 |
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
A generic statemtent that is fair. It would be unfair to say, however, that people who oppose democracy are freedom fighters, or that people who rule by terror are mere rebels, a term that can apply to good guys and bad guys equally.
We made a mistake in Vietnam? What was that mistake? |
Being there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by problem_child
People who oppose what some guy calls 'democracy' aren't necessarily terrorists. Just because someone says they intend to bring 'democracy', don't mean they want people to elect the government the majority of said people want.
"You can have any car you want as long as it's black"
-Henry Ford
If someone says you can have any democracy you want as long as it's controlled by those guys over the sea, then 'democracy' in that sense is just a slogan. Besides, there's evidence to argue that USUK are specifically trying to prevent certain politically representative groups in Iraq from partaking in any election or democratic prosses by making them 'Outlaws', fit only for extermination, and thuroughly out of the political process. Rinsing the deck so to speak. It's easy, back em into a corner, call em fanatics, terrorists, insurgents, Saddamists whatever. Say they're controlled by Iran, or Al Qaeda. Then you don't have to oppose em in an election. |
I didn't say that people who oppose democracy are terrorists. I say they are not freedom fighters. If they fight fairly and do not commit terrorists acts, but are fighting for some sort of right wing totalitarian rule (as the Islamo-fascists are) then I would call them fascists.
I think what Hitchens is trying to say is that just because these fascists are fighting Bush does not excuse the left for idolizing them. They after all, are fascists, some of who seek to impose radical Islam as a form of government.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Care to set the terms? |
Sure, the relevent time from is November 1st to the end of hostilities in Falluja--this is when the Bush-team declares major/significant hostilities are over in Falluja (e.g. they declare victory or Bush makes an "aircraft-carrier"-like statement)--, or 2 months time, whichever you prefer.
If during that period, the number of civilian deaths is not at least twice the number of insurgent deaths (both estimated, of course), then I will equip an avatar of your choice. If I am right in the number of civilian deaths is twice the insurgent deaths or more, then you will have the avatar of my choice.
Deal?
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
I can't seem to access that site.
How about CNN or the BBC, Dino?
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
problem_child
|
 |
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
I didn't say that people who oppose democracy are terrorists. I say they are not freedom fighters. If they fight fairly and do not commit terrorists acts, but are fighting for some sort of right wing totalitarian rule (as the Islamo-fascists are) then I would call them fascists.
I think what Hitchens is trying to say is that just because these fascists are fighting Bush does not excuse the left for idolizing them. They after all, are fascists, some of who seek to impose radical Islam as a form of government. |
Extremely disingenuous. First rule of war, always paint the enemy as a homogenous beast, edit the truth to assist in this.
Considering what happened in Falluja to set things off the first time around, saying that anyone who resists your army is a fascist is just deeply wrong. Your army let loose the dogs of war, it's turned the nation into an anarchic warzone. Now every Islam-nut, suicide-bombadier and execution-hobbyist is off to Iraq to make the place their own, anyone can holler about establishing a Global Sharia or banning bent-bananas, it all plays into US hands because they obscure the fact that the Iraqis themselves have a right to resist the illegal occupation of their country.
The US has already proved that the welfare of Iraqis, the establishment of law and order, the value of Iraqi lives and elections open to all significant Iraqi political leanings, is way down the list of Important Things For USG after puppet governments and Iraqi oil-revenues paying US corporations to fix the damage caused by US bombs, and the buy-up of Iraqi oil-refining infrastructure at bargain-basement prices to yet more US corporations.
And I'm pretty sick of hearing anybody who considers your war on Iraq to be illegal, or points out the hypocracy of your willingness to cause civilian deaths next to the claims of your good-intentions described as a 'leftist', it's nice bipolar world view you have other there in the States, nice an simple red or blue world view  .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
problem-child, your point of view, then, is pure al Jazeera, which is, of course, known for its "reliable" reporting.
While some of what you say about first causes may be true to some who joined the fight, it is also true that the leader of the Falluja resistance has been Zarqawi, and that Falluja was a major center of the Baathist Party support. Much of the former regime, including the Republican Guard, came from Falluja. These people are not fighting the central government for the reasons you state. Not at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
CNN is good enough. Now all we have to do is define how long the avatars would be in effect and it will be a deal. |
Two months, deal?
