of the middle east, and the the Iraqi resistance has made those plans unworkable for the time being.

[leftchick]

131. thank you for explaining that clearly for the poster....

You have more patience than I.

[Grooner Five]

138. Have I misread this?

that is a very significant achievement between the hammers of the Iraqi resistance and the worldwide anti war movement

Seems pretty clear to me.

[Grooner Five]

169. Nobody seems willing to address this sentence

It must make others as uncomfortable as it did me.

[Andrushka]

357. See

bicentennial_baby's post again.

You don't seem to geddit.

[Stand and Fight]

180. I will address the sentence and your misrepresentation.

First off, you're taking it completely out of context. Here is the question to which Mr. Galloway is responding and his full response:

*M.B.H.S.*: What is the political prospect of current global mass protest against war? Will it be able to rebalance the global order?


*Galloway*: Well, *the world wide anti-war movement didn't stop the war on Iraq that is true. But it came quite close to pulling Britain out of war. It has pulled Spain and I think it will soon be able to pull Italy. It is soon too pull Ukraine and Philippines and the El Salvador out of the foreign occupation of Iraq and that is a very significant achievement between the hammers of the Iraqi resistance and the worldwide anti war movement.*So I think that to describe the anti war movement a failure would be wrong. Bush and Blair thought that they could unleash this war and get away of that unchallenged. I don't think actually that they are getting away of that.

That clears it up and your efforts to misrepresent the facts.

[river2]

182. That is damning

in my book...

And I think the Iraq war is a disaster and is blood on Bush's hands, and I think it will taint his legacy forever.

But there is no way to reasonably take the side of the suicide bombers killing Iraqis.

NO. WAY. IN. FUCKING. HELL.

[Tansy_Gold]

188. Only if you look at things in either/or, with us/against us, or similar

binary terms.

Just because one is against the war doesn't mean one is encouraging of terrorists/insurgents/suicide bombers. What it does mean is that both entities are against the occupation and the war, perhaps for different reasons and perhaps with different objectives.

But we have become such a polarized culture that discussion of alternative standpoints seems impossible.

I can understand the anger, the hatred, the fear of a people who have seen their country invaded, their families killed, their history stolen, their freedom or even hope for such utterly destroyed. I can at least attempt to imagine what their desperation might be, even to the point of chucking all rational sense of humanity to the point of willingness to kill and be killed in the name of doing something, anything, to stop the atrocities.

This does not mean I agree with them or that I encourage them.

But if as a pacifist and an anti-war campaigner I can point to THEIR opposition to the war and the occupation and the damage to EVERYONE's lives that BOTH are causing, maybe in that sense there is common ground.

Galloway would probably have said it better, but I think that's what he's referring to, and if so, I have to agree.

[glitch]

258. grooner/river please read the above post, take as long as you need.

And I'll add, two groups working in different ways, with totally separate ideologies, neither supporting the other or working together, can both "between them" be a hindrance to a third group.

[Frederik]

301. Nobody does

Jesus Christ, some people. You are pretending that Galloway or anyone else here are supporting killing innocent people. Nobody here supports that. You have severe comprehension problems. Nobody has supported suicide bombers killing innocent people, but that didn't stop you from pulling that allegation out of your ass now did it.

[bpilgrim]

322. "suicide bombers killing Iraqis" no-one is taking the side of TERRORIST

targeting civilians that is a STRAW-MAN of YOUR creation and a LAME tactic in serious discussion.

this ain't FOX-NEWS, this is the world renowned DU and we got a PAPER TRAIL :P

welcome to DU :toast:

peace

[Jacobin]

330. Even if you are an Iraqi trying to expel an illegal occupation force?

No way? No way at all?

Would you fight against a chinese occupation of the United States if they came hear to 'free us' from Bush?

Would you bemoan attacks on Chinese occupation forces that also killed innocent americans, and want the insurgent american forces to stop so that the Chinese occupation forces could stay and steal our resources?

Why is it so hard to imagine people in a country who are occupied by troops trying to steal their resources want to oust them by any means necessary?

The problem of all this is that Bush has gotten us into such a horrible, immoral, indefensible position and has sent American troops into the middle of this unwinnable quagmire and we grieve and worry about the American troops stuck in this catastrophe and naturally want our own countrymen to be safe. I do to. But its not in the cards. It won't work. Its vietnam on steroids. We are reaping the consequences of a godawful administration bent on war.

But, I'll tell you one thing. I understand the Iraqis actions. I understand them fucking perfectly. And I cannot condemn them. I can only condemn the american administration that put the Iraqis and the American troops in the godawful quagmire

[Just Me]

185. Moreover, you are ignoring "opposing savage capitalist globalization".

We are ALL being impacted by a very vicious corporacrat regime that has delivered poverty and oppression around the globe,...and is now delivering it right here at home.

The "savage capitalist globalization" efforts include the BushCo/neoCON war on Iraq.

Do you really believe the neoCON cabal have a genuine interest in promoting democracy when they have a history of supporting tyrants who cooperate with profitable efforts?

[Skip Intro]

204. Some poeple would call those resisting occupation "freedom fighters"

I know if another nation invaded the US, I'd resist, no matter how many freedom bombs they dropped on us.

[bpilgrim]

325. freedom bombs - well put

welcome to 1984, v2.0 :toast:

peace

[bpilgrim]

20. sign me up...

"opposing savage capitalist globalization which is intent upon homogenizing the entire world"

peace

[river2]

22. How many Iraqis have the insurgents killed?

Today the number is in the thirties - the insurgents are not people to root for in any sense of the word.

The insurgents are losers and murderers. Fascists in religious clothing, fuck them.

ON EDIT: but I don't see Galloway calling to unite with them, just Muslims in the general sense.

[LynnTheDem]

245. There ya go again with your "black-white" and "braod brush" bullshit.

"the insurgents are not people to root for in any sense of the word.

The insurgents are losers and murderers. Fascists in religious clothing, fuck them."

Ok now let's do your broad brush black-white bullshit like this:

"the US soldiers are not people to root for in any sense of the word.

US soldiers are losers and murderers. Fascists in religious clothing, fuck them."


That would be called a broad brush of black-white think either way.

And to answer your question; of the 100,000 dead Iraqis, 85% were killed by US/UK, mostly by bombing.

[wtmusic]

397. How many "insurgents" did we kill today?

Didn't quite catch that stat. Did the DOD give us any numbers on that one? How 'bout civilians?

'Losers and murderers' defending their own country. Hmm.

You got some 'splainin to do...

[PDXWoman]

443. How many children

have we killed?

[underpants]

23. I think that middle paragraph pretty well sums things up

Welcome to DU :hi: by the way

[bicentennial_baby]

25. I don't see a problem with this

What I do see a problem with is the gun-shy cowardice of some on this side of the aisle to take a goddamn stand for once, for truth and justice.

[BrendaStarr]

27. The word "insurgent" is not in your excerpt from Galloway

Thanks for trying to twist our minds.

We are not such mental weaklings here.

Well, most of us aren't.

If Galloway actually uses "insurgent" in another part of the interview in an incriminating way--there is nothing wrong with what you put in your post-- you should have excerpted that.

[BrklynLiberal]

43. Did a search for the word "insurgent". Not found anywhere in article.

[Grooner Five]

155. He calls them the "Iraqi resistance"

Same thing.

that is a very significant achievement between the hammers of the Iraqi resistance and the worldwide anti war movement

Perhaps you're comfortable with his association of the two. I am not.

[LynnTheDem]

250. As you apparently have a very large problem with reading comprehension

let's try one last time to explain this to you;

Galloway said the Iraqi resistance has accomplished a very significant achievement by tying up bush's ambitions to wage wars all across the ME.

-This is, in FACT, true.

Galloway said the anti-war movement has accomplished a very significant achievement by tying up bush's ambitions to wage wars all across the ME.

-This is, in FACT, true.

Galloway said the Iraqi resistance AND the worldwide anti-war movement have accomplished a very significant achievement by tying up bush's ambitions to wage wars all across the ME.

-This is, in FACT, true.

Galloway should have said it in two separate sentances though, so people wouldn't be spinning & twisting into pretzels to spin & twist his words.

[Hatalles]

254. TY Lynn... for setting him straight.

This entire thread has no substance. It's well overdue for a lock.

[Frederik]

296. I am very comfortable with it

But you think "resistance" means "suicide bomber", because your worldview has been severly impaired by watching too much CNN and Fox.

[Stand and Fight]

48. The temerity of these people is un-fucking-believable, isn't it?

:eyes: Who the hell do they think they're fooling?

[spanone]

30. The Iraqis and the Insurgents are one in the same.

They want us the fuck out of their country and I don't blame them.

Galloway had the balls to call these cretins for what they are. Go George. You can bet you will read some bad shit about this guy. He dared to call the boy king what he is...a liar.

[BeFree]

39. Thanks, Grooner

This is important information that I might have missed. Thanks for bringing it to our attention!

That Galloway, he is kicking some ass, eh? Long may he live!

[Stand and Fight]

56. Whoa...

You had me worried for a second there, BF. I thought you'd gone off your rocker! :yourock:

[BeFree]

111. Sorry 'bout that...

... it was meant for one person only. I hope it gives a good kick.

Ya know, the more I read about this Galloway fella, the more impressed I am. Does he stand a chance of moving up in Britian, I wonder?

[Stand and Fight]

123. If they've any brains, let us hope. n/t

[understandinglife]

40. Pass the popcorn.....

:popcorn:

We have all the evidence of mendacity and illegal war-making we need to indict and prosecute Bush, Blair and every other neoconster scum-bag on the planet having any involvement in the Bush's illegal war on Iraq and all the torture and other atrocities that have been committed since August 2002.

Peace.


Emad Hajjaj, Al-Ghad Newspaper, Amman, Jordan

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - How ever long it takes, the day must come when tens of millions of caring individuals peacefully but persistently defy the dictator, deny the corporatists cash flow, and halt the evil being done in Iraq, and in all the other places the Bu$h neoconster regime is destroying civilization and the environment in the name of "America."

[TexasLawyer]

46. wow-- What a picture!

[Catrina]

82. Galloway was against

anyone being killed, tortured, maimed, robbed of their jobs, country, resources etc.

I'm with anyone who was against all of that. As long as one country decides to occupy another, there will be a response, most likely violent. Didn't anyone who supported this war, even think of that? I know Galloway did, and most who opposed it did.

Those who started this, are NOT in the past, they are responsible for every death that occurs from the minute they got there. They need to be held accountable. I like how we are supposed to just forget the tens of thousands who died because it's 'in the past'.

[Stand and Fight]

93. Welcome to DU, Catrina!

Your post is a breath of fresh air!
:toast:

[understandinglife]

100. Precisely Catrina. Welcome to DU.

California Democratic Representative Barbara Lee; a true patriot and courageous leader

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[elehhhhna]

51. Bon Pubar! (means nice try in Aruban)

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AmBlue]

252. Absolutely inexcusable.

And what about the culpability of the willfully ignorant who enable these neoconsters by believing their bullshit lies without question, by voting one issue without educating themselves about the atrocities that are being committed in our name? We haven't even broached that subject. We sure got us a live one here.

[Jacobin]

54. I have a question for you

If China were to invade the U.S., hypothetically speaking, accusing us of being belligerent and having lots of WMDs (oops) and saying we were a threat to China...

Let's say we were occupied while they went about setting up toadies to run the country and give us communism, which clearly for them is a better form of government (right?, sounding familiar yet), would you be a resister of the occupation army, or would you be a toady?

Just askin'. I know what I would be. There is no question about it.

What in the fuck is different? What?

Please explain. I have not heard a satsifactory answer.

[Stand and Fight]

59. I agree with your premise totally.

I have yet to receive a reality-based and sane answer to date in response to the same type of question. It shall be very interesting to read the response, if it comes!

[Grooner Five]

77. Well, it depends...

...on what sort of leadership I was living under. If I was living under a brutal repressive tyranny, then I might be glad for China's help.

But what does this have to do with what I posted? I am not arguing that our invasion of Iraq was just.

[ET Awful]

80. So if China invaded and their troops killed your parents and a

cousin or two. Would you just sit there and twiddle your thumbs and say "mmmph, it's all for the best?"

