Quiet Britons outpace US in taming Iraq

[Verto]

Originally posted by Tripledoc

Your second statement to Tassader, "dont push it" reveals a dangerous degree of bloated self importance, bordering on the threatening.

[Whaleboy]

Whaleboy, you fricking pussie. you don't even support the brit effort in Iraq. go play Civ on the computer...you little coward.

Whaleboy wishes for mod powers... or a tazer...

You are of course correct, I don't support the war, never did, however troops are in now, and I cannot turn back the clock. Thus I only wish for the best outcome given the current situation, and the British approach appears to be the best path to that.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Neither Rumsfeld nor the Iraqi information minister had anything to say regarding Jessica Lynchs rescue. Whether it was in fact Pentagon who were behind the misinformation campaign, that is feasible. I don't believe the Iraqi information minister made any comments on the case. Also irregularities transpired long after the end of the invasion (but not the war), and the Iraqi information minister was at that time a broken man, presumably because he had been tortured by CIA agents. The information on the US mishandling and abuse of the Jessica Lunch story was investigated by uncowardly American journalists.

Jimmycrackscorns. Your first attampt at being humourous is therefore totally misguided. Your second statement to Tassader, "dont push it" reveals a dangerous degree of bloated self importance, bordering on the threatening.

Hmmm...

Well, if you were able to decipher the actual meaning of my post, it wasn't that the InfoMin said anything about Jessica Lynch, it was that he was full of shit, alot like you are.

And as for Tass, I said he had a point, but then he had to keep going with it. He couldn't just leave it, or just wink or something. Its one thing to not like Rumsfeld, but you know Tass hates everything and anything that comes out of the US, regardless of who or what it is, and that kind of xenophobia irks me.

So, no, I don't mind telling him not to push it, kind of like I don't mind telling you to fvck off.

[Sprayber]

After a century of holding populations down from Ireland to Africa, it's about time the Brits got this peacekeeping thing down right.

[Tripledoc]

Back on topic.

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times is exposed as the hypocrite he is in the article quoted immediatley below. He is the prime example of how the so-called liberals in America have prostitited themselves to the Capitalist class and the security state, in order to reap the dividends of the recent impoverishment of the poor. What is most disturbing is that he has apparently turned quite schizophrenic from this, since he at one time claims the war is about oil, the next that it is about liberalization and democratization, the next that is taking the battle to Al-qaida. If there is not a single good excuse for invading a country, numorous bad ones will suffice. hence the influential Friedman is able to placate the numerous segments of the American society, who are all in favour of war, any war, but need different excuses. Of course the prime problem now is that the Iraqis are in fact resisting, and they are doing that by killing the invaders. The article exposes hypocrisy after hypocrisy, for instance the suicide bombing of the Red Cross is presented as an attack against civilization, while the US bombing of a Red Cross warehouse in Afghanistan is presented as an accident. Apperently it was also an accident when the US bombed the warehouse a second time after the Red Cross had made a protest. What this shows is that it is no use portraying the Iraqi resistance as inhumane and nihilistic or any other word in the book of rightiousness. This does not lead to any greater understanding of reality, but merely serves as propaganda.

From time immemorial progressive humanity has recognized the right of occupied peoples to use military force to throw off the yoke of their oppressors. One can be certain that phrases similar to those of the Times’ commentator were used by the Nazis to characterize the resistance movements of those living under German occupation in Poland, Holland, France, Greece and other countries during the Second World War.

The Iraqi people have the right to resist the American occupation of their country in any way they choose. The responsibility for the deaths of innocent civilians—as well as for American youth dragooned into this vile imperialist project—rests with those who conspired to launch an illegal war of aggression and promoted the most cynical lies to justify it.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/nyt-n04.shtml

I don't think many can argue with the fact that a people have the right to defend themselves. However it is well to remember that until after the Second World War it was entirely legal for a nation to attack another nation. Should it lose it would of course suffer the consequences. But these were after all not great since the warring powers would often seek to revert to the equilibrium. The problem now, since we live in a unipolar world, is that if the US should fail to install Democracy in Iraq, or fail to control the world's second largest oil resources, depending on what mood one is in, it is not at all sure that a restoration of the equilibrium would indeed take place. A US helter skelter withdrawal would be seen as weakness. So the worms are out of the can.

