DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Stray Pooch on July 26, 2008, 10:06:34 PM

Title: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Stray Pooch on July 26, 2008, 10:06:34 PM
Can't be.  That war can't be won.  WAIT A MINUTE!  It says here that terror bombings will GO ON FOR SOME TIME, but that the major combat is over.  CRAP.  So THAT's what winning means.  I wish the heck our side woulda come up with a definition like that YEARS ago.

Oh wait . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080726/ap_on_an/iraq_winning_the_war (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080726/ap_on_an/iraq_winning_the_war)

Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost By ROBERT BURNS and ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writers

BAGHDAD - The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost. Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace — a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.

Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.

That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.

Scattered battles go on, especially against al-Qaida holdouts north of Baghdad. But organized resistance, with the steady drumbeat of bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and ambushes that once rocked the capital daily, has all but ceased.

This amounts to more than a lull in the violence. It reflects a fundamental shift in the outlook for the Sunni minority, which held power under Saddam Hussein. They launched the insurgency five years ago. They now are either sidelined or have switched sides to cooperate with the Americans in return for money and political support.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told The Associated Press this past week there are early indications that senior leaders of al-Qaida may be considering shifting their main focus from Iraq to the war in Afghanistan.

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told the AP on Thursday that the insurgency as a whole has withered to the point where it is no longer a threat to Iraq's future.

"Very clearly, the insurgency is in no position to overthrow the government or, really, even to challenge it," Crocker said. "It's actually almost in no position to try to confront it. By and large, what's left of the insurgency is just trying to hang on."

Shiite militias, notably the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, have lost their power bases in Baghdad, Basra and other major cities. An important step was the routing of Shiite extremists in the Sadr City slums of eastern Baghdad this spring — now a quiet though not fully secure district.

Al-Sadr and top lieutenants are now in Iran. Still talking of a comeback, they are facing major obstacles, including a loss of support among a Shiite population weary of war and no longer as terrified of Sunni extremists as they were two years ago.

Despite the favorable signs, U.S. commanders are leery of proclaiming victory or promising that the calm will last.

The premature declaration by the Bush administration of "Mission Accomplished" in May 2003 convinced commanders that the best public relations strategy is to promise little, and couple all good news with the warning that "security is fragile" and that the improvements, while encouraging, are "not irreversible."

Iraq still faces a mountain of problems: sectarian rivalries, power struggles within the Sunni and Shiite communities, Kurdish-Arab tensions, corruption. Any one of those could rekindle widespread fighting.

But the underlying dynamics in Iraqi society that blew up the U.S. military's hopes for an early exit, shortly after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, have changed in important ways in recent months.

Systematic sectarian killings have all but ended in the capital, in large part because of tight security and a strategy of walling off neighborhoods purged of minorities in 2006.

That has helped establish a sense of normalcy in the streets of the capital. People are expressing a new confidence in their own security forces, which in turn are exhibiting a newfound assertiveness with the insurgency largely in retreat.

Statistics show violence at a four-year low. The monthly American death toll appears to be at its lowest of the war — four killed in action so far this month as of Friday, compared with 66 in July a year ago. From a daily average of 160 insurgent attacks in July 2007, the average has plummeted to about two dozen a day this month. On Wednesday the nationwide total was 13.

Beyond that, there is something in the air in Iraq this summer.

In Baghdad, parks are filled every weekend with families playing and picnicking with their children. That was unthinkable only a year ago, when the first, barely visible signs of a turnaround emerged.

Now a moment has arrived for the Iraqis to try to take those positive threads and weave them into a lasting stability.

The questions facing both Americans and Iraqis are: What kinds of help will the country need from the U.S. military, and for how long? The questions will take on greater importance as the U.S. presidential election nears, with one candidate pledging a troop withdrawal and the other insisting on staying.

Iraqi authorities have grown dependent on the U.S. military after more than five years of war. While they are aiming for full sovereignty with no foreign troops on their soil, they do not want to rush. In a similar sense, the Americans fear that after losing more than 4,100 troops, the sacrifice could be squandered.

U.S. commanders say a substantial American military presence will be needed beyond 2009. But judging from the security gains that have been sustained over the first half of this year — as the Pentagon withdrew five Army brigades sent as reinforcements in 2007 — the remaining troops could be used as peacekeepers more than combatants.

As a measure of the transitioning U.S. role, Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond says that when he took command of American forces in the Baghdad area about seven months ago he was spending 80 percent of his time working on combat-related matters and about 20 percent on what the military calls "nonkinetic" issues, such as supporting the development of Iraqi government institutions and humanitarian aid.

Now Hammond estimates those percentage have been almost reversed. For several hours one recent day, for example, Hammond consulted on water projects with a Sunni sheik in the Radwaniyah area of southwest Baghdad, then spent time with an Iraqi physician/entrepreneur in the Dora district of southern Baghdad — an area, now calm, that in early 2007 was one of the capital's most violent zones.

"We're getting close to something that looks like an end to mass violence in Iraq," says Stephen Biddle, an analyst at the Council of Foreign Relations who has advised Petraeus on war strategy. Biddle is not ready to say it's over, but he sees the U.S. mission shifting from fighting the insurgents to keeping the peace.

Although Sunni and Shiite extremists are still around, they have surrendered the initiative and have lost the support of many ordinary Iraqis. That can be traced to an altered U.S. approach to countering the insurgency — a Petraeus-driven move to take more U.S. troops off their big bases and put them in Baghdad neighborhoods where they mixed with ordinary Iraqis and built a new level of trust.

Army Col. Tom James, a brigade commander who is on his third combat tour in Iraq, explains the new calm this way:

"We've put out the forest fire. Now we're dealing with pop-up fires."

It's not the end of fighting. It looks like the beginning of a perilous peace.

Maj. Gen. Ali Hadi Hussein al-Yaseri, the chief of patrol police in the capital, sees the changes.

"Even eight months ago, Baghdad was not today's Baghdad," he says.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Robert Burns is AP's chief military reporter, and Robert Reid is AP's chief of bureau in Baghdad. Reid has covered the war from his post in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. Burns, based in Washington, has made 21 reporting trips to Iraq; on his latest during July, Burns spent nearly three weeks in central and northern Iraq, observing military operations and interviewing both U.S. and Iraqi officers.


Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 26, 2008, 10:58:40 PM
Well, I certainly hope they're wrong, but I'm getting a very depressing feeling that they might be right. 

I would have to blame al Qaeda for the loss, because in pissing off the local sheikhs, they naturally drove them into an alliance of sorts with the invaders.  A lesson of hindsight - - when you come into another man's turf to help him out in a battle with his neighbours, you have to remember that you are still his guest, and you have to act as becomes a guest.  Particularly when the invaders' power is so much greater than your own and your host's power.  Beyond that, you have the doubly unfortunate schism that separates Shi'a from Sunni.   The imperialist powers have always been able to exploit these divisions, Sunni vs Shi'ite and even in the case of al Qaeda in Iraq, secular from religious Sunni.  The Muslims appear to remain incapable of bridging these gaps, no matter how obvious it is that they open the region to divide-and-conquer tactics and give the "multinationals" a free hand in disposing of the natural resources of the nation.

It's moderately interesting to observe, in all these detailed expositions of the local power struggles, how little (if any) coverage goes to the fate of the nation's oil wells.  The latest we have heard is that the draft legislation now almost certain to be passed, gives foreign (i.e., U.S. and British) oil producers up to 75% of the profits on oil pumped from fields already in production and even bigger rights in new oil fields, if any, brought into production in the future.  These numbers are unprecedented in the modern Middle East and should be compared with the Saddam-era laws, which barred foreigners from participating in the exploitation of either producing or future producing wells.  The Iraqi Oil Ministry had for years been equal to the task of developing new resources and operating the existing resources.  This is shaping up to be by far the biggest rip-off of a country's natural resources since the end ot WWII.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Stray Pooch on July 27, 2008, 11:00:46 PM
Well, I certainly hope they're wrong, but I'm getting a very depressing feeling that they might be right. 


I get that you are not American.  I get that you are anti-American.  But under what flaming insanity would you be rooting for Al Quaeda?   A US victory in this war is nothing more than the destruction of the Ba'athist regime which killed its own people and the beginnings (it is hoped) of representative democracy in Iraq.  What the hell is wrong with that?  Rubbing a little crap in the nose of terrorists doesn't hurt either.   If the Iraqis are able to toss out the extremists and get a stable, democratic government in place, wh is that a loss?   Because America ends up looking good?  Because the Bush strategy inally paid off?  Hell if Barack Obama takes Hillary for a running mate and they manage to stablize the middle east with diplomatic measures and flowers in guns I'll kiss both of their asses on Capital Hill and dance with Nancy Pelosi while singing "Oh Canada" and eating a Vegan meal.   I could care less which side gets the credit as long as the end result is good.

I know.  You're a Communist who hasn't gotten over the failure of Communism in the USSR by death and China by rampant capitalism.  But are you so wedded to the dinosaur of Marxism that you can't see reason?

It's good that the people of the USSR rejected Communism.  It would have been a shame, and a necessity, to nuke the bastards had they not. 
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: fatman on July 27, 2008, 11:21:27 PM
I could care less which side gets the credit as long as the end result is good.

It's too bad that sensibilities like this one don't exist in politics anymore, or seemingly within the people either.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 28, 2008, 01:34:45 AM
<<I get that you are not American.  I get that you are anti-American. >>

You can stop right there, because that's just more right-wing bullshit.  Anyone who is opposed to American militarism and aggression is "anti-American."   How you guys manage to conflate "Americanism" with American aggression and militarism is one of the more interesting facets of the culture wars.  But I don't buy it and I hope nobody else except right-wing extremist nuts like you buy into it.  I'm not anti-American by any stretch of the imagination.