[Grooner Five]

88. With sadness, yes

I would rather sacrifice to live in freedom than know that generations after me would live in oppression.

Wouldn't you?

[ET Awful]

97. LOL . . . BULLSHIT.

Sorry, but if someone kills your family and you have the means to resist, you do so. You don't sit there with your thumb up your ass and say "thank you sir may I have another."

[bicentennial_baby]

99. Oh wow

just WOW...:wow: :crazy:

[Coexist]

122. "live in freedom"

is that what they're doing? The freedom from clean water, electricity and relative safety. Yup.

Do you know anything about the leanings of the people they "elected"????

(on edit - oops)

[Jacobin]

137. no no no. They are free to be ruled by the U.S.

And they love it!!!!!

Can't you tell from the news reports????????

[ET Awful]

163. You mean like that Chalabi fellow who is a convicted criminal

that the US relied on for intelligence then accused of selling information to Iran, then liked again now that he's in charge of the oil?

You mean folks like that?

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RetroLounge]

248. What a pant load...

RL

[Name removed]

263. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jacobin]

289. What I don't understand is why

even TV-Brain-Dead Murkins can't figure out why Iraqis are fighting to regain their country.

It's such a visceral reaction to occupation, that I thought even Murkins could figure it out...understand it.

The power of propaganda is truly awe inspiring, in a sick and 'holy shit' way.

[Name removed]

281. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aneerkoinos]

303. Don't

read Friedman, he's a world class wanker.

[stanwyck]

306. Yep. Sometimes he is

but his book "From Beirut to Jerusalem " lays out the history of the Middle East. It's an excellent primer for understanding the different religions and the tribal nature of the area.

[Jacobin]

335. The title of my 'favorite' Friedman column, before the invasion:

"Just Give War a Chance" (An ACTUAL column title in the New York Slimes)

The MoFo was promoting this 'free the middle east' war gonzo crap like a doorman on Bourbon street hawking tourist to come get a lap dance.

He is a disgusting, disgusting, shallow, fucked up little man. I loathe the very mention of his name.

[Jacobin]

105. HAHAHAHAHA

So, you'd become a Communist toadie???????????

'Nuff said.

Point made.

:rofl:


:rofl:

[bpilgrim]

414. no wonder us libs got such a poor rep in the honor class with the freeps

such poor representation at times... he's probably a young'n though

peace

[Just Me]

116. The intentions of the neoCON corporacrats is not just either.

This administration could give a rat's ass about anything other than expanding their power over others.

[understandinglife]

85. More popcorn, please, as I'm starving, here, waiting for an answer ...

.... from the OP to your most excellent question.

http://www.edwardsdavid.com.nyud.net:8090/images/cnn_crossfire_uk_memo_intelligence_fixed_050513-01.jpg

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[Coexist]

91. have some of mine - I think it's going to be a long wait

maybe we should break out the snickers "not going anywhere for awhile?!"

[understandinglife]

109. Yummy - snickers! Just no 'sweedish fish' pullleezzz !!!

:evilgrin:

Peace.


It's happened, Mr Lucas


www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[AmBlue]

261. Hey!!! Gimme those Swedish fish...

I love those little buggers. Especially with popcorn... :popcorn:

[patdem]

57. Is that paper one of the 'free press' in Iraq?? It looks like a Murdoch

paper to me? See Galloway hugging Sadaam? GEE..but that was AFTER Sadaam was NO THREAT to ANYONE...yet when Sadaam was 'gassing his people'..we got a pick of Rumsfeld shaking Sadaam's hand? Galloway was a proponent of outsting Sadaam when he WAS 'gassing his people'..but Britan and the USA LOVED Sadaam back then...this is a reight wing trashing of Galloway because he trashed Coleman..PERIOD! :grr:

[Warpy]

95. I just talked to a friend in Egypt

who described Galloway's appearance on Al-Jazeera tonight (his time). My friend said it's the first time he's heard a European tell any truth about the Arab and Islamic world. He was very impressed, and I could tell he was summoning some grudging admiration for the country which produced him.

Galloway is a truth teller, and the truth is generally not beautiful and not comfortable. He's dead on about an alliance between progressives in the west and in Muslim countries, and believe me, they do have progressives who want to discard the obsession with the past and move on to more modern societies, away from oligarchic rule by religious leaders or inherited royal rulers. He's also right that the kneejerk support of a country that has colonized outside its borders has badly hurt the west, and that the support of that country has got to be renegotiated.

I am glad Galloway has the bravery to tell the truth, to say what needs to be said. I don't mind that much of it is uncomfortable. If he can start a civil discussion among progressives about the true nature of the conflict against much of the middle east, he will have performed a great service for all of us.

[aneerkoinos]

247. Thanks

Words of wisdom.

[Vladimir]

249. Yes indeed

people easily forget how long it has taken us to arive as societies at our present "enlightenment", and that was while we were colonising other countries, not being colonised. And we aren't very enlightened, even now, but we sure are happy to lecture the rest of the world on our new-found wisdom. Then we wonder why "they" "hate us".

[donheld]

117. Yesterday's freedom fighters are today's "insurgents"

In *'s world iraqis fighting for their own country's future are called "insurgents" or "terrorists."

[cyberpj]

151. We killed them damn native amerikun insurgents, savages that they were

we kin kill them damn savages in iraq too! :sarcasm:

Killing the natives will never go out of style as long as they have something we want.

[Straight Shooter]

118. Grooner Five, you really need to read this column by conservative Chapman.

It's Steve Chapman's column in the Chicago Tribune, and explains why the insurgents use the tactics they use. You'll probably need to register to gain access to this site, but it's worth it.

If the link below doesn't work, you can find the subject matter discussed on the home page of http://www.buzzflash.com

Not everything is black and white. Don't take Galloway out of context. What he says at any given time is only part of an entire array of things he has said before. To know the meaning of his words, you must know the motivation of the man.

The administration depicts suicide bombings as a sign of desperation by vicious thugs who know their cause is doomed.

In fact, they are part of a conscious strategy that has a record of success in other places. Suicide bombing has gained adherents not because so many fanatics are looking for an excuse to throw away their lives, but because it works.

That's the conclusion of Robert Pape in his new book, "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism." Pape, director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism at the University of Chicago, compiled a database of every suicide bombing and attack in the world from 1980 to 2003. What he discovered offers a sobering contrast to the optimistic predictions emanating from Washington.

Americans have trouble imagining how the insurgents could hope to succeed without any positive vision of Iraq's future--and for that matter without any apparent agenda except slaughtering people. But the core of their appeal is the same as that of most other suicide bombing campaigns: nationalistic opposition to a foreign military presence.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0506020021jun02,1,5831479.column?coll=chi-news-col

[The Magistrate]

126. An Alliance, Sir

Between progressives in the West and progressives in the Muslim world is not only possible but desireable. There can be, however, no alliance between progressives in the West and the fundamentalist Islamic radicals currently in arms to establish a Caliphite. These are an appallingly reactionary body to which everything valued by persons of left and progressive persuasion is anathema. Progressives who are seduced by the unewxamihned formula "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" make, in this instance, a dreadful and crippling mistake.

"Never align politically with people who would shoot you if they had it in their power."

[noiretextatique]

136. kind sir, if you would

please send your message to the democrats in washington d.c. :hi:

[patdem]

146. My Xenophobia says the 'west is USA'..but I realize Chavez is the 'west'

of which they speak..not the Democrats in America..but the Leftists of South America.

[bpilgrim]

166. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - no one is making that case, sir

happy Thursday :hi:

peace

[Grooner Five]

176. This was my point

There can be, however, no alliance between progressives in the West and the fundamentalist Islamic radicals currently in arms to establish a Caliphite. These are an appallingly reactionary body to which everything valued by persons of left and progressive persuasion is anathema. Progressives who are seduced by the unewxamihned formula "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" make, in this instance, a dreadful and crippling mistake.


It appears to me that Galloway has stepped over that line. Perhaps others disagree, but I am made uncomfortable by his aligning the Iraqi Resistance with the progressives and anti-war movement.

[bpilgrim]

181. Americans have traditionally been supporters of PATRIOTS resisting foreign

INVADERS especially the LEFT so you shouldn't be surprised that many progressive support his call for allegiance with progressive Muslims, even Iraqis resisting an aggressive invading force.

peace

[The Magistrate]

199. The Question,Though, My Friend

Is whether we really are in all cases allying ourselves with progressive elements in the Muslim world. Mere nationalist feeling and anti-colonialist rhetoric do not a progressive element make: both these things can be, and often have been, enlisted in the service of extreme reactionary movements. Persons on the left here need to be able to discern the difference. To take the Iraqi resistance for a moment as an example, those elements of that movement aiming for a theocratic rule, and particularly those aiming for a theocratic rule that persecutes as heterodox the Shia clergy and populace, can hardly be viewed as progressive. If the expulsion of the U.S. is accomplished in such a manner that these eleements are left masters of the field, that result could hardly be viewed as a good from a progressive point of view, certainly not as an unmixed good: the thwarting of an imperial venture would be some gain, but the subjugation of the Iraqi people by a religious tyranny would be a great loss. If the U.S. is expelled in a manner leaving the current Shia leadership masters of the field, the mixture would be a somewhat superior alloy, at least so long as the current leadership remained hale and hearty: Ay. Sistani strikes me as a pretty reasonable fellow for a fundamentalist cleric. If Ba'athists are the ones left in possession of the field, in some ways the result might be more palatable, but the admixture of tyranny in subsequent events would be sufficient to stifle any tendency towards rejoicing. One of the unfortunate features of the situation is that there is no real armed faction representing progressive tendencies in existance in Iraq: where matters are being decided by the gun, it will always be those who wield the gun that emerge atop the pile....

[redqueen]

211. "where matters are being decided by the gun..."

Isn't that the truth.

Thanks for your posts on this thread.

[aneerkoinos]

256. Comrade Magistrate

Those aiming for theocratic rule are allready masters of the field.

Various shades of Islamism (yes, it comes in many shades) allready control all the provinces of Iraq except Kurdistan, and there is nothing that can be done to change that fact.

The progressive way is not to force our values and kill those who don't share our values, if there comes a chance, we can only try to convince people to adopt our values by force of example and dialogue.

[The Magistrate]

320. That Is True Enough, Comrade

It is certainly true that persons desiring theocratic rule in various forms are the leading elements of the resistance in Iraq today. It would not yet, though, be quite correct to describe them as masters of the field. It is not wise to underestimate what organized military power, ruthlessly wielded, can achieve, even when guided by political naifs. The current situation can continue with little evident change for many years, and likely will do so. The resistance in Iraq lacks the capability of forcing a military resolution to its liking; the United States lacks the capability to force a political resolution in Iraq to its liking. The decisive field, as in Viet Nam, will be the domestic politics of the United States, and it does not seem likely to me that this will turn decisively against the enterprise any time soon, for it does not directly engage many people, and the enemy, viewed crudely and broadly by the populace, is one long hated and despised.

It is no part of my view that Iraq, or any other portion of the Muslim world, be stripped of its religious identity. Further, it seems to me an error to suppose that theocratic rule is a necessity in the Muslim world, though desire for that is certainly a driving force in some strains of Moslem belief. There is nothing inherent in Islam that prevents social progress of a sort that a leftist could applaud: every text that is quoted by those who make the claim that is impossible could be matched by a similar text in Christianity or Judaism, and yet the majority of adherents to both these faiths today have no difficulty with the modern secular world, and the societies in which they predominate define that world.

It is not my view that the United States, or the West in general, ought to attempt to force any development in any direction on the Muslim world, in any way. But it is also my view that we on the left ought to be clear that the reactionary elements in the Muslim world, that are the cutting edge of hostility to the West and the United States in that world, are not our friends, and that any triumph by them is a defeat for us, as well as a defeat for the Muslim world itself, as their ascendance to complete dominance there will achieve nothing but the condemnation of the Muslim people to an indefinite slough of backwardness and stagnation that will only ensure their continued exploitation by more modern powers.

[aneerkoinos]

353. You misunderstood my point, Comrade

The majority of the new parliament and the PM are also theocrats of various shades, and so are all elected governors with the exception of Kurdistan. So it would seem to be fair anough to say that theocrats are masters of the field.