The following excerpt is seeks to understand the resistance in way that is scientific.

http://www.marxist.com/MiddleEast/iraqi_resistance0403.html

We have to distinguish between the nationalism of the powerful imperialist nations and that of the poor oppressed "underdeveloped" nations. The nationalism of the rich and powerful is an expression of the rapacious interests of the capitalist class that is out to exploit the peoples of the world. The nationalism of the peoples of the poor, underdeveloped and exploited nations is an expression of their anti-imperialism, and therefore it has a progressive content to it.

Granted there are many points that can be argued. The article as a whole suffers from the fact that it predicted the level of Iraqi resistance to be higher than it actually was. However, similarly, the predictions made from officialdom and the corporate news channels, were equally off centre. Neither do I agree that since Iraqi resistance is the underdog, that this neccesarily would correspond to their acceptance of Communism as such. Then again the US actually found that what they were fighting in Vietnam was not Communism, but Nationalism.

It is also uncertain if the Iraqi people are as materialistic as both communists and capitalists are here in the west. Maybe they are simply fighting for honour. And it is indeed very honourable to fight a superior enemy. In fact Islam emphatically says that a true believer should fight the strong and help the weak. Thus I would claim that what the American forces is fighting in Iraq is not foreign insurgenst, nor al-qaida, but an idea. And ideas have a tendency to spread, and they are very hard to stamp out. Note that the vulgar idea of democracy emphatically stress the preorgative of the strong, the majority or the capitalist class to impose their will. What is discouraging is that fundamentalism on both sides of that spectrum is rising.

[JohnT]

We have to distinguish between the nationalism of the powerful imperialist nations and that of the poor oppressed "underdeveloped" nations. The nationalism of the rich and powerful is an expression of the rapacious interests of the capitalist class that is out to exploit the peoples of the world. The nationalism of the peoples of the poor, underdeveloped and exploited nations is an expression of their anti-imperialism, and therefore it has a progressive content to it.

Only if you call bull**** a science.

[Arrian]

We have to distinguish between the nationalism of the powerful imperialist nations and that of the poor oppressed "underdeveloped" nations. The nationalism of the rich and powerful is an expression of the rapacious interests of the capitalist class that is out to exploit the peoples of the world. The nationalism of the peoples of the poor, underdeveloped and exploited nations is an expression of their anti-imperialism, and therefore it has a progressive content to it.

[Whaleboy]

The science of bull****. Perfected by Bentham...

[Tripledoc]

Well one thing i have noted that the rich of the so-called underdeveloped nations don't tend to be nationalistic. Only when Democracy have entered the picture as in Serbia or Palestine, have there been a mobilization on behalf of the rich towards nationalism. Similarly in the developed nations the rich are not that nationalistic, however they will tend to play on the nationalism of the poor to achieve certain benefits.

A democratic Iraq would be very nationalist I believe.

[Harry Tuttle]

and I thought my verbal wars were bad...

[Tripledoc]

And by the way. Remember how many people laughed when Saddam got 99.9 percent of the vote. Well, and not to compare in anyway, when Napoleon asked for public acceptance of the French public, the vote was slightly more than 3 million in favour, and only 3000 against.

Napoleon's regime was clearly a hotbed of nationalism, and one that spread to the rest of Europe.

[Whaleboy]

Nationalism is dangerous.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
And by the way. Remember how many people laughed when Saddam got 99.9 percent of the vote. Well, and not to compare in anyway, when Napoleon asked for public acceptance of the French public, the vote was slightly more than 3 million in favour, and only 3000 against.

Napoleon's regime was clearly a hotbed of nationalism, and one that spread to the rest of Europe.

Napoleon was just smart enough to hold the 'election' right after he had made some great and momentous achievement.

[Kyle]

Okay...so why aren't the British up in Baghdad/Sunni Triangle area and why aren't they training US troops to be better peacekeepers?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Verto


Napoleon was just smart enough to hold the 'election' right after he had made some great and momentous achievement.

Saddam was defying the imperialist powers from 1991 to 2003 within his fortress Iraq. This included incessant airial bombardmnet, sanctions, hunger, disease. That is not a great achievement to the Arab nationalist?