<<But under what flaming insanity would you be rooting for Al Quaeda?  >>

The U.S.A. today is under the control of the same type of fascists and militarists as Imperial Japan was in the 1930s and 1940s, even right down to the approval of torture as a legitimate means of waging war.  As such, it's the greatest threat to world peace, the puffed-up "menace" of so-called "Islamofascism" notwithstanding.  To anyone who doubts this, I ask you to compare the civilian death counts in Vietnam, Panama City, Iraq and Afghanistan with the total civilian death count of all "Islamofascist" attacks to date.  It's much more important that the U.S. suffer another humiliating defeat as in Viet Nam in order to discredit and disempower the fascists and militarists who have seized power than it is that al Qaeda be defeated.  In a nutshell, the U.S. under its present crypto-fascist leadership is by far the greater threat to peace and the greater killer of innocent civilians than al Qaeda could ever hope to be.

<<A US victory in this war is nothing more than the destruction of the Ba'athist regime which killed its own people . . . >>

What a load of utter crap.  Please show a little more respect for the intelligence of the people you are corresponding with.  When in recorded history did the U.S.A. ever give a shit about any regime which "killed its own people?"  It has consistently SUPPORTED regimes and assisted them in killing their own people, whether that regime was Nationalist China, Indonesia, Guatemala, Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Argentina . . . well it's just too bad I don't have all night.  But PLEEEEZE . . . spare me this "they killed their own people" bullshit.  Honestly, Pooch, who do you really think you are fooling?

<< . . . and the beginnings (it is hoped) of representative democracy in Iraq.  >>

Right.  Like they really give a shit about "representative democracy."  They don't even have it in the U.S. of fucking A., where Albert GORE got more votes than Bush, who "won" the "election."  If they really cared about "representative democracy" in Iraq, why the hell did they do everything they could to suppress the democratically elected government of the Palestinians?  Why did they support the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran?  Why do they support the dictatorships of Egypt and Jordan?

<<What the hell is wrong with that? >>

Get serious.  The U.S. is as interested in representative democracy in Iraq as the Colombian drug cartel is in mental health in America.  I wonder if there is one person in a hundred outside the U.S.A. who really believes this is all about "representative democracy" in Iraq.  For the 999th time, this is about oil and nothing but oil. 

<< Rubbing a little crap in the nose of terrorists doesn't hurt either. >>

The "terrorists" whose noses you want to rub crap on are Arabs who don't want Americans in their region subverting their governments and occupying their lands any more than you want Arabs in America subverting your government and occupying your land.

<<If the Iraqis are able to toss out the extremists and get a stable, democratic government in place, wh is that a loss?  >>

How is that any of your business?  And who the hell are you to invade this complex and divided society, kill hundreds of thousands of its citizens in the hopes of ultimately imposing YOUR system on it?  More to the point, what are the odds they will get a "stable democratic government in place" and what are the odds they will get a corrupted non-democratic puppet government in place that will sell out the national patrimony to American and British oil majors? 

You are living in a world of pure fantasy.  There is no intention whatsoever on the part of any American policy maker to create a "stable democratic government" in Iraq.  America has never started a war against any country out of a desire to impose stable democratic government on it.  The absurdity of the idea is easily seen by counting how many other countries in the world "needed" democracy at the same time that Iraq did, and yet were never attacked, invaded and occupied by the U.S.A. so that they could enjoy the blessings of democracy.  The very concept is idiotic, apart from being a blatant violation of the Charter of the United Nations.

<< Because America ends up looking good?  >>

Oh, yeah.  Just how "good" do you think America has ended up looking so far?  And how close do you think you are to a "stable democratic" government in Iraq?  If you want a clue as to what kind of government Iraq is really going to get, just take a look at some of the oil deals that have already been inked with the Kurds and what's already in the pipeline with the "stable democratic" government to come.
http://www.iraqoilreport.com/ (http://www.iraqoilreport.com/)

<<Because the Bush strategy finally paid off? >>

Obviously, it hasn't "finally paid off."  If it had, what are all those troops still doing there?  Don't you have ANY common sense?  What does the continued presence of the U.S. army tell you about the great "success" of the surge?

<< Hell if Barack Obama takes Hillary for a running mate and they manage to stablize the middle east with diplomatic measures and flowers in guns I'll kiss both of their asses on Capital Hill and dance with Nancy Pelosi while singing "Oh Canada" and eating a Vegan meal.   I could care less which side gets the credit as long as the end result is good.>>

Yeah, well what if the end result is BAD?  THAT'S where you better direct your attention and figure out whose asses to kiss and who to dance with while singing "O Canada."

<<I know.  You're a Communist who hasn't gotten over the failure of Communism in the USSR by death and China by rampant capitalism.  But are you so wedded to the dinosaur of Marxism that you can't see reason?>>

My communism has about as much to do with this issue as your Mormonism.  I'm not even going to go there.

<<It's good that the people of the USSR rejected Communism.  It would have been a shame, and a necessity, to nuke the bastards had they not.>>

Jeeeziz.  Another big-talking American.  You had about 50 years to nuke "the bastards," but never managed to get around to it in all that time.  Were you maybe a little scared?  That they could absorb the casualties of a nuclear exchange, but that you Americans, who punked out during the Hungarian Revolt, who punked out at the Bay of Pigs, who punked out of Viet Nam, couldn't?  Yeah, tell me, Big Shot, how you coulda, woulda, shoulda nuked the U.S.S.R.  I'd really like to hear this.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Stray Pooch on July 28, 2008, 03:06:45 AM
You can stop right there, because that's just more right-wing bullshit.  Anyone who is opposed to American militarism and aggression is "anti-American."   How you guys manage to conflate "Americanism" with American aggression and militarism is one of the more interesting facets of the culture wars.  But I don't buy it and I hope nobody else except right-wing extremist nuts like you buy into it.  I'm not anti-American by any stretch of the imagination.

No I'm not gonna stop right there because you are both NOT American (which is neither right-wing bullshit nor incorrect - it's just a fact.  I'm not Canadian, either.)  and you ARE anti-American.  As for extremist nuts, you are the only one of the two of us who fits that description - and you fit it well. 

The U.S.A. today is under the control of the same type of fascists and militarists as yada yada yada

Extremist crap.  Why even bother to post it.


What a load of utter crap.  Please show a little more respect for the intelligence of the people you are corresponding with. 

I'm showing you exactly the respect you are due.


They don't even have it in the U.S. of fucking A., where Albert GORE got more votes than Bush, who "won" the "election." 

Which is exactly my point.  George Bush won the election because we are NOT in a DEMOCRACY.  We are in a Republic that is governed by a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.  If you don't understand our constitution, try to get a halfway decent understanding of our election process before you use it to refute what it proves.  The majority of states in this country elected Bush president.  He won legally, he won constitutionally, he won like every other President since Washington did.  (Yes, the methodology has changed over the years, but all within the scope of the constitution under rights reserved to the individual states.)   Representative Democracy as we know it in this country will not survive much longer, more's the pity.  But it does exist now.  That tired old argument that Bush lost in 2001 is no more true or relevant now than it was then.

For the 999th time, this is about oil and nothing but oil. 

Baloney.


The "terrorists" whose noses you want to rub crap on are Arabs who don't want Americans in their region subverting their governments and occupying their lands any more than you want Arabs in America subverting your government and occupying your land.

Tough beans.  They are still terrorists.  I really don't care what their objections are.  I just want them all dead, preferrably in a very ugly way. 

How is that any of your business?  And who the hell are you to invade this complex and divided society, kill hundreds of thousands of its citizens in the hopes of ultimately imposing YOUR system on it?  More to the point, what are the odds they will get a "stable democratic government in place" and what are the odds they will get a corrupted non-democratic puppet government in place that will sell out the national patrimony to American and British oil majors? 

We're the guys who got the planes in our towers.  We don't buy off on the idea that only 19 men planned this without support from others.  We reserve the right to defend our land, in the way that WE see fit, from attacks like that and from any potential FUTURE threat.  THAT is why it's our business.  It is, of course, none of YOUR business until and unless we invade Canada. 

Obviously, it hasn't "finally paid off."  If it had, what are all those troops still doing there?  Don't you have ANY common sense?  What does the continued presence of the U.S. army tell you about the great "success" of the surge?

You're the idiot who said you have the depressing feeling that we are, in fact, winning.  Don't you have any common sense? 

Yeah, well what if the end result is BAD?  THAT'S where you better direct your attention and figure out whose asses to kiss and who to dance with while singing "O Canada."

An American victory, which is the topic we are discussing, is not bad.  A stable middle east, which is the specific result of such a victory I referred to in the point to which you responded with this point, is not bad.  Both are very good.  If those achievements occur, I will not care who caused them, what policies brought them about, or how good or bad it makes my party, the Dems or the Crazy Canadian on this site look.  If these things do not come about, I will blame the Dems, sing all four verses of "The Star-Spangled Banner" with emphasis on the third verse that drives libs most crazy, kick Obama's and Hillary's asses OFF capital hill, body-slam Nancy Pelosi and eat steak and potatoes and hold the damn vegetables!

My communism has about as much to do with this issue as your Mormonism.  I'm not even going to go there.

No.  The Mormons were not in control of Iraq.  The Ba'athists - supported by the Soviets - were.  Your communism does, in fact, relate to the topic.  You may feel free to refuse to discuss it.  But keep a good supply on bananas on hand.  I understand 800 lb gorillas in the room like those things.

Jeeeziz.  Another big-talking American.  You had about 50 years to nuke "the bastards," but never managed to get around to it in all that time.  Were you maybe a little scared?  That they could absorb the casualties of a nuclear exchange, but that you Americans, who punked out during the Hungarian Revolt, who punked out at the Bay of Pigs, who punked out of Viet Nam, couldn't?  Yeah, tell me, Big Shot, how you coulda, woulda, shoulda nuked the U.S.S.R.  I'd really like to hear this.