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chemical Ollie
|
 |
Bored of this board
Jan 2002
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
So again, how did we lose the Vietnam War? |
You packed and left, before the mission was accomplished.
EDIT: Oh, sorry LC, reminds me that I should read the whole thread before replying...
Last edited by Chemical Ollie on 13-11-2004 at 04:44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Last Conformist
I was refering to the Fall of Hanoi in '75. Kinda redundant together with the commie take-over, I'll admit.
Anyway. The usual definition of losing a war is failing to achieve one's war aims while the enemy achieves his. The Indochinese commies certainly achieved theirs - control over the whole of the former French Indochina. (And then it took a whopping several years before they started tearing one another apart - dontcha love commies?) The American war aim is usually said to be stopping a commie take-over of Indochina, which was not achieved. Instead, you lost enormous amounts of money, quite few lives, lost alot of int'l goodwill, and internal polarization. How did you not lose? |
Last Conformist: I think you are confusing Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam with Hanoi, the capital of North Vietnam.
We achieved Nixon's war aims -- a cease fire in place and a withdrawal of the final 25,000 US troops.
Tell me then, again, how we lost Vietnam?
What is clear is that the Democrat Party betrayed our ally Vietnam by not supplying it with spare parts and ammo as we said we would. I also give a fair share of the blame of betrayal to the moron president Ford, who could have given the SV the ammo it needed and the air support it needed regardless of Congress because we had committed such to the SV in 1972-3. Ford in his craven, immoral stupidity must have thought that throwing SV to the wolves would make him enormously popular with the American people for the 1976 election and cement his reputation in history as a valiant leader. It did the opposite.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
problem_child
|
|
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
problem-child, your point of view, then, is pure al Jazeera, which is, of course, known for its "reliable" reporting.
While some of what you say about first causes may be true to some who joined the fight, it is also true that the leader of the Falluja resistance has been Zarqawi, and that Falluja was a major center of the Baathist Party support. Much of the former regime, including the Republican Guard, came from Falluja. These people are not fighting the central government for the reasons you state. Not at all. |
There is some reasonable doubt as to whether this 'Zakalwi' you speak of actually exists, or if indeed he does exist (this Zakalwi whose face we are all by now so familiar with, like some kind of poster-boy for Mad-Eyed-Evil) whether perhaps rumours of his exploits have been a tad exaggerated.
So many reports of what Zakalwi did, what Zakalwi is doing and what Zakalwi plans to do next, seem to place the man at several different locations at once. Anyone would think this Zakalwi guy taught Blofeld everything he knows about super-villainy.
Interesting that this poor kid from Jordan should find it so easy to establish himself in war-torn Iraq (I suppose all these sand-dwellers are at home with eachover automaticaly, right?) and make himself the leader of All Who Take Up Arms against the ForcesofFreedom&Democracy.
Could the fact that Zakalwi doesn't have lots of embarresing family-business connections to the Bush dynasty, have anything to do with him having such great credit amongst the Iraqi Insurgency? (not like that OBL guy... let's move on).
Quite useful also, that all the ForcesofFreedom&Democracy have to do is claim that Zakalwi is Someplace, and when the inevitable denials come from the inhabitants of Someplace that no, he is not here, the ForcesofFreedom&Democracy can say "Right! That's It! We gave you a chance to surrender Zakalwi peacefully but you refused, prepare for your rightious bombardment by our howitzers!" and attack.
Then, when there is no sign of Zakalwi in the ruins, the ForcesofFreedom&Democracy can claim "oh, he probably slipped away in the confusion, that darstadly fiend, got past our tight cordons and everything" and then move on to the next bastion of stubborn resistance Someplace.
When you think about it, this 'Zakalwi' is alot like WMD eh?
But you're quite right, Iraq is where all Saddam's Ba'athist regime came from, so naturally it must be stomped and stomped again because it's lousy with Evildoers.
Last edited by problem_child on 13-11-2004 at 04:51
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-11-2004 03:03
I've obviously not slept enough lately.
|