The most important (and harmfull to Iraq) dividing line of bloody bitterness would be that between SCIRI and BAATH (which also went theocratic direction allready during late Saddam era, and increasingly so after the fall of Saddam). And so far it seems SCIRI will rather tactically ally with US to be able to beat BAATH than ally with Sadr and Sunni to kick US out, so the civil war between various theocratic sects or more correctly parties continues.


If for various historical reasons the only credible channel for Arab and Moslem population's opposition to oligarchy and will for better social justice happens now to be through Islamic movements, it is far greater defeat for us progressives even to think to deny by violence, corruption and other oppressive means those peoples their democratic right of majority rule, free of any and all colonialism and "white mans burden".

[The Magistrate]

389. It Would Seem, Comrade

We may simply be examing the scene at differenmt levels of magnification. We would seem to be in agreement that even in the current puppet government, theocrats are in the lead, but it does seem to me that, at present, the real master of the field remains the military power of the United States.

Unfortunately, Comrade, it does seem to me that the situation you describe in your closing paragraph is indeed the one that obtains. It is also unfortunate that Islamic movements, by their very nature, cannot lead to social justice, or at any rate to social justice of a form that a person committed to left and progressive values could call such in good conscience. It is not, however, my view that an outcome more palatable to such values can be imposed by force of arms, and certainly not my view that that could be brought about by the course our current regime is embarked on. But it will be impossible for me to applaud the imposition of a theocratic regime, even a popular one, or to view it as anything but a ghastly miscarriage, and damnable set-back to the human race.

[aneerkoinos]

426. Master of the field, Comrade?

I believe you have read the reports of the South Iraq, where various Iraqi militia are in control, not UK or other coalition forces that simply accept the reality and try not to contest it, and certainly not US forces. And US forces are quite clearly not in control of Al Anbar province, but it is militarily contested.

>>> But it will be impossible for me to applaud the imposition of a theocratic regime, even a popular one, or to view it as anything but a ghastly miscarriage, and damnable set-back to the human race. <<<

Again, let's examine this at different level of magnification: Technically, at least, we must view the Tibetan refugee regime of HH Dalai Lama as theocratic, the patriarch is certainly not a democratically elected leader of his people, but by religious means. And despite that, I don't think that regime is "anything but a ghastly miscarriage, and damnable set-back to the human race", on the contrary it deserves a lot of respect (but not uncritical admiration, of course).

[The Magistrate]

428. Well, Comrade

Regarding the first point, there is in fact nowhere the major military units of the United States cannot go, and impose their will point-blank, in the country. The process would not, in all locales, be briskly managed, but it would be managed. No opposition that the resistance could mount could prevent the thing, and the casualties they could inflict on U.S. forces would be light, by historical standards. This, to me, is mastery of the field. It is something different from total control; obviously, there is a sizeable guerrilla force in existance, and it is capable of an enervating "sparrow war" of harrasment, and cannot be wholly suppressed by military means, or certainly not by any military means that are likely to be used. On the other hand, the guerrilla bodies lack the capability to expell the U.S. forces, or to seriously discommode their operations, even their logistics train. The U.S. forces remain the most powerful object in the situation.

Regarding the second point, the Tibetan situation is not, in my view, well understood here. Chinese history, and particularly Chinese history in the early twentieth century, is one of my major interests. The Chinese claim to suzereignty in Tibet is better rooted in history than is generally credited, and derives from conquest, but in reverse: Tibet was part of the Mongol empire that conquered China, and renewed affiliation with the Manchu Confederation that established the last dynasty over China, the Ch'ing. In the period of dynastic collapse its independence was rooted in both the powerlessness of what passed for central authority in China, and the view that no allegiamce was owed usurpers who had destroyed the Heaven-ordained dynasty. There were several wars fought during the twenties and thirties of the last century between Tibet and various military governors in Sechwan, in some of which the Tibetian government was the aggressor. In the latter stages of the civil war between the Communists and the Nationalists, there is no doubt whatever Tibet was being used as a staging point for die-hard efforts to maintain Nationalist lodgements in position to strike the west of China. The Communist invasion was a closing act in a civil war of almost unparelled duration and brutality in the modern era. Nor does Communism come close to explaining the full fury that fell upon the theocracy of the place, or the policy of repopulation embarked upon. In China, the Buhddism of Tibet is associated closely with the old nomad conquerors, and hatred of these and all connected with them has been a staple of Han Chinese nationalism since the mid-fourteenth century, receiving a tremendous jolt of renewal in the long collapse of the Ch'ing in the late ninetenth century. The policy of swamping conquered peripheral lands with Han Chinese has been a staple of Chinese statecraft since the first Han dynasty two millenia ago, being seen as the surest way of attaching them to the central authority.

Certainly the theocratic government that the Communist invasion overthrew was one of exploitation, however acquiescent the populace may have been towards it, and conditions of daily life there were medieval in the fullest sense of the word. It was not, by any stretch, an Eden of enlightenment. Whether a resumption of rule by monastery there today would perform better than it did in the past is a question that will not be answered, because it is not going to occur. Certainly a restoration of the government that existed and functioned there in the first half of the twentieth century would indeed be a damnable set-back to the human race. My opposition to theocracy, Comrade, is about as close to an absolute as you will ever see me indulging in, and is quite independent of my regard for whatever particular sect is asserting, or attempting to assert, temporal dominance in any domain.

[aneerkoinos]

433. OK, Comrade

Just one point to add to your historical overview. IIRC tt was the Dalai Lama succession line of Tulkus that allied with China few centuries ago and threw the more independence minded Karmapa line out.

As for your fundamentalist secularism, we can agree to disagree. I'm generally pro-secularism, but not in absolutist terms, as I see social and spiritual evolution of mankind two sides of the same coin of compassion, both absolute necessities for not only of progress, but our very survival through this period of suicidal materialism.

Finally, AFAIK the political thinking of HH Dalai Lama has evolved to socialist democracy, and he does not seem to intend reincarnate any more in the role of Dalai Lama Tulku (though of course, by his vow of Boddhisatva he's bound to reincarnate as long as there is suffering in the world to be alleviated).

[The Magistrate]

434. A Pleasure To Cross Words With You, My Friend

Happy hunting!

[bpilgrim]

280. ANYONE resisting an AGGRESSIVE INVADING & OCCUPYING power

who rape, torture and murder civilians even children deserves our support to STOP the war.

ain't no more complicated than that.

peace

[The Magistrate]

333. Would That It Were No More Complex Than that, My Friend

But it is. Any popular resistance is always a revolutionary or a counter-revolutionary movement, and needs to be assessed accordingly. In the broadest view, the Iraqi resistance as currently constituted must be viewed as reactionary and hence counter-revolutionary. Its success, on its current lines, would result in an order that would systematically oppress women and minority sects, and stifle dissent and civil liberties, to a greater degree than was the case prior to the U.S. invasion of the place. Persons embarked on a venture to establish such an order should not enjoy the support of left and progressive persons comfortably outside its field of activity.

[bpilgrim]

349. you can cut it forever, true

but the point i am making, is that WE are in the process of behaving JUST LIKE imperial japan with it's grand PROPAGANDA of bringing PEACE, SECURITY and PROSPERITY to another region of the world, ASIA, during their hay-day, WWII. and no matter WHAT politics the different local factions may or may not have followed at that time, has no bearing on whether or not the indigenous, invaded people have the RIGHT to resist the invaders nor does it change the FACT that what our GOV is CURRENTLY doing ION is fucking ILLEGAL and most be EXPOSED for the EVIL that it is.

most Americans could care fucking less about what Church the 'evil doers' may go to or who they may or may not vote for, shoot... we don't even know their damn names, but i guarantee most NOW think we were, and continue to be WRONG. and want our TROOPS HOME NOW.

anyone who supports our troops MUST do everything we can to END this ILLEGAL WAR, now.

now, to your point...

you KNOW as well as i do that our allegiance to democracy in the ME is the tribute we pay to virtue and NOTHING more.

but be that as it may, do you not realize that that IS our foreign policy... to make it so fucking hot that people call for the TALIBAN.

people will do extremely cruel things to one another when we start raining down the freedom FIRE on them from the heavens when you look back at previous examples in history so what do we expect will happen, in the end, the longer we do rain HELL-FIRE on them?

it will only get WORSE.

peace

[The Magistrate]

376. Doubtless, My Friend, We Understand One Another Well Enough

The invasion of Iraq was a predatory adventure, and the variety of lies told in its furtherance too voluminous to rehearse here.

One of the principal reasons, in my view, to oppose it was the great likelihood that precisely the situation that now confronts us would eventuate. A circumstance that can have no good outcome is to be avoided: even if one were of the view that economic exploitation of the resources of Iraq were a good goal, that cannot be achieved in the present or the foreseeable future.

My own view is that thre United States ought to get out of the place as quickly as posssible; yesterday if not sooner. But that is not because it seems to me that this will be a good thing. It simply will be the least harmful thing, in the long run, for the United States, and the situation is now one where the nearest approach to a good is a minimizing of harm. Our departure will not be of any particular benefit, in the short term, anyway, for the people of Iraq. It will be a signal for civil war, and an intricate civil war conducted simultaneously on sectarian and ethnic lines, and along the fault between modernity and obscurantism, and secularism and theocracy, that will be pressed with a good deal of foreign interference by reactionary elements. It seems unlikely to me that the outcome of this conflict will be particularly palatable from a left and progressive point of view.

"The winners are at war with the losers, and the fix is in. The prospect for peace is awful."

[bpilgrim]

415. Sir, i am certainly thankful we have folks like you on our - U.S. - side

we need more wise and articulate good men as your self to speak out but unless my eyes and ears are deceiving me i do notice a lovely trend in our favor lately.

i hope and pray we come out stronger and alive after bringing justice to the neoCONs AKA the CRAZIES on the hill.

good chatting with you sir, and it's a real pleasure to call you friend. hope all is well with you and yours :toast:

peace

[The Magistrate]

419. Thank You, Mr. Pilgrim!

Always a pleasure, even on those occassions where we do not quite see eye to eye....

"In this vale of sorrows there are yet things to be thankful for: for my part, I give thanks I am not a Republican."

[eridani]

364. That's what happened in Iran in 1979

Secular progressives allied with Islamic fundies to get rid of the Shan, and then the fundies shafted the progressives.

[aneerkoinos]

367. Too narrow, Comrade

Progressives are not only about the issues that are generally coined under the social liberal. Just as, or even more important, is opposition to reactionary market liberalism, solidarity and equality in the economic area. It is in that area that Real Left (TM) share the same goals with our Moslem brothers and sisters, as pointed out by Mr. Galloway.

[The Magistrate]

382. The Bulk Of Our Moslem Brothers And Sisters Bearing Arms, Comrade

Are not in any way a leftist could recognize in opposition to the things you name. They are in opposition to the whole of secular order, and seek the supremacy in temporal affairs of their creed. They will inflict, if successful, a tyranny on their fellow Muslims that must revolt the conscience of anyone who values human liberty.

The essential fact of the situation today is that the Muslim world needs a social revolution that will enable its people to all make their fullest contribution to society without let or hinderance by the same strictures that have held them in a state ripe for exploitation by powers unhindered by similar bindings. It does not seem likely to get one. The guns are in the hands of those most resolutely opposed to it.

[aneerkoinos]

429. Very true, Comrade

The oppressive security machines and military forces in Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc., which I must presume you mean by the Arm Bearing Bulk, are indeed no enemies of the capitalist status quo.

As a general rule of thumb, regardles of time and society, those Bearing Arms tend to be much more often Robber Barons than Robin Hoods.

Yet this has nothing to do with the observable, that those guided by genuine religious feelings of humility and compassion, the majority of Moslems too I hope you agree, tend to put values of social solidarity above the (often secular) values of individualistic greed.

[The Magistrate]

432. That Was Not Quite My Meaning, Comrade

The armed forces of those states are not fielded in any sense in opposition to thje West, nor are they wielded, not even by the Saudis, towards a goal of restoring a Caliphite. My reference to was to the bulk of those in the Muslim world in arms against the West, who do indeed share that goal, improbable of success as it might be. Wherever armed struggle against the West, defined most broadly, is engaged in in the Muslim world, such elements do play a leading role. That is unfortunate, though, as you observed above, it may well be an unavoidable consequence of historical developments.