We were, of course, aware of (though we obviously overestimated) the nuclear and military capabilities of the USSR.  We didn't nuke them because it never became necessary.  The only time they ever really gave us a possible reason to engage in a nuclear conflict they got scared away by JFK and that was that.  Of course, that's really a moot point, isn't it?  After all, the USSR no longer exists after a scant 70 years and the US still does after over three times as long.  So tell me, Big Shot, how does your Communist Utopia stand up to our Capitalist wasteland, huh?  Where is the achievement that Communism promised?  Where is the "power of the workers" that Marx promised?  It was, in fact, a worker's revolt in Poland that started the downfall of the "worker's paradise" that was the myth of Communism.  Cuba is a joke and China is now Communist in name only, and they have to kill their own students and other people to hold down revolution. 

Where is an actual, successful Communist "worker's paradise," huh?  China governs the largest population in the world (except maybe India) and the USSR had another huge chunk of folks.  So billions have lived under Communism, yet it has NEVER worked.  Communism has proven incapable of governing a people, or of providing equality for workers.  Communism has proven unable to produce quality goods, decent living standards or any kind of personal freedom.  Communism has failed over and over while Capitalism has provided wealth, security, stability and technical innovation for centuries.  Even the rise of Chinese power in the 21st century has come about because they are embracing Capitalism. 

Face it, your pet philosophy is an abject failure IN PRACTICE - not in theory.  Capitalism works IN PRACTICE - not in theory.  You'll whine about how capitalism and so-called "American Imperialism" exploits the masses.  Yet the masses are begging to get into America - legally or otherwise - as loudly as the masses begged to get OUT of the USSR, the PRC and Cuba.  Because Capitalism is HOPE.  Communism is resignation.  People would rather be poor in America than be under any Communist regime, where they will be much poorer.  They know in America they have the opportunity to move up.  Capitalism teaches that effort, responsibility and risk bring great rewards.  Communism teaches that everyone should think, act, and work the same, and nobody should want more, because everyone is equal.  And it fails, again and again, it fails.  It doesn't work, and it never will.

You keep talking about the US being "afraid."  Just keep talking.  The US is still here.  Communism isn't.

Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 28, 2008, 03:53:15 AM
Communism in the form of the Communist Party of China is alive and well.  It has brought the Chinese people out of the depths of foreign domination to the world's foremost economic engine in just sixty years since 1948. 

Russian communism had its faults, sure, but in the 1930s it was the world's fastest-growing economy.  WWII took a big toll on Russia as on Britain, and I don't think the subsequent collapse of Russia as an empire is any more indicative of the "failure" of communism than the collapse of the British Empire indicates the "failure" of capitalism.  You read what you want to read into those events.  Russia is rebuilding a powerful state-owned energy corporation, which does not indicate to me that communism was all that big a failure.  It is going to sell $5 billion worth of man-portable anti-aircraft systems, T-90 battle tanks and other armaments to Venezuela to help protect it from the U.S.A. and its Colombian proxies.  Venezuela, Cuba and other Latin American countries are still working on the communist model and so far proving that it, more than any other, is capable of delivering real, tangible benefits to the people in real time.  It is YOUR system, particularly in the U.S.A. that is teetering on the brink of total economic collapse, not the Russians, not the Chinese, not the Venezuelans and not the Cubans.

However, since the U.S.A.'s aggression against Iraq was not in any way connected to the particular form of socialism that was then in force, my objections to the aggression were based on general principles of non-aggression and international law, such as the observance of treaties like the UN Charter.  So my Communism actually had nothing to do with the issues in this case.  I'm not shy about letting you know when I DO argue from Communist priniciples, but in this case I did not.  But thanks for bringing it up anyway.

"Baloney" is not usually accepted in and of itself as a valid rebuttal of anything, even less of the painfully obvious fact (obvious to anyone not committed to the crypto-fascist policies of aggression, robbery and rape that are now the U.S. standard) that the ONLY possible motive for the invasion of Iraq was the foolish hope of being able to control the second or third biggest proven oil reserves in the world.  I hope and pray that the murdering bastards who now control your country will never succeed in that objective.

It was kind of funny to watch you try to pass off the U.S. aggression as an attempt to bring "representative democracy" to Iraq and then have to admit that the U.S. itself was not actually a democracy but a "republic" governed by a representative democracy.  So a real democracy is something that is too much for you Americans to handle but you think it's alright to kill a few hundred thousand Iraqis so you can bring them its "benefits?"  That's brilliant.

<<Tough beans.  They are still terrorists.  I really don't care what their objections are.  I just want them all dead, preferrably in a very ugly way.>>

Well, THAT'S refreshing - - a little bit of honesty here.  I guess then you will understand exactly why they want to see YOU all dead, preferably in a very ugly way.   It is really interesting how Americans who pretend they can't understand "why they hate us so" harbour such violent  and callous feelings towards "them."  Did you ever think there might be some kind of connection between your ugly hateful feelings toward the Arabs and the resentment that some of them might feel in return?

<<We're the guys who got the planes in our towers.  We don't buy off on the idea that only 19 men planned this without support from others.  >>

From the IRAQIS?  You've NEVER been able to prove that and in fact to anyone who knows anything about the Middle East, it's absurd.  The al Qaeda faction are religious fanatics and the Saddam Hussein regime was strictly secular.  The two factions hated each other.

<<We reserve the right to defend our land, in the way that WE see fit, from attacks like that and from any potential FUTURE threat. >>

Try to keep it rational at least.  The Iraqis had nothing to do with "attacks like that" and nothing to do with any future attacks.  That a nation of 23 million people thousands of miles away was any kind of threat to the U.S.A. is ludicrous.  It's such a bunch of obvious bullshit that nobody believes it even in America. 

<< THAT is why it's our business.  It is, of course, none of YOUR business until and unless we invade Canada. >>

I see you are a great believer in the indifferent bystander theory, as were the neighbours of Kitty Genovese.  When you see a murder, look the other way.  Don't get involved.  It's not YOUR business until the murderer turns his attentions on you.  Figures.  Your standard of morality is just as abysmal on every other issue, why should it be any higher on this one?

<<An American victory [in a war of unprovoked aggression] which is the topic we are discussing, is not bad [even if hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had to die for it.]>>

Thank you.  You stated your philosophy well.  A more graphic example of moral rot would be almost impossible to find.

<<  A stable middle east, which is the specific result of such a victory I referred to in the point to which you responded with this point, is not bad. >>

A stable Middle East huh?  Who are you fooling with this bullshit?  The only kind of "stable Middle East" the U.S. is looking for is a totally submissive land of beaten-down natives who bend over so Uncle Sam can fuck them right up the ass for every last drop of oil they've got.  Pretend all you like that you invaded Iraq for a stable Middle East, that you killed hundreds of thousands of them for a "stable Middle East" and that your oil giants are lining up for a crack at what used to be the exclusive property of the Iraqi people for "a stable Middle East" but PLEEEEZE do not expect anyone with an ounce of intelligence to believe that crap.

<<The only time they ever really gave us a possible reason to engage in a nuclear conflict they got scared away by JFK and that was that. >>

You really DON'T know anything, do you?  Do you think it was just some kind of happy coincidence that within a year of the Soviet missiles coming out of Cuba that the American missiles were removed from Turkey?  "Scared away" my ass.  It was JFK who was scared - - scared to even tell the press that the deal was for BOTH sets of missiles to be removed.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 28, 2008, 09:41:08 AM
I imagine that right now, at this very moment, Pooch is typing on a Chinese keyboard and wearing Chinese-made clothes as he claims that the Communists can't make or do anything right.

The Cuban missile crisis ended when JFK secretly agreed to remove bases from Turkey. It was a mutual agreement, and both sides benefited, because it made war more unlikely.

The US is hardly a capitalist state, it has many aspects of socialism, as well as a lot of monopolistic tendencies: in a truly capitalist state, you could order a Coke AND a Pepsi at the same restaurant, and it would be ILLEGAL for either Coke or Pepsi to make a deal with the owner to restrict your right of choice (as is the case in every restaurant I know of).

Iraq was obviously about oil. There was an added bonus of the possibility of forcing Iraq not to hate Israel. It was NOT about freedom and democracy. Saddam posed no threat to no one in the US.

And no, WE aren't winning in Iraq. WE are not oil companies. WE will see none of the profits. WE will, however, have to pay for the war through the nose for the cost of the war.

WE means WE the people.



McCain wants to lower corporate taxes, so WE can pay an even greater share of all WE have done for the oil companies.

Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: hnumpah on July 28, 2008, 10:11:15 AM
Quote
...JFK secretly agreed to remove bases from Turkey.

He did? Well, damn, where did I spend that 13-month tour in '75-'76?
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 28, 2008, 10:23:15 AM
He did? Well, damn, where did I spend that 13-month tour in '75-'76?

He agreed to remove some bases, and to remove all the missiles pointed at the USSR.

Apparently the Soviets were happy with the arrangement.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: hnumpah on July 28, 2008, 11:01:32 AM
JFK agreed to remove the missiles. The bases stayed. Several of them, like ours, monitored Soviet missile tests and intercepted the telemetry the missiles sent back to evaluate them and their capabilities. We also had American fighters and fighter bombers at various bases there. When the Greeks and Turks got into it over Cyprus, our monitoring activity was shut down, but we still had personnel there to maintain the equipment and keep it on ready standby in case our conflict with the Turks was ever resolved (it eventually was, after I left). There was no rush by Congress or the President to resolve the issue, because we had facilities in Iran that were used as backups. By the time Iran flared up, we were back in operations in Turkey.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 28, 2008, 11:20:55 AM
I think the point I was making was the pathetically inaccurate misunderstanding that Pooch has of how the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved.  How JFK "scared off" the Russians, who simply removed their missiles from Cuba.  What he missed was (a) the U.S. had to remove their missiles (Jupiters, IIRC) from Turkey and (b) JFK never informed the American people of the whole deal, presumably so the idiots could go on believing in the myth of the all-powerful U.S.A., and a President who "faced down" the Russians just like the Sheriff in High Noon. 

