News Flash: No Wmd In Iraq

[Seeker]

"despite the fact that we shouldn't have gone in there, it is now in our vital interests to see that Iraq doesn't became what Afganistan was or what Somolia is, a haven for those who would murder us."


Agreed! As wrong as it was to be Israels attack dog, to leave now would be worse.

As temtping as it is, I can see now that sudden withdrawal would have real bad consequences.

A terrible situation for soldiers and the iraqi people. They could be there quite a while.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned


I thought you would at least approve of Clintons war on Haiti to install a communist president?

Why would I approve of that? I don't give a **** about Haiti or whatever kind of president they have. Or was this a pathetic way of calling me a commie?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


News flash, Ned: Commies don't always agree. In any event, what was good for the Communist Parties of Iraq isn't necessarily good for the world. The Iraqi communists have an open space in which to advance their politics (and are doing quite well, as a matter of fact, garnering up to 25% of the vote). My duty as an American communist, however, is to oppose imperialism, and so I do.

Why of course, Che. But the Commie Parties in Iraq would strongly disagree that this war was a good example of American Imperialism because it resulted in their liberation. Perhaps you commies ought to get together in some sort of international forum to see if you can get your stories straight.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I thought you would at least approve of Clintons war on Haiti to install a communist president?

Less than 1,000 people died. Technically it wasn't a war. Also, the invasion was done in order to forestall the impending revolution in Haiti, which might have gone communist in a real way, and not in a Ned way. The way the occupation of Haiti was carried out ment that the murderers in the previous government were immune to prosecution, and those that tried to obtain justice for their people were jailed. Those people that Clinton protected today again rule Haiti.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Perhaps you commies ought to get together in some sort of international forum to see if you can get your stories straight.

It's against U.S. law for American commies to be part of such an international forum.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


It's against U.S. law for American commies to be part of such an international forum.

Really?

What do you call Apolyton?

[chequita guevara]

This's a differnt kind of fourm. Let me put it this way. If the Communist Party of Apolyton were a real organization, it would be illegal for Americans to belong to it. Americans may not belong to members of international revolutionary organizations. Any forum were we all got together to discuss strategy would very likely be considered such an organization by the U.S.

[Ned]

I take it, then, that the SDS and the Weathermen were not illegal per se because they had no provable contacts with communists outside the US or perhaps because they labelled themselves as something else.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I take it, then, that the SDS and the Weathermen were not illegal per se because they had no provable contacts with communists outside the US or perhaps because they labelled themselves as something else.

Correct, though the Weathermen were a terrorist group, and so presumably illegal on that count. Nor is it illegal to have contacts with groups from other countries. Americans cannot belong to revolutionary organizations that cross U.S. borders. So if I met with Castro, it would be fine, as long as I didn't join the Cuban Communist Party (or engaged in other activity prohibited by U.S. law, such as going to Cuba).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I oppose most of America's wars, though not the war in Afganistan. In fact, I am conflicted about Iraq, because despite the fact that we shouldn't have gone in there, it is now in our vital interests to see that Iraq doesn't became what Afganistan was or what Somolia is, a haven for those who would murder us.

well said

[St Leo]

Originally posted by PLATO


Okay. Glad you asked.

The war in Iraq was about two things:

1.) Political power (on a nation-state level), and
2.) Reshaping the face of the Middle East ( in the end analysis, #2 is the same as #1)

So, you butchered tens of thousands of your fellow human beings for the sake of abstract political power?

Joy. Oh, the morality of it all.

May I call Bush a war crimininal?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by PLATO
Yes the war was justified. The left's thesis is irrelvant to the issue. In the end analysis, if we are successful in Iraq, their argument will be a footnote in history.

So... what are your objectives in Iraq?

[Agathon]

A couple of things. It's really funny to see someone with the moniker "Plato" justifying a might is right doctrine.

Secondly:

I think that this is the fundamental difference between the left and the right. In order to assure our continued place in the world, and therefore our ultimate security, I believe we should become involved where these particular interests are.

It is. The left believe in some form of morality and human decency, the right believe in greed, power and dominance by whatever means they can get away with. If your case is "we can do what we want, so we will", then you are no better than OBL (but we all knew that).

There's no moral defence for your position, but I guess you don't care anyway.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

I'll stop you right here. Since you admit the administration was, at best, disingenuous with the justification for the war, how can you so blithely seperate that out like this?

In a democratically-elected government, how can you say the administration misleading people into war isn't a relevant issue? Perhaps I'm not so much a cynic, but you're argument boils down to "The ends justifies the means." I find it hollow and amoral.

Britain, 1914. 'We go to war because Belgium's neutrality is violated'. Real reason: we want the German Navy at the bottom of the sea.

Britain, 1939. 'We go to war because we guaranteed Poland we would.' Real reason: we got owned at Munich and repeated our assurances to the Poles so that we could be sure the country and the Empire would be behind us if Hitler tried again.

US, 1941. 'We do not want war.' Meanwhile: we do everything in our power to antagonise the Japanese and Germans. We embargo the Japanese on oil knowing full well what position that puts them in. We authorise the USN to begin sinking UBoats in international waters. We make speeches that assure Hitler and Tojo that the the United states is neutral in word only.

etc., etc., etc...

What Plato is arguing is nothing new. More like par for the course.

[St Leo]

Of course, none of your examples cited wars of aggression. Iraq wasn't at war with anyone in 2003.

Germany, 1938: "The Germans in Sudetenland are being oppressed. Only we can guarantee peace and security in Czechoslovakia."

USA, 2003: "The Kurds in Kurdistan are being oppressed. Only we can guarantee peace and security in Iraq."