The economic order these dream of imposing is as medieval as the social order they aspire to. It is one of those things that can work on the scale of a town or a commune, but is wholly impractical for a larger unit.

It is indeed my view that the great preponderance of human beings are inclined towards compassion and benevolence, and that followers of Islam are no different, in the main. There are some elements of that creed, or perhaps most accurately some features of the culture it informs, that do seem to me irretrievably reactionary, and that are going to have to be discarded. Similar features marring Christianity and Judaism have largely been discarded, without any harm being done to the character and benevolence of the bulk of adherents to those faiths, and we are doubtless of similar mind in regard towards attempts in our own country by religious reactionaries such as the Dominionists to reverse that development, and impose a Biblical rule here.

[aneerkoinos]

435. Well, Comrade

Perhaps my error is understandable, as I find the idea of any BULK of Moslems in arms planning to destroy West utterly ridiculous, not reality based but media and propaganda based. The small and relatively insignificant Al Qaida type groups that you may be thinking of, are against West only if we equal West with colonialism, which I'm reluctant to do.

[The Magistrate]

436. It Is Rediculous, Comrade

It is the sort of thing delusional faith alone can manage, but the bulk of those Moslems in arms against the West are gripped in it. That is, of course, only a very small proportion of Muslims. Unfortunately, those under arms tend to wield influence out of proportion to their numbers on events.

These groups, Comrade, are opposed to a good deal more than colonialism. The breadth and unattainability of their goals is, paradoxically, one of the things that makes them dangerous. As there is no chance they will ever achieve their ends, so long as their faith in their fighting creed holds they must persevere, and faith is singularly difficult to destroy. It is not wise to underestimate such bodies: bold men careless of their lives are one of the great imponderables of history.

[aneerkoinos]

439. Faith

Being personally partial to philosophical and mystical aspect of religion, I've allways found belief rather distastefull, opium to the masses, if you will Comrade, a tool more often of authoritarian than spiritual liberation. So I very much agree that faith alone don't manage.

However, the real power of movements like Moslem Brotherhood, Hamas, Sadrist movement etc. grows mostly from their effectiveness in organising social projects, providing for the poor and gaining thus popular support, not so much from armed struggle or terror campaigns.

You don't specify what goals you think they have, so I must give a try. First and foremost goal seems to be to dethrone their own regimes that they (quite correctly) consider corrupt, oppressive and undemocratic. And I must disagree that this goal is by no means unattainable, but rather an inevitable one. Another important goal is to get rid of foreign (US) troops and bases in Moslem lands, which is also by no means impossible goal. Osama bin Laden succeeded getting rid of US troops in SA, but in Iraq and Afganistan the war continues. Third area, the nature of Islamic/Theocratic society various movements want to build is the most complex question, and too wide generalizations should be avoided.

Your turn, Comrade! :)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

453. AMEN bpilgrim

[Frederik]

314. You misunderstood what he said

Now go back and read it again. Did he call for an allience between progressives in the west and islamists? Now, he didn't! Muslims do not equal islamists! Funny how you can spin what someone says to become something completely different, isn't it.

[The Magistrate]

341. If You Say So, Sir

The situation that exists now is one of armed conflict. In a situation of armed conflict, those bearing arms are the ones to whom the most attention must be paid. Any talk of alliance or co-operation or support in any wise must be made in awareness of the intentions of the armed factions pressing the conflict. People often lose sight of this in the heat of passion and the moment, and also in the indulgence of an ill-considered impulse to ruthlessness. It is true, to take one element of this question, that left and progressive persons here, and the Muslim world, have a common enemy in the imperial drive of the current regime ruling the United States. But it is also a fact that the definition of victory over that common enemy employed by left and progressive persons here, and by the armed factions pressing the conflict in the Muslim world, are not only different but unalterably opposed. A defeat of the imperial drive by those elements of the Muslim world who would be, should such a thing occur, its authors, would be a catastrophe for the left fully equal to the catastrophe success in the imperial venture would be. An examination of the revolution against the Shah of Iran, and its sequelia, would be most instructive to you, Sir. It demonstrates in miniature what is being courted today on a continental scale. This is situation that cannot have a good outcome. Life is sometimes like that.

[river2]

183. thank you

another sane response...

cheers.

[Vladimir]

196. But I fail to see where Galloway does this

or indeed who these radicals 'up in arms' are (you could, after all, be referring to any number of groups). If we are talking about the Iraqi resistance, then it is not a question of an alliance with them. It is a question of recognising:

A) That the Iraqi resistance is in no way monolithic

B) That in large part it is engaged in an anti-colonial struggle

C) That insofar as point B) is concerned, one has solidarity with anti-colonial struggles

But I don't even know if that is the question. In Britain, Galloway has been attacked by "radicals" for urging Muslims to vote. They see him and RESPECT as a threat precisely because they are showing to Muslims that there is a way to voice their opinions meaningfully within a liberal-democratic framework. In so doing, they are damaging the "radicals" base of support far more than any goverment initiative has done.

[The Magistrate]

200. Mr Galloway's Comments Above, Sir

Do strike me as a little broad, though he is doubtless more nuanced in expression outside an interview setting. He strikes me an excellent fellow, and my comments were aimed more at some observable tendencies among persons who are so carried by the apparent overlap of foes in this matter that they do not make the discriminations you have urged above in assessing the situation, not just in Iraq but throughout the world.

[geek tragedy]

383. Amen. It is a serious fallacy that "Muslims" have a singular interest.

Progressive, moderate Muslims are the enemies of the headchoppers and fundie terrorists. There is a struggle between the fundies and the progressives.

Anyone who aligns himself with the reactionary fundamentalists in the Muslim world is no progressive.

[goodboy]

129. Senator Coleman? Is that you? (nt)

[Coexist]

132. I need one of those keyboard covers - y'all make me lose it sometimes

tooooo funny.

[catzies]

409. LOL! Did you see this?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

454. LOL

[seabeyond]

139. we can agree where we feel, and disagree with him when neccessary

nuance. a wonderful thing the left has going for us. when he goes too far, we say, too far

[H2O Man]

190. Sometimes I wonder

just how patriotic this Galloway really is. He seems to take little pride in being an American. Christopher Columbus came here specifically to convert Muslims to the One True Religion. Columbus was a great American. But Galloway and June Fondle are always running this country down. The Indians weren't using this land properly. They never made proper SuperFund Sites, did they? Better dead than red, as Hubert Humphrey used to say. And why is Galloway trying to stir up the blacks? This country helped Cassius Clay win a gold medal. Sure, he couldn't get a drink of water in his home town, but that was no reason for him to run away and join the Angry Muslims under the Dishonorably Elijah Mohammad. He could have been the next Floyd Paterson. Galloway is the type that wants "God" taken out of classrooms and coins. It's not that I hate him, because Christmas's don't hate. We need to save him. But he makes me nervous; people who are different than me always make me uneasy.

[Coexist]

193. You are a great American.

I'll bet you save lots of people.

[H2O Man]

221. Mainly magazines and coins.

I'll bet you save lots of great American, though. And coupons.

[LynnTheDem]

259. Galloway is BRITISH

He is a member of the British government.

He is not American.

He has never been American.

So no, he doesn't take much pride in being an American.


Edited my shock out, coz I think you're just being sarcastic...I hope! :D

[H2O Man]

267. Think maybe? n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

450. LOL..you got em going :)

[H2O Man]

459. I'm thinking that of all

the problems our nation faces, Galloway is not at the top. I am uncomfortable with efforts to discredit him as an individual, rather than focus on his rather impressive exposure of some of the underhanded weasals in our government .... who are pretty close to the top of the list of the problems we face.

[Doctor_J]

195. This begs the question - who are we fighting in Iraq?

We were SUPPOSED to be fighting Al Qaeda and some extremists. But Doofus's Excellent Adventure has rallied all flavor of Iraqi patriot, Muslim, ME patriot, and various other religious peoples against us.

Bush's war of lies has MADE otherwise peaceful people into warriors.

[LynnTheDem]

269. We were??? Strange, coz there were no ties between Iraq & al Qaeda & no

"extremists" in Iraq. And the official lie bush gave for invasion was "WMD" that hadn't existed since the early 1990s.

But we were't "supposed to be fighting al Qaeda & some extremists" in Iraq. There weren't any in Iraq.

Until bush invaded.

[applegrove]

206. I don't think you can want civil war. It is not as if the Sunnis have no

place in Iraq these days. It is just that they will no longer be the elites.

We should be happy when elites, dangerous ones, are defeated everywhere.

Bush & gang messed up this war. That will never change. And now with the extra 150,000 troops that the US should have had at the beginning but will get now from Iraq...we will see how quickly order will be restored. And it will show again what enormous shitheads Rummy, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Bush are. Just like the Saddam trials will show what idiots the neocons were in the 1980s.

I say bring on the peace and the trials and reality will be obvious. And neocons will have to apologize for their policies on the 1980s.

And Iraqis may have a chance for good lives for once.

[aneerkoinos]

264. Umm

Sunni were not the elites, just very few Sunni. Sunni are fighting because Americans killed and jailed their kin and insulted their women. The real question is why Shia are not fighting the occupiers, except Sadr when pushed to defend himself. The answer is because Sistani told them not to, because pro-Iran SCIRI could gain better results for their agenda through forcing elections. And having said that, it's of course much more complicated.

[applegrove]

270. Um - the insurgents are former bathists and outsiders. Um - people

in Iraq are not monsters. They do not want civil war. It is the leaders of a few groups who want war. The people as a whole are angry and the horrid way the USA invaded with too few resources and troops to keep the peace. But they were happy Saddam was gone.

You should be looking forward to the Saddam trial. Will show Bush Sr., & the neocons for the stupid finks they were.

Plus it means peace in Iraq. And those people have been living in terror for two generations almost. Peace is a big dig. So is living without fear. Democracy is a liberal thing. If you 'think' against it - it is because the neocons have convinced you that 'democracy' is their idea. And it is not.

[Vladimir]

276. If you view the "elections" in Iraq as democratic

then I got a bridge to sell ya...

[applegrove]

283. More Iraqis voted than Americans did. Their elections were therefore

more democratic than any of yours have been for 50 years. My best guess is that Sunni radical leaders encouraged their people not to vote - so that the people would not feel invested in the country. What a mean thing to do.

Assholes & their wedges.

[LynnTheDem]

292. I'll post this to you for at least the 3rd time, and you'll totally ignore

it.

MORE SHIA did not vote than Sunnis.

Yeah I have links.

Yeah I've posted them to you several times previously.

Yeah I can post them again, but yeah you'll ignore them again.

[applegrove]

302. Honey - I've never had a discussion about numbers in the election

with anyone before. You either do not remember who you posted those links to or you make up that we have a history about this issue.

That being said - I don't know what your stats are supposed to mean? So some Shiites didn't vote and some were scared and some just didn't believe in the elections and I take it you know the percentages of each?

Let's all hold our breath and wait for the wonderful Saddam Hussein trials so that we can see how evil he was and we will understand why Iraqis were happy to see him go - even as they are now angry with the US for running such a poorly planned invasion causing much suffering and pain.

That is a discussion I will have with you. (as opposed to the discussions I have never had with you and to which you keep referring to - on percentages who voted in the Iraqis election. And your political analysis of the voting patterns in a place you have never been which is just emerging from two decades of terror and a badly run intervention by the USA. ).

[LynnTheDem]

326. It wasn't "some" Shia; it was MORE SHIA than Sunnis.

And it wasn't because "some were scared and some just didn't believe in the elections".

Perhaps instead of speaking FOR the Iraqi people you should try LISTENING to what THEY say?

As for Hussein; won't ever matter how many links to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty Int, ICRC, any number of credible factual sources are posted; you just carry on with the bullshit.

Saddam Hussein was no more "evil" than hundreds of other current leaders, and a great deal less "evil" than some, many of whom the US government (and even Canada) willingly supports.