I guess one of the questions we all have to ask is how much this cartoonish depiction of complex foreign policy issues contributes to the belligerence of ill-informed schmucks who seem to think that international politics can be resolved favourably if one just thinks of them as plots for a cowboy movie.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: hnumpah on July 28, 2008, 11:32:33 AM
You were making a point? I was responding to XO.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 28, 2008, 12:14:43 PM
<<You were making a point? I was responding to XO.>>

XO was making the same point I was; neither one of us owns it.  I commented on a response to that point.  What is your fucking problem?
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: hnumpah on July 28, 2008, 12:59:26 PM
Quote
What is your fucking problem?

Don't have one. What's yours? I mean, other than the obvious.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 28, 2008, 01:31:43 PM
<<Don't have one. >>

Good.  Cuz you sure coulda fooled me.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 28, 2008, 01:42:48 PM
I guess one of the questions we all have to ask is how much this cartoonish depiction of complex foreign policy issues contributes to the belligerence of ill-informed schmucks who seem to think that international politics can be resolved favourably if one just thinks of them as plots for a cowboy movie.

==================
As in "Mister Gorbachov. Tear down this wall!"

========================================
What the average American does not understand is that US foreign policy is not designed for the comfort, convenience or well-being of the average American, but for the profitability of the oligarchy that actually runs the country.

With or without the invasion of Iraq, we still have to pay through the nose for petroleum products. No amount of offshore drilling will bring down prices this year, and probably not even this decade.

Invading Iraq has resulted in higher insurance premiums for oil tankers. Those insurance companies are not Iraqi-owned, and they have not had to pay any more in claims than they did before the war. So the result is net profit. It has also caused instabiity, and that also results in an opportunity to raise prices.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 28, 2008, 02:24:14 PM
I think in addition to the oil concessions, which all the pigs are now lining up at the trough for, the brilliance of the concept was that they would totally wreck the whole fucking country and then make the poor buggers pay for their own reconstruction (to American and British contractors, of course) out of whatever oil profits the "multinationals" were going to leave over for them after taking their own cut first.  It looked seamlessly foolproof till it turned out that those ragheads knew how to fight.  Who woulda thunk?
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: hnumpah on July 28, 2008, 03:18:16 PM
Quote
It looked seamlessly foolproof till it turned out that those ragheads knew how to fight.
 

Racist now, as well. Who woulda thunk?
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 28, 2008, 03:27:52 PM
I think in addition to the oil concessions, which all the pigs are now lining up at the trough for, the brilliance of the concept was that they would totally wreck the whole fucking country and then make the poor buggers pay for their own reconstruction (to American and British contractors, of course) out of whatever oil profits the "multinationals" were going to leave over for them after taking their own cut first.  It looked seamlessly foolproof till it turned out that those ragheads knew how to fight.  Who woulda thunk?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Racist now, as well. Who woulda thunk?

Calling someone a "raghead" is  not a racist remark, it is a comment which suggests that a groups' choice of headwear is unstylish or otherwise inappropriate.

I agree that this was the plan that Cheney,  Rummy, et al thought up.
It was poorly planned, since it neglects to acknowledge what happens when all order is abolished, and the number of weapons pressnt in Iraq at the time of the invasion.

Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 28, 2008, 03:35:14 PM
<<Racist now, as well. Who woulda thunk?>>

I really never thought that comment needed any explanation at all, but who woulda thunk?  "Raghead" was an ironic use of the word that would have come naturally to the anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, racist American right wing, meant to reflect (and mock) THEIR POV, not mine.  The whole line was ironic, since it was obvious to anyone with even a basic knowledge of 20th Century history that these are very hard-fighting people who would not surrender their lands and their oil any more readily to the Americans than they had to the British.

I think next time I'm going to post a "WARNING: IRONY" label whenever irony is used.  Might save me a bit of time in the long run.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 28, 2008, 03:41:49 PM
If an Arab calls an American a "Baseball-capper" or a "stetsonian", would that be racist?

I agree with your premise that the assumption that because Iraqis had few major inventions to their credit and had never put anything in orbit, that conquering them and dominating their economy would be easy.

One notes that even Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove to boot, had also never invented anything, nor had they put anything in orbit, either.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Amianthus on July 28, 2008, 03:52:18 PM
I agree with your premise that the assumption that because Iraqis had few major inventions to their credit and had never put anything in orbit, that conquering them and dominating their economy would be easy.

December 5, 1989.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 28, 2008, 03:54:41 PM
Coulda fooled me. I was unaware of any Iraqi satellite.

Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: hnumpah on July 28, 2008, 03:57:03 PM
Quote
Calling someone a "raghead" is  not a racist remark

Bullshit.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Amianthus on July 28, 2008, 04:09:21 PM
I was unaware of any Iraqi satellite.

Just because you're not aware of it does not mean it didn't happen.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 28, 2008, 04:47:04 PM
<<If an Arab calls an American a "Baseball-capper" or a "stetsonian", would that be racist?>>

No, no more than "jarhead," but I think intent is a part of the meaning.  From what I can see, when people use "raghead" it's almost always in a derogatory sense. "Those ragheads . . . "  You know something negative is going to follow to complete the sentence.  You won't hear a Nobel Prize presenter ever awarding anything "to Professor Ali of the distinguished raghead university, al Azhar."

<<I agree with your premise that the assumption that because Iraqis had few major inventions to their credit and had never put anything in orbit, that conquering them and dominating their economy would be easy.>>

They looked on them as technically unadvanced and racially inferior.  They do not believe that darker-skinned people are as  tough as "white men" (i.e. European-descended) and some of them (General Boynton, for example) even believe that "Our God is stronger than their God."  There is literally no limit to the craziness of the U.S. military, although they have some kind of residual sense of how far they can go in their public utterances, for example, extreme pro-Nazi or anti-Muslim sentiments will be sternly rebuked, at least for public consumption.  If you recall the film, Dr. Strangelove Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, there was a fantastic portrayal of an Air Force general preoccupied with the alleged Communist threat to his "vital bodily fluids" and another one of a lower-ranking Air Force officer obsessed with "pre-verts" infiltrating the base.

I wish I could find the 1965 TIME magazine account of the first U.S. invasion troops landing in Viet Nam, which was a classic of U.S. racist thinking.  I paraphrase somewhat, but it was a paragraph of "tough, lean, angry Yanks spoiling for a fight" spilling out of the landing craft and onto the beaches.  All I remember for sure is the "spoiling for a fight."  The description was probably similar to the Nazi supermen that Signal and other Nazi propaganda organs used to describe their troops back in the day.  The inference was that here were men so tough that no foreign enemy could possibly stand up to them.  I think the generals start to believe their own bullshit and guys like Cheney and Bush, who studiously avoided anything like combat operations have no idea what it's all about anyway and fall for their own military's self-assessments. 
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: hnumpah on July 28, 2008, 04:54:47 PM
Quote
"Raghead" was an ironic use of the word that would have come naturally to the anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, racist American right wing...

Irony does not require the use of racial slurs or stereotypes. The point could have been made just as effectively calling them by their proper names, i.e., Iraqis, Arabs, Pakistanis, Indians - whichever group of people who wear such headwear you wish to refer to. So, no, I don't quite buy the 'irony' angle, either. After all, if I had used any of the so-called racist code words for a black man, you, with your anti-American and, specifically, anti-Southern bias, would have been all over it, regardless of what explanation I gave.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 28, 2008, 05:06:05 PM
<<Irony does not require the use of racial slurs or stereotypes. >>

So effectively there's no way to satirize or parody a bigot who consistently uses racial slurs in his speech.  Gee, thanks, Teach, I'll make a note of that.

<<The point could have been made just as effectively calling them by their proper names, i.e., Iraqis, Arabs, Pakistanis, Indians - whichever group of people who wear such headwear you wish to refer to.>>

Wow, lessons in English composition.  Writers' tips.  Membership in this group is paying off in ways I never expected.

<<So, no, I don't quite buy the 'irony' angle, either. >>

Well, that's too bad.  I'll try not to lose any sleep over it.  You're probably the only reader in the group who DOESN'T get the irony, but really at the end of the day, I'm not about to make that MY problem.

<<After all, if I had used any of the so-called racist code words for a black man, you, with your anti-American and, specifically, anti-Southern bias, would have been all over it, regardless of what explanation I gave.>>

Actually, depending on the context, with or without my "anti-American" bias, I'd either be all over it or not, depending on how it read, and I wouldn't have to wait for the explanation.  If an explanation came, and demonstrated that I was wrong, I'd apologize and move on.  But hey, that's just me.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 28, 2008, 05:14:09 PM
I suggest that if you say something like "Abdul, you stupid raghead", this could be interpreted as racist rather clearly, as the intent is to insult. On the other hand, if we say. "Cheney did not predict the ability of the ragheads to rebel", then this is nort so much racist as a suggestion that Cheney thought of the aforementioned Sons of Ishmael to be incompetent subhumans, a view not necessarily shared by the author of the remark.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Plane on July 28, 2008, 06:11:31 PM
If an Arab calls an American a "Baseball-capper" or a "stetsonian", would that be racist?





What do they call us?

Are they racist in some degree or not at all?
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 28, 2008, 08:35:42 PM
<<I suggest that if you say something like "Abdul, you stupid raghead", this could be interpreted as racist rather clearly, as the intent is to insult. On the other hand, if we say. "Cheney did not predict the ability of the ragheads to rebel", then this is nort so much racist as a suggestion that Cheney thought of the aforementioned Sons of Ishmael to be incompetent subhumans, a view not necessarily shared by the author of the remark.>>

Exactly.  Thank you.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: hnumpah on July 28, 2008, 08:57:46 PM
Quote
I suggest that if you say something like "Abdul, you stupid raghead", this could be interpreted as racist rather clearly, as the intent is to insult. On the other hand, if we say. "Cheney did not predict the ability of the ragheads to rebel", then this is nort so much racist as a suggestion that Cheney thought of the aforementioned Sons of Ishmael to be incompetent subhumans, a view not necessarily shared by the author of the remark.

Except, since he has not quoted Cheney as being the one to use the term 'ragheads', the author of the remark is the one responsible for using the term, and if 'incompetent subhumans' is the meaning, then yes, it is a slur. Whether the 'author of the remark' agrees with that view or not, he is the one that brought it into the discussion, when there clearly was no reason to do so - other than to simply toss out a racist remark.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Plane on July 28, 2008, 09:00:28 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~ George W. Bush

About the quote: The future president said this in regard to Kosovo in April 1999



That is very cutting. Was Kosovo a success or a failure and did it include an exit stretegery?
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 28, 2008, 10:06:31 PM
<<Whether the 'author of the remark' agrees with that view or not, he is the one that brought it into the discussion, when there clearly was no reason to do so - other than to simply toss out a racist remark.>>

Clearly, anyone with half a brain reading the remark would infer that the underestimation of their Arab opponents was due to both the stupidity and the racism of the U.S. military and their civilian bosses.  The "Who woulda thunk?" is a jibe at their stupidity and the "ragheads" is a jibe at their racism.

Next time, I'll draw a labelled diagram so that my slower-witted readers can follow the train of thought without blowing any fuses in their neural wiring.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: BT on July 28, 2008, 11:28:23 PM
Quote
Clearly, anyone with half a brain reading the remark would infer that the underestimation of their Arab opponents was due to both the stupidity and the racism of the U.S. military and their civilian bosses.  The "Who woulda thunk?" is a jibe at their stupidity and the "ragheads" is a jibe at their racism.

Next time, I'll draw a labelled diagram so that my slower-witted readers can follow the train of thought without blowing any fuses in their neural wiring.

Trouble is you have a history of derogatory remarks. From your contempt of the Japanese during WWII to your depiction of 4000 dead hillbillies in Iraq to youir depiction of arabs as ragheads. What's ironic is that it is an anti-semitic remark from a Semite.

Go figure.



Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: hnumpah on July 28, 2008, 11:39:58 PM
Quote
Next time, I'll draw a labelled diagram so that my slower-witted readers can follow the train of thought without blowing any fuses in their neural wiring.

Next time you might find a way to say what you mean without resorting to racial or ethnic slurs.

Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: hnumpah on July 28, 2008, 11:59:45 PM
Quote
That is very cutting.

Thank you. It was meant to be.

Quote
Was Kosovo a success or a failure...

That depends on your view of it. After all, the Serbs, Croats and Muslims still don't get along, and just recently they caught one of the top war criminals there who had been hiding out in public for 13 years. Kosovo's status was unresolved until 2007, and it did not declare independence until this year.

Quote
...and did it include an exit stretegery?

At the time, no. Which was why Bush made the comment. At the time, I'm sure he never envisioned a time when it would come back to bite him in the ass.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 29, 2008, 12:21:45 AM
<<Trouble is you have a history of derogatory remarks. From your contempt of the Japanese during WWII to your depiction of 4000 dead hillbillies in Iraq to youir depiction of arabs as ragheads. >> 

I don't apologize for my remarks about either the Japs or the dead hillbillies.  Or if I do, that'll come at another time in another place.  I do not deny that racism may be an element in my deliberate use of the term "Jap" and I don't hide behind an excuse of irony for either of those two references.

The remark about the ragheads is so obviously ironic in context and so obviously non-racist in context that I really cannot understand how anyone could miss the obvious intent.  Assuming for the moment that you are correct that racism is behind both the "Japs" and the "dead hillbillies" references, both of whom (Japs and the U.S. military) I regularly excoriate in my posts, it's quite a stretch to conclude that there is a similar racist animus behind my use of "raghead" particularly when the group targeted by the alleged smear is one which (unlike the Japanese and the U.S. military) I have regularly stuck up for in most of my posts.

You might also want to ask yourself why I never claim that there is anything ironic in my remarks about Japs or dead hillbillies, yet would raise that claim in defence of my use of "raghead" in this thread.

Bottom line is that I didn't intend any racial disparagement by my ironic use of the term "raghead" in reference to the Iraqis, I believe it should be obvious to any intelligent reader of the post that the term was used ironically to depict the racism and ignorance of the U.S. military generally, and if anyone takes genuine offence at my use of the term "raghead" in this thread(as opposed to the fake indignation of both hnumpah and BT at something they know God-damn well is not racist) then I will immediately apologize to that person unconditionally.

<<What's ironic is that it is an anti-semitic remark from a Semite.>>

If the remark were truly racist, it would be as offensive coming from a Semite as from an Eskimo.  My racial origins have absolutely nothing to do with the offensiveness of the remark, the only REAL antisemitism here being your raising them in the first place.  There would be absolutely nothing "ironic" about the remarks, which are anti-Arab rather than antisemitic, coming from a Jew if they were racist.  Quite a lot of the anti-Arab hate propaganda today, unfortunately,  comes directly or indirectly from Jewish sources and there is nothing ironic about any of it. 

Antisemitism as you probably should know does not denote a general hostility against all Semites, be they Jews or Arabs.  Antisemitism describes a peculiar type of European agitation that began in the 19th century and was directed exclusively against Jews.  Antisemitism was a neologism born to describe those particular 19th century anti-Jewish movements.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: BT on July 29, 2008, 01:06:06 AM
Fact is you have made bigoted remarks in the past. No reason to believe that you would shy away from using a slur concerning arabs. You were the first (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=57.msg361#msg361) to use the term raghead on this forum according to the search function. Not one RW fascist knuckle dragging poster on this board has even come close to using it. Ironic, isn't it.



Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Plane on July 29, 2008, 01:25:13 AM
I suppose that OUR right wing is composed of the sensitive sort , relitively speaking of course.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 29, 2008, 01:36:15 AM
<<Fact is you have made bigoted remarks in the past. >>

So what?  I never disowned any racist intent in them.  Never claimed they were ironic.  They weren't ironic.  THIS "racist" remark (raghead) I DO claim is ironic and moreover that any halfway intelligent individual reading the post would have to know it was meant ironically. 

<<No reason to believe that you would shy away from using a slur concerning arabs. >>

Ridiculous.  The reason is that the slurs I used were against people that I openly despised.  In addition to making the "slurs," I also made very substantial and specific allegations against them - - that the Japs were barbarians who massacred civilians and tortured their prisoners, that the dead hillbillies were more or less the same or at the very least had participated willingly in an obviously illegal war of aggression. 

The evidence to date is that I have not made any such derogatory remarks against the Arabs with any substance - - did not accuse them of all the stuff that you see others alleging against them.  I usually defended them.  So it would certainly raise an eyebrow if the people I defended and never attacked (unlike the Japs and the "dead hillbillies") were suddenly without any negative aspersions cast, made the target of my "racist slurs."  In fact, it would be incomprehensible. 

<<You were the first to use the term raghead on this forum according to the search function. >>

Sure - - ironically.  I bet if you pull out every one of those posts found in your search, they were all ironic.  Go ahead.  (I gotta say in passing, this is so typical of you racist rightwing Republican bullshit artists - - you take something totally out of context like my use of one single word as revealed by the search engine, and expect to bamboozle others into believing that the single word itself, taken out of context, signifies the exact opposite of what it was meant to signify in context.)  Why don't you post the entire message in which I used "raghead" before so we can all see what's so "racist" about it?

<<Not one RW fascist knuckle dragging poster on this board has even come close to using it. Ironic, isn't
it.>>

Nothing ironic about it.  It's the same phenomenon we noted in the Rise of the Dixiecrats post - - today's racists are savvy enough not to use the old racist rhetoric.  If or when you hear it today, it's usually being used ironically by liberals to mock the REAL attitudes of the closet racists who make up the Republican Party but are smart enough not to use the words that best mirror their real attitudes. 
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: BT on July 29, 2008, 01:40:03 AM
I suppose that OUR right wing is composed of the sensitive sort , relitively speaking of course.

We are the epitome of civility and tolerance.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: BT on July 29, 2008, 01:42:42 AM
Quote
  Why don't you post the entire message in which I used "raghead" before so we can all see what's so "racist" about it?

I did.

http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=57.msg361#msg361 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=57.msg361#msg361)

Your exact quote was faggot raghead.

Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Plane on July 29, 2008, 01:47:51 AM
I suppose that OUR right wing is composed of the sensitive sort , relitively speaking of course.

We are the epitome of civility and tolerance.


  I suppose that Leftists are so confident in their virtues that they feel excused in the use of flagwords , since it is safe for everyone to assume that they do not mean them in any truely contemptuous way , except when useing them to dehumanise those who actually do deserve it.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 29, 2008, 01:48:33 AM
<<Your exact quote was faggot raghead. >>

More bullshit from you.  You take one word out of context, I call you on it, so you snip TWO words out of context.  If I call you on it again, you'll snip THREE words out of context. 