By the way, the majority of Iraqis say life was BETTER for them with Saddam Hussein. I can certainly understand why they say that; he wasn't committing atrocities in Iraq since 1991. He wasn't murdering Iraqis all over the place. And that's FACT. Also FACT, we ARE murdering Iraqis all over the place, we ARE committing atrocities all over the place, Iraqis ARE worse off now. And likely to be for many years to come.

1991, when thousands of armed Iraqi rebels rose up and slaughtered thousands of Iraqis in the streets. 1991, when the Iraqi government in turn slaughtered thousands of those Iraqi rebels who'd been slaughtering thousands of Iraqis.

And what do you think the Canadian government would do, if thousands of armed Canadians started slaughtering thousands of Canadians in the streets?

Gassing the Kurds? Aside from the fact that there's far more evidence Iran did that, not Iraq, there's the fact that both the two main Kurd warlords were allies of Hussein's. AFTER 1991.

And won't it be interesting if current Iraq President and one of those two former Kurd warlords, Talabani, has to explain at Hussein's trial how more Kurds were killed by Talabani and his Kurd warlord enemy Barzani, than were killed by Turkey, Iran AND Hussein combined?

Interesting too, if Talabani is called to explain his hugging and kissing Hussein on TV in 1991. AFTER the Gulf War; AFTER the Iraqi uprisings.

And the other Kurd warlord Barzani; if he's called to explain how he asked Hussein to help Barzani's Kurds in fighting Talabani's Kurds in 1994...well gee that's gonna be a wee bit embarrassing.

As for all the other "atrocities" bullshit, perhaps a reading of the actual HRW and AI reports on Iraq and Kurdistan would be a good idea. Not even a mention of those infamous "people shredders".

And what does HRW, AI and the ICRC say about humanitarian intervention for Iraq? They say NO. Because there were NO atrocities being committed in Iraq since the rebels' atrocities in 1991, and the Iraqi government's reciprocal atrocities on the rebels in 1991.

But you know all this. And you insist on simply ignoring all of it.

[Vladimir]

305. Hey if that's your only criterion, then I am sure you'll agree

that Joe Stalin was one of the most democratically elected leaders ever. After all he had people requesting to be allowed to vote in his district, just so they could vote for him! ;)

Like I said, about this bridge right here...

[applegrove]

312. Let's follow your logic. Joe Stalin stole and election therefore there

as never been a real election anywhere on the planet.

Is that about right? :shrug:

[aneerkoinos]

282. What are you blathering?

Who are you talking to?

[applegrove]

299. Replying to you because you replied to me. Really - someone

wrote a good article on "What the Dems got wrong about Iraq". You should read it.

Shows that things are more complicated than you paint it.

Oh and Baathists were Sunnis. And no not all baathists are Sunnis. I used the word elite.

If you don't want me to respond to you - then don't respond to my post.

[aneerkoinos]

308. I don't mind responding

The problem was that you didn't respond to my post but to some fantasy of your own, there was a total disconnect between my post and your answer to it.

Things are more complicated than anybody can paint it, that goes without saying.

[applegrove]

316. No connection between "what are we doing in Iraq" and "civil war would

be bad". Fine. I obviously have a different understanding of why the troops have had to stay in Iraq rather than leaving on day 100.

That says nothing about reasons for war. It goes to what "we are doing in Iraq".

[Name removed]

337. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[applegrove]

350. Such humor and speculation about my personal life. Can I try it too?

How about that the neocons only have a few more weeks to dance lefties outside of themselves because once the Saddam trials start the human rights issues and abuses will be so overwhelming that nobody will wish him back or doubt Iraqi needed and wanted to get rid of him. And neocons have to position themselves (and position lefties) because their own complicity with Saddam for a decade will be common knowledge by then. Since it will be obvious that neocons were totally anti-democratic at the time.. they need to get the lefties further away from patriotic ideas (like finishing the dam wars you start properly - for the civilians for Christ sake). The less patriotic the lefties are - the less chance there is of moderate and right wing bleeding into the anti-neocon position when neocon complicity with a monster like Saddam is all the news for a year long trial.

They went to war for the wrong reasons and now they desperately want to get ahold of the myth that they did it for the right reasons and are the right-thinkers. So why we see the desperate Bush on the DU by freepers under orders to push things as far as possible before the facts on Saddam Hussein come out. Because they will be awful, awful stories.

Don't know about you in particular. But I'd wait until the Saddam trials before you describe yourself as an expert on Iraq.

I can speculate too if I feel like it.

[aneerkoinos]

361. Sure

I will say only this: I'm not a patriot, couldn't care less for stupid patriotic macho games - or for either wing of the corporate imperialist party of US.

Matriarchate is IMO better than patriarchate, so I'm pacifist, feminist, socialist and internationalist. So you must be talking to someone else.

[applegrove]

375. I think the only way you and I differ is that I think the UN should go

into places where humanitarian crisis occur.

I don't think that any of us on the left need to be afraid of what Saddam says.

The Saddam trial is not something that the US can control. Why if the soviets tried to control the war crime trials of the Nazis - what would have happened? You just ignore them and go on with the trial (even though they may have hid documents and hidden witnesses in gulags). You just go on. And the truth in the case of sociopaths is repetitive and shows patterns. And those patterns end up as clear as bells. And neocons and right wing US policy will ring loud and clear. And then the world will see the neocons has having had one policy, and then switched it. But then going in for non-humanitarian reasons like they did - when they knew all that Saddam had done. To further 'other' ideals and precedents other than 'humanitaria'.

And then they will have to apologize for their whole dame 1980s & 1990s policy on Iraq.



They will be fillayed like fish.



Peace.

[Frederik]

317. Quite the contrary

Things are more complicated than you paint it. Some things, however, are not complicated. The occupation is morally wrong, horribly wrong, and must end as soon as possible. Any talk of staying in order to "fix the mess we made" etc. is baloney, as there is no way in Hell the US troops have any ability to do that, or to stabilize the country, or to secure the friggin' road to the arport. I suspect whoever wrote the article "What Dems have wrong about Iraq" is an occupation apologist who would like Democrats to be so, too. Well, there are Dems who are wrong on Iraq. Those are the Dems who think US troops can accomplish anything remotely positive by continuing the occupation.

[applegrove]

323. I agree they should get out of dodge as soon as the numbers of

people in the Iraqi army are big enough. I hope they don't keep bases because that will just keep the insurgency going with excuses to bomb civilians.

The islamists have tried already to bomb local populations to get the Islamist states that they want. Didn't work in the 1980s or 1990s. Why bin Laden had to change the target to the USA. Somehow Arabs didn't quite enjoy seeing civilians killed by Islamists. He gained them no followers.

So yes - as soon as the Iraqi Army is strong enough - the USA must go. And if they stay on bases - they will just be giving the insurgency an excuse.

[LynnTheDem]

285. You're WRONG. And you KNOW you're wrong. And why you insist on

contiunally posting the same bullshit when you KNOW it's bullshit, I dunno.

NO, the rebels ARE NOT just "former ba'athists and outsiders". There are as many Shia fighting the occupiers as Sunni. Kurds are fighting occupiers and each other.

And the "outsiders" you always go on about are LESS THAN FIVE PERCENT.

There are MORE "OUTSIDERS" than that in my own Texas town. But gee, you've only had this pointed out to you what, 25, 30 times?

Another article just from today proving you worng, but you won't care. In a few days you'll again post your same ol bullshit.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-bombers2jun02,0,4779899.story

[applegrove]

287. I think you are thinking of someone else. I have never had a discussion

about numbers of Shites in the insurgency with any of you. Never.

[LynnTheDem]

304. Yes actually you have.

But we can start fresh;

-yes there are Shi'ites fighting the occupiers. As many as there are Sunni. Regardless what bush says.

-more Shia boycxotted the elections than Sunnis who did. Regardless what bush says.

-the "outsiders" you're always mentioning are less than 5% of the rebels. I have more "outsiders" than that in my town. The US military has 30,000 non-American "outsiders".

-the Sunni were not the "elite"; the Iraqi government were the elite, who were mostly Sunni, but included Shia and Kurds and Christians.

-Anyone not the Iraqi government were the non-elite together.

-The Sunni and Shia do not on the whole hate each other; some individuals do for whatever reason, but the vast majority of Sunni & Shia have happily co-existed for a very long time.

-The Kurds hate everyone...including each other.

You of course are unaware of the fact that in their 30 years of fighting each other, more Kurds killed each other than the number of Kurds killed by Iran, Turkey, and Hussein combined.

You're also unaware of the fact that the current President of Iraq, a Kurd, Talabani, was an ally of Saddam's. In the early 1990s. AFTER the Intifada and the "gassed his own people". AFTER the invasion of Kuwait. AFTER the rebel uprisings. Talabani's hugging and kissing Saddam Hussein on Baghdad tv in 1991 was cause for great celebration in Kurdistan.

You're also unaware of the fact that Talabani's enemy, the enemy he fought for 30 years and killed thousands upon thousands of Kurds, another Kurd warlord named Barazani, was also a good ally of Hussein's. From 1994. When he asked Hussein for help in Barzani's fight against Talabani.

Nope, you don't know these facts and you don't want to know them. It's "sunnis and outsiders = insurgents" forever with you.

[applegrove]

309. I have never had a discussion with you on the make up of the insurgency.

Never.

You've said that 5 times. I have never had that discussion with you. So take the vitriol that has been building up and share it with the appropriate person.

It is not me.

And Rumsfield is responsible for the insurgency. I've always said that.

You have no idea who I am.

Don't make me have a discussion that I have never had with you.

I claim not to know the exact make up of the insurgency. I claim and always have that is is the neocons fault there is one.

Go back and read 3000 posts.

And then find the person who has you so upset and talk to them - leave me out of it!

I have a right to perceive the insurgency as a compilation of the things I know, have read, and experienced ore the years. I read an awful lot. You are entitled to your opinion. And where you don't want the opinions of others - for a group.

[Frederik]

328. I find myself wondering how

you know so much about what the Iraqis think and feel. So, according to you, Iraqis think the US invaded in "a horrid way", and would have prefered that they invaded in a, shall we say, less horrid way.

You are probably right, though, that the peple do not want civil war, only the leaders of a few groups. But more and more people are starting to suspect that one of these groups whose leaders want civil war resides in Washington D.C.

[applegrove]

342. Did you read the article on "What the Dems got wrong about Iraq".

The author goes into quite a bit of detail about how people in Iraq were feeling. They were happy to see Saddam go. Very angry with the US for making such a horrid mess of things once they did take over.

Here is the article if you missed it:

http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2005-05-25/news/feature.html

[LynnTheDem]

277. Actually many Shia are fighting the occupiers, thousands of them.

Only you won't hear much about that in US media. Read the Guardian, International Herald Tribune, The Independant etc for info on the Shia.

"Basra is out of control", for one example; them ain't the Sunnis.

And at supposedly only 20% of the population of Iraq, they're bloody amazing the way such a minority is waging a raging war from one end of Iraq to the other.

Hell yeah there's Shia fighting the invaders, but that's something bush does not want you to know.

[Frederik]

334. Downtown Basra June 2005

Shias want the occupiers out!

[LynnTheDem]

272. You embarrass me. As a fellow Canadian, your utter refusal to learn

the FACTS, regardless how often those FACTS are posted to you, your wilful insistance on blindly posting bullshit...it's embarrassing.

[applegrove]

290. I'm sorry - but I never said the insurgency had not Shiites in it. And

Lynn I don't recall having a discussion with you before. So I don't know how it could be an embarrassment if it hasn't happened before. Oh sure I have debated Saddam Hussein and whether or not he is the complete innocent some people claim he is.

I've debated that humanitarian wars and justified and this was not one of those.

Sorry - I'm with the Clintons on this one. Does that make me somehow outside the Democratic fold? I think not!

[LynnTheDem]

307. Find me ONE PERSON who has EVER on DU called Saddam Hussein

a "complete innocent".

Your hubris is overwhelming.

[applegrove]

319. How is my hubris overwhelming. I used the term 'complete innocent'

to describe the many, many people at the DU who were not listening to the news for several decades and some think Saddam didn't start the Kuwait war. That he was not a danger to the world or his people.

So it was a figure of speech.

As to hubris - pointing out to you that you have the wrong person is actually transparency - and if my ability to tell the truth to you means I am somehow vain - I don't quite know what to make of it. Since being honest is a pretty standard adult thing to do.