Cut the bullshit and shit or get off the pot.  Post the whole message, not one single word, or two words of it.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 29, 2008, 01:55:26 AM
<<I suppose that Leftists are so confident in their virtues that they feel excused in the use of flagwords , since it is safe for everyone to assume that they do not mean them in any truely contemptuous way , except when useing them to dehumanise those who actually do deserve it.>>

Assume, my ass.  I expect every reader to take the words in the context of the message in which they are used, and in the case of the post I was called on, to have enough good sense to understand that in context there is no derogatory meaning at all directed at the Arabs.  The post was meant to parody the racism and ignorance of the U.S. military and their civilian bosses.  I did not expect anyone to ASSUME that, I expect them to possess minimum abilities to read for context and to interpret what was right in front of them.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: BT on July 29, 2008, 02:06:56 AM
Quote
More bullshit from you.  You take one word out of context, I call you on it, so you snip TWO words out of context.  If I call you on it again, you'll snip THREE words out of context.

I posted the link to it. You do know how to click on a link don't you?

Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Plane on July 29, 2008, 02:20:07 AM
<<I suppose that Leftists are so confident in their virtues that they feel excused in the use of flagwords , since it is safe for everyone to assume that they do not mean them in any truely contemptuous way , except when useing them to dehumanise those who actually do deserve it.>>

Assume, my ass.  I expect every reader to take the words in the context of the message in which they are used, and in the case of the post I was called on, to have enough good sense to understand that in context there is no derogatory meaning at all directed at the Arabs.  The post was meant to parody the racism and ignorance of the U.S. military and their civilian bosses.  I did not expect anyone to ASSUME that, I expect them to possess minimum abilities to read for context and to interpret what was right in front of them.



I caught that you were mocking Rednecks and Hillbillys , and assumeing that your use of flag words aimed at people that you like better is intended to be mocking of the redneck attitude as you assume it to be. Such that your demeaning language is directed specificly at people you do wish to dehumanise and the supposed  propensity of these people to dehumanise people with demeaning language.


I am a mere Cracker myself , but I am not Irony deficient .
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 29, 2008, 02:23:33 AM
Here's what I found when I clicked on the link you provided; no wonder you were so reluctant to reveal the context:

<<Maybe we should have a more muscular UN, a NUCULER-ARMED UN, you know, defy our Resolution once, shame on you, defy it twice, MUSHROOM CLOUD TIME, RAGHEAD FAGGOTS, you were only polluting this fucking planet anyway and now you're history.  Maybe THAT'S what the founders of the UN really had in mind, but their cowardly successors were too politically correct to execute until one day a man named John with a walrus mustache strode into their sissified halls and set them straight.  Taught 'em the AMERICAN way of problem-solving.>>

Yeah, no irony there.  Looks like pure racism to me. 
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: BT on July 29, 2008, 02:36:23 AM
The link has been there since i mentioned this was not the first time you used the term. I don't see it ironic that you used the term, the context stood on it's own without it. You inserted it for another reason, but it certainly wasn't meant as an ironic poke in the face on RW members in here because we haven't used that term in our posts and we were the audience of your diatribe.

I think you need to go to plan B for your defense, because i'm not buying plan A.

Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 29, 2008, 02:44:18 AM
<<I caught that you were mocking Rednecks and Hillbillys , and assumeing that your use of flag words aimed at people that you like better is intended to be mocking of their attitude as you assume it to be. Such that your demeaning language is directed specificly at people you do wish to dehumanise and the supposed  propensity of these people to dehumanise people with demeaning language.>>

I'm fucking up.  The irony is AIMED at racists, fascists and militarists.  Their victims are the people of the Third World (obviously) but also the dumbest, poorest and most desperate of the American working class and underclass (the "low-hanging fruit") who are not just victims but also co-participants in the crimes.  Many of them are also racists, fascists and militarists, but since they are only cannon fodder, their views are not all that important.  "Hillbillies" is my own personal shorthand for "low-hanging fruit."

The position of the hillbillies is complicated since they are both victims AND perps.  As victims, they are probably deserving of some sympathy, but as perps they are deserving of none.  I am starting to wonder if my "4,000 dead hillbillies" rhetoric, while appropriate to them in their capacity of perps, is maybe somewhat insensitive to their status as victims.

I guess plane feels that I am dehumanizing the "hillbillies" but my original intention was to attack the ones who prey on and victimize them, while not losing sight of the guilt and complicity of the hillbillies themselves.  I think there must be plenty of ethical and honourable (for want of a better word) hillbillies who would never lend a hand to the slaughter of the Third World and who plane may feel I have slandered by lumping them together with the dead of the Iraq war.  Maybe "low hanging fruit" or LHF, would have been a better catch-all designation than "hillbillies."  It has the advantage of applying only to those ensnared by the military's nets and none of the disadvantages of encompassing people both within and without the military.


Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 29, 2008, 03:15:01 AM
<<The link has been there since i mentioned this was not the first time you used the term. >>

So what?  You should have posted the whole thing rather than one word.  You implied it was racist by quoting first one word, then two, when the text itself showed otherwise.  That was extremely dishonest. 

<<I don't see it ironic that you used the term, the context stood on it's own without it. >>

The whole text was one long piece of ridicule.  Of course it would "stand on its own" without any one element.  It was irony piled on irony piled on irony.  One or two jabs could have been removed and the piece still would have gotten the message acress.  So what?

<<You inserted it for another reason, but it certainly wasn't meant as an ironic poke in the face on RW members in here because we haven't used that term in our posts and we were the audience of your diatribe.>>

Of course it wasn't a poke in the face of RW members, it was a poke in the face of George W. Bush, since I deliberately used the word "nuculer" which is almost his trademark.  Since when is irony in this group limited so that it can only be used on other members of the group?  You've hit a new level in asininity with that one, also in missing the obvious targets, Bush ("nuculer") and Bolton ("a man named John with a walrus mustache") who strode into the UN.  The whole thing was an obvious take-off on the RW narrative as put out by the "President" and Bolton and others.

<<I think you need to go to plan B for your defense, because i'm not buying plan A.>>

LOL.  There is no plan B, BT.  There isn't even a plan A.  I just told you what I meant when I wrote the two posts and now there's nothing more I can say about it that hasn't already been said.  You either believe me or you don't.  I gave it my best effort, and I really tried to be as lucid as I could, but I don't propose to spend the rest of the night on this. 
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: BT on July 29, 2008, 03:27:51 AM
Quote
So what?  You should have posted the whole thing rather than one word.  You implied it was racist by quoting first one word, then two, when the text itself showed otherwise.  That was extremely dishonest.

Nonsense. The link was there for all to see.

Quote
Of course it wasn't a poke in the face of RW members, it was a poke in the face of George W. Bush, since I deliberately used the word "nuculer" which is almost his trademark.  Since when is irony in this group limited so that it can only be used on other members of the group?  You've hit a new level in asininity with that one, also in missing the obvious targets, Bush ("nuculer") and Bolton ("a man named John with a walrus mustache") who strode into the UN.  The whole thing was an obvious take-off on the RW narrative as put out by the "President" and Bolton and others.

Seems to me if you are slinging arrows you should have a target. Bush and Bolton don't read this forum. And please recall your original defense was that you were using the term to mock RW militaristic fascists. I assume you thought this forum contains folks like that.





Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 29, 2008, 03:40:16 AM
<<Seems to me if you are slinging arrows you should have a target. Bush and Bolton don't read this forum. >>

And are therefore never mocked in it?  I don't think public figures are immune from satire or ironic comment just because they haven't yet been accepted as members of this club.

<<And please recall your original defense was that you were using the term to mock RW militaristic fascists.>>   

You're a little confused.  My original defence referred to my recent post, the mocking of Bush and Bolton was referenced to the old post that you dug up.

<<I assume you thought this forum contains folks like that.>>

I think you assumed (wrongly as usual) that I only mock folks who participate in the forum. 

This forum HAS contained militaristic right-wing fascists, Rich was a good example of that, and some members, yourself included, seem very sympathetic to that POV. 
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: BT on July 29, 2008, 03:56:56 AM
Quote
and some members, yourself included, seem very sympathetic to that POV. 

And yet, i haven't used that term to describe Arabs. Come to think of it, i don't recall Bush or Bolton using those terms either. Just you.





Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: hnumpah on July 29, 2008, 09:32:02 AM
Quote
...if anyone takes genuine offence at my use of the term "raghead" in this thread(as opposed to the fake indignation of both hnumpah and BT at something they know God-damn well is not racist)


It is racist, and I do take offense. I lived and worked among Arabs for quite some time, and made some very good friends among their people, some of whom I still keep in touch with. I took offense after 9-11 when it was popular to refer to them as ragheads, towelheads, camel jockeys and sand niggers, and I take offense with such terms now. My indignation is nowhere near 'fake', and I feel you are a complete ass for assuming such. Just so you know.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 29, 2008, 10:19:00 AM
<<And yet, i haven't used that term to describe Arabs. Come to think of it, i don't recall Bush or Bolton using those terms either. Just you.>>

Of course they don't overtly use those terms.  Not when the mic's on.  Not for public consumption and probably not for private consumption either because you just never know . . .   But it's how they feel towards them.  How else could they feel towards a people whose country they blatantly invade, without a shred of justification, to seize a valuable natural resource that they happen to own, killing hundreds of thousands of them in the process?  They even labeled their own war a "crusade" but they had to take that one back real fast.

However, I do have a real simple question for you:  when I refer to the Japanese as Japs, you know what I have against them; and when I refer to 4,000 dead hillbillies, agree or disagree, you know what I have against them too; I didn't exactly go out of my way to hide it in either case.  Now according to you, I have just deliberately insulted hundreds of millions of Arabs by calling them "ragheads" - - why?  What did they do (in my eyes) that would justify such an insult?
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: BT on July 29, 2008, 10:23:41 AM
Quote
Now according to you, I have just deliberately insulted hundreds of millions of Arabs by calling them "ragheads" - - why?  What did they do (in my eyes) that would justify such an insult?