[Frederik]

338. Saddam started the Kuwait war because

ambassador April Glaspie said the US wouldn't intervene if he did. That's a historical fact. And it doesn't make Hussein innocent, but it sure doesn't make the US innocent in that invasion, either. And, how on Earth was he a danger to "the world"? To his people, sure, nobody disputes that, just like the other US-backed rulers in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan etc are dangers to their peoples. But Saddam was never a danger to the "world", outside of his immediate vicinity.

[applegrove]

346. And that vicinity would be the Middle East? Isn't that good enough?

(good enough for him to be a danger to the world - not for the USA to invade for the reasons & in the ways they did). He was a danger to the UN and made a mockery of it. Why - nobody else was ever so dangerous to the authority of the UN and what UN institutions were trying to build until the neocons came along. They are dangerous to the UN too.

[Taxloss]

207. Once again, the DU consensus defends Galloway viciously, totally, and

unthinkingly. Sorry, but that's true.

Not to say that there isn't a lot around the man to like. But treating him as a saint is a grave mistake.

He ran War On Want into the ground. He can easily be accused of acting like a demagogue. His quickness of phrase shields elements of deep hypocrisy in his ideology.

Donning flame-proof jacket.

[Coexist]

212. No one is treating him like a saint

in fact most of this thread is a debate on whether we belong in Iraq and which is the lesser of two evils (U.S. military presence vs. Iraqi insurgency)

Also discussed was whether the insurgency is comprises of regular Iraqi citizens who want us out, or terrorists who most Iraqis disagree with.

[Taxloss]

215. But in the context of Galloway's remarks.

I have read the thread, hence my late entrance.

And there are many here who will brook no criticism of Galloway, in any sense. For many on DU, and many on this thread, the man is beyond criticism, and what he says is beyond criticism.

Your two topics are simply the medium of the thread; everything is through the lens of Galloway.

[Coexist]

226. That's not how I read it

Galloway's remarks were a stepping off point for the arguments I listed above. This conversation could have happened without Galloway's name ever being mentioned.

[Taxloss]

231. This argument could have happened independently, but

the lens of Galloway has distorted it, because positions separated from that of Galloway's position are being attacked, vehemently and unthinkingly, by a cabal of Gallowayites.

[Tinoire]

273. Maybe because Galloway is right?

:shrug:

Can you cite any particular quotes you object to?

[Taxloss]

295. I didn't say I disagreed with the remarks in the OP.

I simply said that because they were made by Galloway, it gave the Gallowayites on the board the chance to beat down any criticism of the remarks as being anti-Galloway, which is an absurd and worrying position.

[Just Me]

324. Galloway IS right, my friend. He whiddles the problem down,...

,...to the source of oppression experienced by ALL humanity: a vicious, corporacratic dominion which has HURT us, ALL OF US!!!

Galloway is NO advocate for extremists. To the contrary, he is an advocate AGAINST extremists.

Those who attack him are simply failing to grasp reality.

[aneerkoinos]

274. Very vacuous

Why don't you offer real criticism of Galloway, because the OP didn't, only islamophobic misreadings.

Meaning your disagreements with Galloways opinions that are not just misreadings taken out of context, or mudslinging by his enemies. I don't think anybody is beyond criticism, but so far the more I find about Galloways actual views, the more I find I'm in agreement with him.

[Taxloss]

293. Vacuous? Charming.

But I'll say this about Galloway. I agree with most of his positions, but I find him repellent as an individual. He ran War On Want into the ground. His later campaigns are characterised by their dubious financial status and by the demagogic charm Galloway attached to them. Had it not been for the appalling dirty tactics of the Labour party in the same campaign, Galloway's own dirty tricks in the Bethnal Green campaign would now be discrediting him. I consider him a wide-boy, a chancer and a demagogue.

But I am pleased he exists.

[aneerkoinos]

315. Fair enough

I don't know enough about the subjects you mention to say anything (and don't take just your word), but I agree that people with that size of ego are usually hard to get along with.

There, criticism of Galloways person. Happy?

[Taxloss]

327. Thanks. Let's leave it at that.

[Frederik]

345. But what is there to criticise?

What he said made perfect sense to me. So does that mean I treat him like a saint, or that he's beyond criticism? I don't get it.

[Taxloss]

380. He has a history of exploiting popular causes for his own gain.

He ran a charity called War On Want, and milked it for his own benefit.

[Frederik]

440. I'm not going to dispute that

I know nothing about it, and frankly I don't really care. This thread concerned the things he said in the interview, which some people here are calling "inexcusable" etc., and I fail to see why. So defending the opinions he voiced in that interview is hardly treating him like a saint.

[Vladimir]

441. You may both want to note that

the independent audit investigation into War on Want cleared him of any dishonesty, but did find that there were 'a lack of controls' and ask him to pay some money used on expenses back. And he paid back somewhat more than they asked for. I say this in the interest of fairness, although there is no doubt that Gorgous likes a flashy lisfestyle. There is also no doubt in my mind that the OP misrepresented his position on this particular issue though.

[eridani]

366. I certainly don't think Galloway is beyond criticism.

I disagree with him on his anti-abortion stance. Prolly lots of other things if I knew about them.

[bpilgrim]

284. sorry but he is against the ILLEGAL WAR and OCCUPATION and so is DU.

sorry but it's true.

peace

[Taxloss]

300. That fact alone does not mean he should be afforded unlimited respect.

Maybe in the USA he can be a left wing idol. In the UK his following is much more limited, and that is not thanks to ignorance.

[bpilgrim]

417. no one said it did, just more of your STRAW MEN putting words in folks M

per usual not to mention HEAR SAY smears against the main with 0 proof to back up the smears.

i find it fascinating that a tiny minority of folks on the left continue to eat their own :crazy:

do you guys refer to him as St. Galloway amongst yourselves, too... or just GORGEOUS GEORGE :shrug:

the rest of us are CELEBRATING a man who often and plainly speaks TRUTH to POWER... when y'all catch up please join us :hi:

peace

[Bouncy Ball]

396. Darn, I better not send in that letter nominating him for sainthood.

Or that mushy love letter to him.

:eyes:

Geez.

[EFerrari]

213. I am also rooting for the Iraqi people to take their country back

from their brutal and illegal occupiers.

That their oppressors are also the looters of my country is a fact I need to face, not deride when it's put before me in plain English.

[progressivebydesign]

218. Sorry, I see galloway's point here. Until we're all Christians..

.. the Neocons and their pals will not rest.

[aneerkoinos]

219. I think you should learn to read

In matters of solidarity and equality and against plutocratic exploitation and slavery, cooperation instead of competition, Moslems, Progressives (and real followers of Christ, Hindus, Buddhists etc. too) share the same values, so it is a very natural allience. Allience of compassion against greed and selfishness, the values of American Capitalism.

As for rooting, I didn't see that, stating the obvious that resistance is shredding the occupation is not exactly "rooting". And even if Galloway was rooting, there is nothing wrong in supporting legimate resistance against illegal foreign occupation.

[redqueen]

220. If he's rooting for those committing violent acts, then I'd agree. n/t

[Jacobin]

297. So, only Iraqis are committing violent acts?

Geeze I coulda sworn Shock And Awe was an american campaign...:eyes:

[redqueen]

447. Did I say such a thing? No.

Wonder what gave you that idea?

I don't support people who commit violent acts, period.

[Singular73]

225. Oh yeah, we'll get ton of votes with this platform

The pro-Iraqi suicide bomber democractic platform! Why didn't Dean think of this earlier!!!

/head explodes

It is in the best interest of everyone involved that Iraq becomes stable, and that our soldiers come home.

If you are rooting for the insurgents, you have a REAL problem.

[ananda]

227. I'm rooting for..

.. sanity.

This occupation/war is insane. Nobody is winning. Everyone is losing... except Bush and co. and their bidness cronies.

Sue

[Vladimir]

233. If you are rooting at all, you have a very deep problem

The issue is not rooting, it is solidarity. One can have solidarity with an anti-colonialist struggle without cheering when people die. The Iraqis didn't ask to be put in this position, they didn't ask to have a choice between fighting for their freedom or existing as a colony. So when they take up arms to expel their occupiers, I will no more castigate them for it then I would have castigated a popular uprising to oust Saddam - bloody or not. But that does not mean that I will cheer the carnival of death. It is a dark dark night in Iraq, and one of our making.

[Tinoire]

268. "Dissent is terrorism". Seems to be the motto of these times. n/t

[bpilgrim]

294. wanting the neoCONs to FAIL is what the whole world wants

there is no way for us to 'win' as history has clearly demonstrated to all recent invaders, especially the rich and powerful invaders who through their arrogance and conceit lead them into these adventures time and again.

that does not equate to supporting terrorist or anyone else for that matter except if you think in absolutes.

peace

[Frederik]

340. Nobody has supported suicide bombers

What a nice straw man you pulled out of your ass, that must have hurt.

[agincourt]

236. he doesn't seem to singling out ,

the Iraqi insurgency nor is he calling for violence.

[Hatalles]

239. Someone point out where Galloway says what Mr. Grooner here alleges...

[Tinoire]

257. Galloway ROCKS! Bush Inc. & Freepers however have gone off the deep end.

Well I parsed it and didn't see a single objectionable sentence or thought in the excerpt your patriotism found so alarming.

against Zionist occupation
against American occupation
against British occupation
against savage capitalist globalization which is intent upon homogenizing the entire world
against turning other peoples of this world into factory chickens
against force feeding them the American diet of everything from food to Coca-Cola to movies and TV culture
against people whose only role in life is to consume
against consuming the things produced endlessly by the multinational corporations
against a world full of people speaking Bush's idiot Texan
against McDonalds poisoning more then they alread do

against being ruled by Bush and Blair
on the same side re the war
on the same side re the occupation
on the same side re justice
on the same side re the opposition to globalization

Damn, what do you know, I must be a Progressive :bounce:

[Vladimir]

262. Those are some mighty fine ticks Tinoire!

:hi:

[Tinoire]

265. Lol

:hi:

Do you think maybe we should call up Homeland Security and turn ourselves in?

They probably have a special category for Galloway sypmathizers- maybe it's even a subclassification under Democrat :scared:

[bpilgrim]

298. DU and the WHOLE WORLD is WATCHING

the CARTOON WORLD VIEW goes down in flames, again, to the REALITY BASED community here on DU.

wooHoo! our perfect record continues :evilgrin:

peace

[Protagoras]

318. Considered replying at length here

then realized that it would just be lost in the din.

So instead I'll leave you with this song:

For What It's Worth
by Springfield Buffalo

There's somethin' happenin' here.
What it is ain't exactly clear.
There's a man with a gun over there
A-tellin' me I've got to beware.

I think it's time we stop.
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's goin' down.

There's battle lines bein' drawn.
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.
Young people speakin' their minds
A-gettin' so much resistance from behind.

I think it's time we stop.
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's goin' down.

What a field day for the heat.
A thousand people in the street
Singin' songs and a-carryin' signs
Mostly sayin' hooray for our side.

It's time we stop.
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's goin' down.

Paranoia strikes deep.
Into your life it will creep.
It starts when you're always afraid.
Step out of line, the men come and take you away.

You better stop.
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's goin'..
You better stop.
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's goin'..
You better stop.
Now, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's goin'..
You better stop.
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's goin'..

[Postman]

321. I think you're missing his point.

He's rooting for justice.

Not the death of Americans or Britons.

When there is justice, there is peace.

[bpilgrim]

336. occasionally 2,3 will, but once DU has an opportunity to break it down 4'm

after that, for most, there can be no DOUBT, the man is on definitely on OUR - weTHEpeople - side - no matter what spot, on the dot, we may happen to presently inhabit, just the way JUSTICE and us LEFTIES like it ;->

I-AM-WE
(old African proverb)

sounds like a straight up evil DU'er the more ya get to know him, at least to me, after these 'rap' sessions :evilgrin:

thanks for SHARING, DU :toast:

:hi:

peace

[Darranar]

329. Galloway is fantastic. May he be emulated. n/t

[Imajika]

331. Sad...

Very sad to see how much genuine support appears to exist on DU, as obvious from this thread, for the Iraqi insurgency. This an insurgency which employs suicide bombers as a favored weapon, largely imported from outside Iraq, which result in the slaughter of far more Iraqi's (civilians, policemen, mosque-goers, etc) than US combatants.

The very notion that anything good for Iraq or the rest of the world would come out of a victory achieved by these fanatical murderers using this type of tactic is insane.

If the American public ever comes to suspect that this is where the sympathies are on the left - with suicide bombers, we'll never win another election.

As to Galloway. I wouldn't want to judge him on a few comments that can easily be taken out of context or twisted to mean something other than what he meant. He was willing to march into a hostile environment and face his accusers in DC, and pretty much smacked them in the face - that, I found impressive. I rather suspect Galloway isn't the hero so many here seem to believe his is, but without a fair review of more of his comments or history I can't say much more about him.

Imajika

[Straight Shooter]

344. Please see my Post #118 re: conservative columnist Steve Chapman

Nobody is advocating the success-through-suicide tactics of the insurgents. The point is, those tactics work. The other point is, they are employing those tactics because they want the U.S. out.

[walldude]

348. So who do you support?

You support the coalition? They have killed as many or more people as the "insurgency". My problem with this situtation is I don't know what the truth is. Iraq is locked up tight and any information that comes out of it is tainted. I can grasp bits of truth between the lines but for anyone, not in Iraq at the moment, to take sides for or against the insurgency, is making their decision without having all the facts. I refuse to do that. I do know that while I sit here with my clean running water and 24/7 electricity I have no rights to make judgements on people who are living in a war torn, falling apart country.
While I don't put Galloway on a pedistal he has more balls than anyone else has showed so far. For that I am grateful.

[Frederik]

352. A few points must be adressed:

1. Iraqis are in their full right to oppose the occupation with violent means. It's a pillar of international law since the days of Grotius. In Europe during WW2 it was called resistance, not insurgency.

2. The tactics employed by the various resistance groups vary a great deal. A recent survey found that there are 76 different groups that together constitutes the insurgency. Some employ suicide bombers. Many don't. It's not a "favored weapon of the insurgency" by any means. Where would they get all te suiciders? The favored weapons of the insurgency are RPGs and AK-47s. The 50 attacks a day against US forces are not generaly suicide bombers. By the way, most of the purported suicide bombs are remotely controlled, and not suicide bombs, according to the Iraqi Riverbend, who writes the blog "Baghdad Burning".

3. The vast majority of tose resisting the occupation violently are Iraqis, and they seem to enjoy broad popular support.

4. Your claim that insurgents kill more Iraqis than US combatants is simply wrong on its face. The Lancet study of last year found that the majority of those who die violent deaths are killed by the soldiers of the United States. The number that die in checkpoints alone is staggering, for instance. Aerial bombing raids are conducted daily, and kill people daily. We just don't hear about it on CNN.

[Jacobin]

356. Its a long thread, but well worth reading

A cursory glance at the posts, might give you the impression you formed in your post.

A more thorough reading of the thread would disabuse you of the conclusion you have reached.

The sad fact is that American troops have been put in a position of occupying (illegally) a nation that clearly does not want us there and that clearly has a right to attempt to expel the foreign forces occupying it with force. Lots of bad actors have come to the fray.

This is not the Superbowl where you cheer one team on. This is a clusterfuck of epic proportions that a combination of naive ideologues, craven buck chasers and cretinously stupid leadership has gotten us into. There will be no winners, only losers. The biggest losers will be the Iraqis, although the blowback from this misadventure is sure to be painful in many ways for this country in the future. Right now we 'only' have the death and maiming of fewer than 20,000 americans, compared to the carnage we have put in motion in Iraq.

This isn't about taking sides, as the American media likes to portray things. This is about learning, once again, as in Viet Nam, you don't go invading countries that have not attacked you to try to make them in your own image, as compelling (to some) as that might sometimes seem. It simply does not work and ends up killing and maiming countless hundreds of thousands of innocents and making them worse off than they were before.

[bpilgrim]

362. well said

thanks for sharing :toast:

peace

[bpilgrim]

359. That sounds like it came STRAIGHT from the WH

there would be NO guerrilla war with out the sea to swim in.

furthermore, we do NOT have the MORAL HIGH-GROUND in this ILLEGAL WAR as declared by the HEAD of the U.N.

FYI: the American public were told the very same thing during VIETNAM, that all the left supports ho/the terrorist.

"I rather suspect Galloway isn't the hero... blah, blah, blah"

you rather suspect a LOT of things, and that amazes me about some people that folks will pass judgment no matter how much they don't know.

why is that :shrug:

when you examine his record you will notice a long history of him fighting for the left.

how many of those can you count on one hand in the west?

but go head, and chew it up, from your GUT.

:hi:

peace

[wtmusic]

379. Some questions

Where did you learn about the Iraq insurgency?
How do you know they were imported from outside Iraq?
Do you think you could ever be so desperate you'd consider blowing yourself up?
If North Korea invaded the US and you fought to defend it, would you be an "insurgent"?

[stanwyck]

332. No doubt Grooner is now

on his way to Iraq to help quell the insurgency. Or maybe he's helping his kids pack for their tour of duty in Iraq.
No. Wait. That almost never happens, does it? It's always someone else's job.

[applegrove]

354. How about this. How about we wait for Saddam's trial? Remember

how much information came out of the Watergate hearings?

Let us give it a go!

Wait until we get the trial for Saddam. Then we can speculate on what Iraqi people need and want.

Anyone against that idea?

[Jacobin]

358. That's rich

It'll be a kangaroo court conducted by American puppets to demonize Saddam and cleanse all the evidence of the WMDs we sold him, our support for him in his war against Iran, and all the rest.

[applegrove]

368. Remember - for every deal with the US there was a Baathist present.

I'm betting they talk pretty openly.

[Jacobin]

371. You think Saddam's trial won't be staged?

You think they'll allow cross examination of witnesses and subpoena of witnesses?

You don't think they'll continually invoke 'national security' to keep all this evidence out?

You are much more hopeful than I

[bpilgrim]

363. "SPECULATE on what Iraqi people need and want" - is EXPLODING all over TV

hello...

they NEED electrify, medicine, jobs, for us to STOP fucking bombing, raping, torturing and murdering them, especially the CHILDREN, for Christ's sake

psst... pass the word, please :cry:

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS - OUTSOURCE THE WAR - TO IRAQIS - NOW!!!

peace

[applegrove]

370. Exactly. Everyone is saying that. But do you want the Iraqis to be

in control of the war to have a working army - or do you want to leave today?

Let us here from the Iraqis. At trial. I do not doubt that that will remind us all that evil is evil and the neocons used to think Saddam they could 'work with'.

Let us just wait.

[bpilgrim]

372. i want them to begin yesterday calling the U.N. to turn over security

to THEM and begin today a withdraw plan of U.S. troops and have the timetable on my desk by morning.

you WAIT, what does a TRAIL have to do with ANY facts currently on the ground :shrug:

peace

[applegrove]

374. Why don't you wait and find out. It will be a national trial. Believe you

me - longstanding Liberals have nothing to be afraid of. Neither do the Amnesty Internationals of the world.

Just wait.

[bpilgrim]

387. WTF has a TRIAL or AI got to do with our TROOPS coming HOME?

or are you channeling rummy,
and being sarcastic, haha, funny...

:shrug:

peace

[applegrove]

390. Do you think the truths Galloway hit on would come out in a trial

where there were less than 100,000 Iraqi only troops to keep the peace during a trial?

Come on! The insurgency is made up of forces outside Iraq too.

Let the truth come out. The USA cannot hide it. Let the Iraqis have a little peace during the trial. So they can all be glued to their TVS and realize just how pragmatic the USA has been ore the years.

Don't you want to world to see an expanded version of the Galloway testimony on USA involvement with the neocons?

I am not channeling Rummy. I fully expect him to be called to testify on his actions with Saddam ore the years. And I fully expect him to be found on channels in that regard. If that is what you meant... that is what I am hoping for.

[bpilgrim]

402. Does it matter since he's already put it on the RECORD? hell no!

the IRAQIS are NOT fighting for SADDAM either. the TRIAL is a red herring

peace

[Name removed]

365. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jacobin]

369. But you have to admit

They make for excellent and impassioned threads!

:-)

[applegrove]

373. I think Saddam will be talking about the British involvement in all

sorts of things too.

Galloway was excellent in that he spoke the truth about Rumsfield.

Still nobody should be making deals with a monster like Saddam.

Let the Iraqi people listen to the testimony and decide for themselves what they think about US & British involvement in their past.

I'm sure Galloway is for that. You know - that all the stuff about Rumsfield comes out.

I'm sure Coleman is just shacking in his boots.

[bpilgrim]

378. i think you mean U.S. & U.K. involvement and SUPPORT of his MURDEROUS

regime, IF he makes it to TRIAL.

but what has that got to do with us pulling out of our ILLEGAL occupation, NOW?

the to are not dependent nor joined at the hip, so WHAT is your point, exactly?

tia :hi:

peace

[applegrove]

385. Well let us say that the Iraqi prosecutor wants to call up Chemical

Ali? Or some other asshole in Guantanamo? US has to send them eh? What with the backing of the democratic government.

I'm not saying that the USA shouldn't leave tomorrow. But you know - if the Iraqis have 150,000 people in the army next year and the USA has 100,000 people still there. That would mean they would have the numbers they should have had according to the war plans for Iraq (which Rummy shredded). And it means they may have the numbers to impose peace and control the streets and put up the infrastructure. And nobody will ever have the excuse again to go in anywhere with nothing but technology. And that kills the neocon war plans. There are so many outside influences right now that it is hard for people to get their bearings. Let all of Iraq go through the Saddam trials. Let them share that experience at a time when the insurgency gets weaker. Then you leave. And they have a better chance at democracy. What is some baathist asshole going to say to his kids "oh Saddam was great so I'm making bombs to bring the country back to the great place it was". Lies like that do not work when the truth is experienced by all.

Bear in mind that creeps in the middle east see $$$$OIL just like the creeps in the USA do. As an opportunity for endless wealth.

Let us see the trials. Let us see how popular folk like Chalabi are after the trials.

And it will show Rummy for the supreme asshole he is!

[bpilgrim]

388. rummy say's they got 165,000 Iraqi troops, yesterday. hello...

EVERYBODY KNOWS about the WAR CRIMINAL rummy... so NOW can you see we need to bring them home, NOW?

according to your logic, of course :hi:

peace

[applegrove]

392. And Rummy couldn't keep the peace with 165, 000 American troops

and make the case for his beautiful war. He has lost 'preemptive war' as a model to be adored already.

Don't you want to see Rummy have to testify? Or people testifying about Rummy on the TV?

Yes! If it is workable - bring the troops home asap. But keeping them there will just prove how wrong Rummy was.

I don't want to see another 100,000 Iraqis die. If exiting Iraq will dial down the insurgents (and it will) may the US leave asap.

[Tansy_Gold]

411. I'm not sure that a US exit from Iraq will in fact decrease the

"insurgent" attacks, because I believe there are domestic Iraqi opportunists at work as well.

We know that "Iraq" is an artificial political creation, formed in the 1920s out of remnants of the Ottoman Empire. So there is no national Iraqi spirit at work the way it would be with, say, the English or the French or even the Italians (who may be a coalition of former city-states, etc., but at least are a voluntary coalition).

We also know that there are strong religious fault lines within Iraq, and that the factions were controlled to some extent by the merciless autocracy of Saddam Hussein. Rather like Mussolini getting the trains to run on time, Saddam must be granted some back-handed credit for keeping the Sunnis and Shia and Kurds from killing each other.

The Islamic militants, such as Zarqawi or affiliates of Bin Laden or other freelancers, would naturally see a chaotic Iraq as a field of opportunity. In that chaos, they could reasonably take revenge on former Ba'athists, exterminate moderates of any sect, slaughter collaborators, or whatever.

And I think -- may the gawdess forgive me for so foolishly using her magnificent gift of the human brain -- that part of the rancor in this present discussion stems from the ease with which we lump all the "insurgents" together and give them a single motive, that being to drive the American invaders from their "country." Some of them may just be nutcases who like blowing things up and this is perfect cover for them.