Dunno. You have family close to the WTC on 9-11?
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 29, 2008, 10:33:26 AM
<<It is racist, and I do take offense. I lived and worked among Arabs for quite some time, and made some very good friends among their people, some of whom I still keep in touch with. I took offense after 9-11 when it was popular to refer to them as ragheads, towelheads, camel jockeys and sand niggers. . . >>

That's hilarious.  If you were in the U.S. military at the time, your indignation must have been set off several times a second, like cameras flashing at a rock star's public appearance.

<<. . .  and I take offense with such terms now. My indignation is nowhere near 'fake', and I feel you are a complete ass for assuming such. Just so you know.>>

Your indignation isn't fake, eh?  OK, fine, then you're entitled to an apology - - after you answer the same question I just put to BT:

<<However, I do have a real simple question for you:  when I refer to the Japanese as Japs, you know what I have against them; and when I refer to 4,000 dead hillbillies, agree or disagree, you know what I have against them too; I didn't exactly go out of my way to hide it in either case.  Now according to you, I have just deliberately insulted hundreds of millions of Arabs by calling them "ragheads" - - why?  What did they do (in my eyes) that would justify such an insult?>>
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 29, 2008, 11:10:17 AM
<<Dunno. You have family close to the WTC on 9-11?>>

Nice try.  At the time, we had a daughter living in Brooklyn and working in mid-town Manhattan, who had had several breakfasts in the WTC and whose subway train just had passed through the WTC station on its way to Penn Station about ten minutes before the first plane hit.  We couldn't make contact with her until about 1:00 PM that day.  My first cousin's son worked in the financial district at the time, close to the WTC, and his building was evacuated; he had to walk back to his home on the Upper East Side and my cousins, who live in the Detroit area, couldn't contact him either.  My dad's first cousin's son also lived and worked on the Upper West Side, he has a wife and four or five kids, but we don't see them very much (we live in two different worlds) and I don't even know what their 9-11 stories are.  Our nephews' sister-in-law was evacuated from the 12th floor of Tower 2.  Our other daughter doesn't really count, since we had driven into Brooklyn two weeks before 9-11 to bring her back to Canada to continue her studies after four years spent studying and then working in downtown Manhattan.  But overall, yeah, we had (and still have) family close to the WTC and Ground Zero, and we worry about them, in addition to spending a lot of time there ourselves.  They use the airports, the bridges and the tunnels to get in and out of the City (as do my wife and I) and we like the security there, the more security the better in fact.  In some sense, we're all New Yorkers.

And now, answer me this:  where in my "raghead" posts, where in this thread, did I excoriate the "ragheads" whom I allegedly insulted, for bombing the WTC?  What did my posts, or this thread, have to do with the attack on the WTC or the risk to my family?  Who do I really blame for the WTC attacks, the bombers or the foreign policy of the American government?  Where in this thread was the WTC attack even mentioned?  Can you say, "grasping at straws?"   Can you say, "desperate?"

I
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: hnumpah on July 29, 2008, 12:11:41 PM
Dunno. You have family close to the WTC on 9-11? (thanks and a tip o' the hat to BT)

Actually, I don't really care what the reason was. You might actually be a racist SOB, or you might just be an insensitive, uncaring lout who thought it would be funny to refer to people that way to try to make a point. Either way, I have made my opinion of what you posted known, only to have you assume I was simply faking indignation at it. I never asked for an apology, and in your frantic efforts to defend your comment, I doubt one would do any good anyway; besides, it wasn't me you slurred, but good friends of mine. All you've really done to me is to decrease my estimation of you as a person.

And yes, I can say 'desperate'. Pretty much describes your attempts to justify your comment.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 29, 2008, 12:32:55 PM
<<Actually, I don't really care what the reason was. You might actually be a racist SOB, or you might just be an insensitive, uncaring lout who thought it would be funny to refer to people that way to try to make a point. >>

Or I might be speaking ironically to ridicule the racist assholes in charge of U.S. foreign policy or supporting them.  There's plenty of evidence to support the last possibility and none to support the first two.  When I slammed Japs or dead stormtroopers, I let everyone know why.  Nobody had to plough through the back issues to find out what my reasons were.

<<Either way, I have made my opinion of what you posted known, only to have you assume I was simply faking indignation at it. >>

I am sure you are.  Nothing you have said - - including your bullslhit efforts to sort through the "possible reasons" for a racist insult without even mentioning the most obvious explanation of the post - - indicates any genuine effort to understand the post for any purpose other than utilizing it as a launching pad for your fake outrage.

<<I never asked for an apology. . . >>

I offered it in general to anyone who was genuinely offended.

<< . . . and in your frantic efforts to defend your comment, I doubt one would do any good anyway;>>

Don't worry, it was offered to anyone dumb enough to take offence, not to anyone who takes pleasure in faking offence.

<< . . .  besides, it wasn't me you slurred, but good friends of mine. >>

Bullshit.  If you were in the military you would have heard that a hundred times a day.  For real, and not in irony.

<<All you've really done to me is to decrease my estimation of you as a person.>>

Well, since you're apparently too fucking dumb to recognize the irony, I'll take that for what it's worth.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: hnumpah on July 29, 2008, 01:10:21 PM
I was in the Army from 74-80, and travelled quite a bit in the Middle East at the time. I was in the Middle East as a civilian contractor in the 90's.

When I was in the Army, making racist comments about Middle Easterners wasn't as fashionable as it has become since 9-11. Generally the people I served there with had considerable respect for the local populace.

You can believe what you want about whether my offense was factual or not. It was, though I have grown weary of your attempts to justify yourself. Though now you come very close to calling me a liar, and you'd better believe I do consider that a grave insult. You see, I'm one of those 'hillbillies' you disparage who takes honor rather seriously.

My opinion of you is still the same - you're an ass.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: hnumpah on July 29, 2008, 02:06:19 PM
You might want to look here:

http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=6577.msg66507#msg66507 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=6577.msg66507#msg66507)


or here

http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=4930.msg46875#msg46875 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=4930.msg46875#msg46875)

I've mentioned my time in the service and as a contractor in the Middle East several times in this forum.

I've also mentioned I really don't take kindly to being called a liar.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 29, 2008, 03:38:36 PM


<<You can believe what you want about whether my offense was factual or not. It was, though I have grown weary of your attempts to justify yourself. Though now you come very close to calling me a liar, and you'd better believe I do consider that a grave insult. You see, I'm one of those 'hillbillies' you disparage who takes honor rather seriously.>>

Yeah, let's see if I got this right.  I post a comment containing the term "raghead" and explain that it was used ironically but you tell me in effect that I am full of shit.  You don't believe my explanation of my own words, even though you can't find a single instance where I berate the people I allegedly insult for any particular offence and in fact consistently defend them against any and all silly accusations levelled against them in this forum.  BT then digs up an earlier post of mine where it's even clearer that the intent was purely ironic, but of course this makes no difference at all.  Nevertheless, I am still a liar and a racist.

BUT, on the other hand, by calling your "outrage" fake, as it obviously is, I have "come very close" to calling you a liar.  YOU consider that a "grave insult."  YOU "take honour rather seriously."

Are you totally fucking nuts?  Do you think you are the only person on this board who resents being called a liar?  Fuck you and fuck your "honour."  You are the  one who insulted me, who called me a liar and a racist (falsely, but that goes without saying!)   I'm sorry I only "came very close" to calling you a liar.  Here's a real insult for you:  you can take your fucking honour and blow it out your ass!

<<My opinion of you is still the same - you're an ass.>>

Thanks and fuck you too.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: hnumpah on July 29, 2008, 04:15:50 PM
Quote
...who called me a liar...


"Irony does not require the use of racial slurs or stereotypes. The point could have been made just as effectively calling them by their proper names, i.e., Iraqis, Arabs, Pakistanis, Indians - whichever group of people who wear such headwear you wish to refer to. So, no, I don't quite buy the 'irony' angle, either. After all, if I had used any of the so-called racist code words for a black man, you, with your anti-American and, specifically, anti-Southern bias, would have been all over it, regardless of what explanation I gave."

Not there.

"Next time you might find a way to say what you mean without resorting to racial or ethnic slurs."

Not there, either.

"It is racist, and I do take offense. I lived and worked among Arabs for quite some time, and made some very good friends among their people, some of whom I still keep in touch with. I took offense after 9-11 when it was popular to refer to them as ragheads, towelheads, camel jockeys and sand niggers, and I take offense with such terms now. My indignation is nowhere near 'fake', and I feel you are a complete ass for assuming such. Just so you know."

Or there.

"Dunno. You have family close to the WTC on 9-11? (thanks and a tip o' the hat to BT)

Actually, I don't really care what the reason was. You might actually be a racist SOB, or you might just be an insensitive, uncaring lout who thought it would be funny to refer to people that way to try to make a point. Either way, I have made my opinion of what you posted known, only to have you assume I was simply faking indignation at it. I never asked for an apology, and in your frantic efforts to defend your comment, I doubt one would do any good anyway; besides, it wasn't me you slurred, but good friends of mine. All you've really done to me is to decrease my estimation of you as a person.

And yes, I can say 'desperate'. Pretty much describes your attempts to justify your comment."

Certainly not there.

"I was in the Army from 74-80, and travelled quite a bit in the Middle East at the time. I was in the Middle East as a civilian contractor in the 90's.

When I was in the Army, making racist comments about Middle Easterners wasn't as fashionable as it has become since 9-11. Generally the people I served there with had considerable respect for the local populace.