Barbara Tuchman, in her 1984 masterpiece "The March of Folly," cites the Japanese for their foolishness in attacking Pearl Harbor as a case of "cultural ignorance." Looking on the American reluctance to enter the War on behalf of England, the Japanese erroneously assumed that an attack on the US naval forces in Hawaii would strengthen the isolationist stance and weaken any American resolve to go to war. The Japanese grossly misunderestimated /sic/ the American response to the attack.

What we appear to have here, on DU and sometimes in the anti-war community in general, is a failure to examine the nature of the insurgency. Is it monolithic, or are there factions within it that may be working at cross purposes? Is there one group that targets Iraqi collaborators and another that goes after the occupying forces? Who is killing the civilians and how? Are the suicide bombers following a similar MO, or are there differences?

The flip side of that coin, of course, is that not all Muslims are terrorists, not all Sunni hate all Shia, some of the Kurds would like peace with the Turks, and not all Christians hate the Jews. Labels are so easy to use, not always so easy to apply.

[applegrove]

425. But the Islamists already know that civilian terror does not work if

the 'great satan' is not there to be the target. So if the Americans left - it would be much harder for some of the groups to claim justice in their terrorism. It would dial it down.

[aneerkoinos]

444. Thanks

To paraphrase Riverbend, nobody in Iraq really knows who is behind the killings of academics, bombings against religious Shia, murders of Sunni and Shia clerics, kidnappings, executions, etc. etc.

There is a multitude of various actors with various agendas, it's a bloody mayham of which occupiers seem to understand the least.

[wtmusic]

391. applegrove, the difference between their "creeps" and ours

is that the oil is theirs. We are taking it from them--and have killed 100,000 people in the process.

The war is unwinnable, just as a foreign invasion on our soil would be. What is the difference? I leave you with a quote of an Iraqi (how about that? someone who knows what they're talking about)...

"It is outrageous because for many people, this isn't about Sunnis and Shia or Arabs and Kurds. It's about an occupation and about people feeling that they do not have real representation. We have a government that needs to hide behind kilometers of barbed wire and meters and meters of concrete- and it's not because they are Shia or Kurdish or Sunni Arab- it's because they blatantly supported, and continue to support, an occupation that has led to death and chaos."

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

[applegrove]

394. I see it as "how soon can we stop the death and Kaos". Your point

that badly planned and executed non UN 'interventions' are bad and dangerous has already been proved.

I'm for "how soon we stop the death and Kaos".

That is all that matters to me. The civilian experience.

Don't tell me to give a **** about anyone who carbombs.

[bpilgrim]

395. Bring OUR Troops HOME, NOW

was my point, excuse me. and NO-ONE is asking you to "give a **** about anyone who carbombs" - STRAW-MAN - we are asking you to GIVE A SHIT about OUR TROOPS.

peace

[applegrove]

399. I care about civilians more. I'm sorry. But I just do. That does not

mean I want the US to stay a minute longer than they have to. And I think they need to leave UN peacekeepers there and forget about the bases. Bases will only give fuel to the insurgents who we don't like.

I'm with you on much of this. I just think a year long trial that Iraqis can watch on TV will do more good than bad in calming the situation there.

And the neocons win nothing for that.

[bpilgrim]

401. GOOD! because that would SAVE MORE OF THEIR LIVES if the TROOPS R HOME

hello...

peace

[applegrove]

405. I agree that disengaging will save lives of civilians and dial down

any excuse the evil insurgents (as opposed to the ones who truly are afraid of American abuse). Both will be dialed down when the US leaves.

[geek tragedy]

381. I agree absolutely.

Galloway has consistently aligned him with the enemies of the United States. He's my enemy.

[bpilgrim]

384. Magistrate posted eloquently up-thread why that kind of absolute thinking

is unwise, in as articulate a manner as is usual for our generous friend and i suggest you check it out.

also, Galloway supports the causes of the oppressed and the people not the ELITE nor TYRANTS.

for most progressives he is considered a real champion.

maybe you have been unwittingly fed PROPAGANDA... if you point to any specifics we could probably let you know.

:hi:

peace

[geek tragedy]

393. Most progressives my freaking ass.

Most progressives don't support the head-choppers and weren't supporters of the freaking Soviet Union.

Real progressives wouldn't spend Christmas dinner with Tariq Aziz and later oppose him even standing trial.

The insurgents aren't patriots--they're thugs engaged in a dirty, nasty civil war. They are predominantly Sunnis--notice how al Sadr has sat all of this out--who don't want to lose power to the majority of Iraqis who follow the Shiite version of Islam.

Let me make it real clear:

Real progressives support the Iraqis who voted and are trying to construct a civil society in the face of an illegal and frequently brutal occupation and a vicious, terrorist insurgency.

George Galloway is rooting for the people who bombed election places and murdered election workers.

The man is walking filth.

[Hatalles]

398. POINT to where Galloway says this....

<< George Galloway is rooting for the people who bombed election places and murdered election workers. >>

[bpilgrim]

400. well, using this thread as a sample...

proves my point.

now, you can throw up all the STRAW MAN and SPIN you want to unless you got something more than HEARSAY, let me make it real clear, it ain't worthy of discussion.

George Galloway and DU and BILLIONS of others on this planet especially the IRAQIS are for us pulling out of our ILLEGAL WAR where we do FAR WORSE than any spin you posted above.

STOP TORTURING CHILDREN - STOP MURDERING INNOCENT CIVILIANS - STOP any more FALLUJAS - our Nanjing.



STOP IT!

psst... pass the word!

peace

[wtmusic]

404. Boy, that is quite a lexicon of administration Kool-Aid quotes

"Insurgency". "Terrorist".

Let me make something clear which is so obvious to most in this thread but is miraculously escaping you: there is no insurgency. The people blowing themselves up are ordinary Iraqis, husbands, fathers, friends, mothers who are so FUCKING desperate and so FUCKING pissed that they don't care if they die. They are defending their own country from a foreign invasion, my friend. They are proud of their heritage and their religion, and they resent any attempt to impose it illegally and criminally from the outside. They are patriots, and just because they're fighting against your country you apparently can't bring yourself to admit it. So accept the terms "insurgent" and "terrorist" if you must, then stand in front of a mirror and ask yourself what you would do in their situation--and not the situation that Karl Rove has (evidently successfully) led you to believe exists--one pitting the so-called "peace-loving" Iraqis against the so-called "insurgents". It's a despicable and evil fantasy.

[The Magistrate]

406. To Be Fair, Mr. Tragedy

The categories of "patriot" and "thug engaged in dirty, nasty civil war" are hardly exclusionary; indeed, in many more instances than not both are fair descriptions.

There are several points worth making about the matter.

First, do not mistake the current quiesence of Shia militants for an attempt to construct a civil society in the face of occupation and resistance to same. The Shia leadership is playing the occupation force, intending to see it smash the Sunni Arab factions before making its own play. Though there are certainly reasons of sectarian fanaticism behind some of the Sunni jihadis' attacks on Shia targets, part of the aim of such an attack is to bring Shia elements out in arms to forestall this strategy. If civilo war begins while the occupation is in place, all factions will find their surest bid for popular support in attacks on the occupation and puppet forces. This will apply to Shia factions as well, and draw the fire of occupation forces off the Sunni Arab elements.

Second, there is no doubt that violent resistance to the occupation and puppet government enjoys wide-spread support among the people of Iraq, whether Sunni Arab, Shia, or Kurd. The foreign jihadis are, of course, hated by the Shia, who they view as polytheist filth even worse than infidels, and find less support among the Kurds, mostly simply because they are not Kurds themselves, than among the Sunni Arabs. Secular elements among the Shia tend to support the Ba'athist contingents, and are numerous enough to allow these some capability even in Shia areas.

Third, it does not seem to me Mr. Galloway explicitly suppports those elements you describe him as supporting. He is, indeed, willing to look on the violent opposition to the occupation as a thing good in itself, but these are not quite the same thing. In England, Mr. Galloway is regularly denounced by jihadis, and supportewd by precisely those progressive Muslim elements we are in agreement ought to receive our support.

[aneerkoinos]

430. An Iraqi opinion

"Iraq and Iraqis won't forget the noble and brave stand of George Galloway against the US illegal war(s) and occupation(s)."

Raed commenting Galloways appearance at US senate.
http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/

Very few if any care about Your opinions, Mr. geek.

[Frederik]

445. "The insurgents aren't patriots"

Yeah, you probably know everything there is to know about the Iraqi insurgency, from watching CNN.

"George Galloway is rooting for the people who bombed election places and murdered election workers"

Ouch, it always hurts to pull those straw men out of one's ass, doesn't it?

"the Iraqis who voted"

Snce you seem to know so much about Iraq, what makes you think that the Iraqis who voted have no overlap with Iraqis that take up arms against the occupiers?

This is Dahr Jamail, a man who has spent a lot of time in Iraq and who, in contrast to yourself, knows what he is talking about:

"Q:The US Corporate media consistently characterizes the Iraqi resistance as "foreign terrorists and former Ba'athist insurgents". In your experience, is this an accurate portrayal? If not, why?

A:This is propaganda of the worst kind. Most Iraqis refer to the Iraqi Resistance as "patriots." Which of course most of them are-they are, especially in Fallujah, primarily composed of people who simply are resisting the occupation of their country by a foreign power. They are people who have had family members killed, detained, tortured and humiliated by the illegal occupiers of their shattered country.

Calling them "foreign terrorists" and "Ba'athist insurgents" is simply a lie. While there are small elements of these, they are distinctly different from the Iraqi Resistance, who are now supported by, very conservatively at least 80% of the population here.

There are terrorist elements here, but that is because the borders of Iraq have been left wide open since the invasion. These did not exist in Iraq before.

The Bush regime like to refer to anyone who does not support their ideology and plans for global domination as a "terrorist."

Here, these fighters in the Iraqi Resistance are referred to as freedom fighters, holy warriors and patriots."

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/20669

[leesa]

410. Screw off, please.

[PDXWoman]

442. I agree.

Galloway is a hero, and I would love him to come to USA more often.

[lonestarnot]

412. Galloway not MAD! He's just pissed off!

[Obviousman]

413. hate to break it to you

but thats not rooting for the insurgency. It smells of anti-semitism, but its mainly anti globalization.

[JRob]

420. why say anti-semitic and not anti American?

Israel is in the mix with the US, Brittan etc.

I see nothing there that I have a problem with.

[Frederik]

446. Anti-semitic??

What on earth smells of anti-semitism in there?? That he dares to hold Israel to the same standards he holds US and Britain? My, he's a regular Hitler isn't he?

[JRob]

421. "opposing savage capitalist globalization " this guy is right on it... nt

[Gasping4Truth]

427. Progressives and Muslims have a common enemy

but they are strange bedfellows.
I remember an election a few years ago here in Belgium when the communist party actually teamed up with an extremist Muslim party that wanted to introduce Sharia law. They went down together in the polls.

As for Galloway, I don't see why he shouldn't be entitled to root for the Iraqi resistance. IMO, resisting a foreign occupier is legitimate and has never been pretty. WWII resistance in Europe wasn't pretty neither.

If you're secretly rooting for the Iraqi resistance but are afraid to tell, here's a cool-headed explanation by an non-ideological authority of why it's in America's best interest (and the world's for that matter) to have a quick defeat in Iraq:

"Future: Tense - The Coming World Order?", by Gwynne Dyer

[dutchdemocrat]

431. Unfortunately

The more dead American bodies - quite like Vietnam - is the only way that America is really going to wake up. And that may take a draft and subsequently the tallying of the children of privilege before the tap gets shut off.

I support the 'insurgency' because the Americans don't even have the balls to label it 'terrorism' - another misnomer which floats through the propaganda machine. It's going to take a kick in the face of Yankeeworld before they can wake up and join the rest of civilization. Unfortunatly that means dead kids on both sides... but you started it.

[T Town Jake]

437. What a charming post.

/sarcasm.

[Norquist Nemesis]

455. Bill! You're back!

:hi:

[Moderator]

461. Locking.....

This thread exceeds 400 posts and there
is another thread on the topic. Please
continue the conversation in the other thread.

Here is the other thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3776801




DU Moderator