You can believe what you want about whether my offense was factual or not. It was, though I have grown weary of your attempts to justify yourself. Though now you come very close to calling me a liar, and you'd better believe I do consider that a grave insult. You see, I'm one of those 'hillbillies' you disparage who takes honor rather seriously.

My opinion of you is still the same - you're an ass."

There either.

"You might want to look here:

http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=6577.msg66507#msg66507 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=6577.msg66507#msg66507)


or here

http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=4930.msg46875#msg46875 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=4930.msg46875#msg46875)

I've mentioned my time in the service and as a contractor in the Middle East several times in this forum.

I've also mentioned I really don't take kindly to being called a liar."

Hmmmm, no mention of you being a liar anywhere. I've explained my objection to the term used, and my reasons for that objection. Nowhere do I see where I have come even close to calling you a liar. Maybe you can point that out to me.

I'm trying very hard to think of an insult to your 'honour', but since you don't have any, it's pretty difficult.

Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 29, 2008, 04:45:47 PM
I've said my last word on the subject.  I read through your last pathetic bullshit and it's not worth a reply.  There is nothing there that hasn't been gone over at least twice.  You can take your fucking insults and shove them up your fucking ass, there isn't one of them that deserves a response.  I stand by every word I wrote.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: hnumpah on July 29, 2008, 05:08:27 PM
And I stand by mine.

Except that now I can call you a liar, for accusing me of calling you a liar when I hadn't.

But I won't, though. We both know the truth, don't we?  ;)
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Plane on July 29, 2008, 10:04:20 PM

That's hilarious.  If you were in the U.S. military at the time, your indignation must have been set off several times a second, like cameras flashing at a rock star's public appearance.



I was in the Navy and visited several Middle Eastern Countrys in the early Eightys . I think that your idea of American Military attitudes is supplied by your imagination.

Command level hates offending locals with a passion you wouldn't understand without knowing how badly their carreer is affected by bad behaviors on their watch , and how much they love their carreers.

NCO's do not like leaveing their charges in foreighn jails , also they like their stripes and make it plain that they would prefer you to loose yours than to loose their own.

I received a breifing with the rest of the crew before pulling into any port where we would be allowed liberty, we learned not to show the soles of our shoes to people , not to pat children on the head or complement them not to show up drunk in an Islamic country etc. etc etc... it was made very plain how much we would be disaplined , supposeing that the locals did not jail us themselves.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 29, 2008, 11:18:25 PM
plane, we're really talking about apples and oranges.  You're talking about how U.S. servicemen interact directly with the locals.  I was talking about what servicemen say to one another about the locals.

Even taking the problem on your terms, it looks like efforts to avoid pissing off the locals aren't always successful, to say the least.

This and many other articles found simply by Googling "American servicemen rapes" are kind of interesting:
http://nhatkyviet.com/2008/05/05/american-serviceman-arrested-for-squeezing-aomori-prefecture-teens-breasts/ (http://nhatkyviet.com/2008/05/05/american-serviceman-arrested-for-squeezing-aomori-prefecture-teens-breasts/)

There were plenty of articles, one on the brutal beating and rape of a 14-year-old schoolgirl on Okinawa by three U.S. Marines, others on the rape and murder of a 14 year old Iraqi girl (U.S. forces sure like 'em young, don't they?) by a whole squad of U.S. Marines.  The girl's family was also murdered along with her.  The sentences are truly farcical - - the lookout got "110 years" in a court martial, eligible for parole in ten years.  110 years for rape and murder, but we'll let you out in ten if you're good and no one's looking.  Hilarious.  I'll be amazed if the punk serves five.  They must think they're fooling someone with those "110 year" sentences, but honestly, who in the world is that dumb? 
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: dralec on July 29, 2008, 11:24:17 PM
Can some one please define "winning?"  Yeah. like Iraq is a peaceful place where kids can play outside without being blown up by homicidal religious fanatic.  There is still no stable government, infrastructure is still shit. And where is the freaking oil W promised.  Dammit, you invade a country and all you get is expensive gas.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Plane on July 29, 2008, 11:30:34 PM
Can some one please define "winning?"  Yeah. like Iraq is a peaceful place where kids can play outside without being blown up by homicidal religious fanatic.  There is still no stable government, infrastructure is still shit. And where is the freaking oil W promised.  Dammit, you invade a country and all you get is expensive gas.
When did he make that promise?
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Plane on July 29, 2008, 11:32:49 PM
plane, we're really talking about apples and oranges.&nbsp; You're talking about how U.S. servicemen interact directly with the locals.&nbsp; I was talking about what servicemen say to one another about the locals.

Even taking the problem on your terms, it looks like efforts to avoid pissing off the locals aren't always successful, to say the least.

This and many other articles found simply by Googling "American servicemen rapes" are kind of interesting:
http://nhatkyviet.com/2008/05/05/american-serviceman-arrested-for-squeezing-aomori-prefecture-teens-breasts/ (http://nhatkyviet.com/2008/05/05/american-serviceman-arrested-for-squeezing-aomori-prefecture-teens-breasts/)

There were plenty of articles, one on the brutal beating and rape of a 14-year-old schoolgirl on Okinawa by three U.S. Marines, others on the rape and murder of a 14 year old Iraqi girl (U.S. forces sure like 'em young, don't they?) by a whole squad of U.S. Marines.&nbsp; The girl's family was also murdered along with her.&nbsp; The sentences are truly farcical - - the lookout got "110 years" in a court martial, eligible for parole in ten years.&nbsp; 110 years for rape and murder, but we'll let you out in ten if you're good and no one's looking.&nbsp; Hilarious.&nbsp; I'll be amazed if the punk serves five.&nbsp; They must think they're fooling someone with those "110 year" sentences, but honestly, who in the world is that dumb?&nbsp;

I know about several incidents like you are mentioning here , I also know that they happen at a rate lower than in the generl population .

Is it compareing Apples to Oranges to compare American troops overseas to UN troops in Africa?
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 30, 2008, 12:06:34 AM
I know about several incidents like you are mentioning here , I also know that they happen at a rate lower than in the generl population .
=====================================
I bet if we sent an assortment of the general population (especially male members of it) to Iraq, they would try to steal rape and plunder more, but would be far less agile with their weapons, if we armed them.

When some guy in Atlanta rapes some woman in Atlanta, it does not cause an international incident, nor does it reflect poorly on his employers in most cases. That would be comparig apples and oranges.

Comparing US troops in Iraq with African troops in Africa would be like, well, comparing US troops in Iraq with African troops in Africa. The US would not be blamed if a Nigerian soldier rapes a Congolese woman. That would be a rather important difference from an American's viewpoint, I think.

Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Plane on July 30, 2008, 12:49:04 AM
I know about several incidents like you are mentioning here , I also know that they happen at a rate lower than in the generl population .
=====================================
I bet if we sent an assortment of the general population (especially male members of it) to Iraq, they would try to steal rape and plunder more, but would be far less agile with their weapons, if we armed them.

When some guy in Atlanta rapes some woman in Atlanta, it does not cause an international incident, nor does it reflect poorly on his employers in most cases. That would be comparig apples and oranges.

Comparing US troops in Iraq with African troops in Africa would be like, well, comparing US troops in Iraq with African troops in Africa. The US would not be blamed if a Nigerian soldier rapes a Congolese woman. That would be a rather important difference from an American's viewpoint, I think.




All right , just compare the Canadian or European troops in African UN duty .
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 30, 2008, 12:51:57 AM
I'll tell ya what - - when the Canadian, African Union or UN troops in Africa or anywhere else set up an Operation Phoenix, which kills 60,000 civilians, mostly after severe torture, ask me the question again and maybe then it won't seem so ludicrous.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: BT on July 30, 2008, 12:59:10 AM
Didn't Stalin do Operation Phoenix so much better?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/NKVD_Dungeon.jpg)
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 30, 2008, 01:09:27 AM
<<Didn't Stalin do Operation Phoenix so much better?>>

Stalin was faced with the problem of subversion from within in the form of Trotskyite-Fourth International penetration of the Soviet government and Communist Party, some in collusion with agents of French and British intelligence and a looming war with Nazi Germany, financed in part by foreign capital.  The fate of the Revolution was in his hands.  I don't know what Stalin did, exactly, but there is no doubt he had to cast a wide net and that some good Communists and loyal Party members were caught up in it.

I don't know what happened exactly, but I hope there was no torture used comparable to the tortures practiced by the Americans in Viet Nam.  I am sure guys were slapped around, deprived of sleep, given a kind of third degree - - but as far as I know nothing like what the Americans and their puppets in various Third World countries were doing.

Whatever Stalin did it was for the purpose of safeguarding the Revolution and liquidating the enemies of the people.  What the U.S. did and is doing is for the sole purpose of domination and exploitation of one people by another.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Plane on July 30, 2008, 01:16:58 AM
I'll tell ya what - - when the Canadian, African Union or UN troops in Africa or anywhere else set up an Operation Phoenix, which kills 60,000 civilians, mostly after severe torture, ask me the question again and maybe then it won't seem so ludicrous.

Vietnam, 66-71 Phoenix op designed to help U.S. Military reach crossover point, where dead and wounded exceeded VC's ability to field replacements. http://www.serendipity.li/cia/operation_phoenix.htm (http://www.serendipity.li/cia/operation_phoenix.htm)


Hmmmm... Viet Nam, I should have set a timer to keep track of how long it would take for Viet Nam to show up.

Why the Change of Subject? In what respect is this a comparison of Apples to apples? The CIA was not being discussed in this thread ...&nbsp; Is this abandonment of the point a surrender of the point?


In Okinawia there have been something like a half dozen notorious rapes in the past decade which have put American troops on trial in Japaneese courts. This is like one days score in the Congo, less the day in court.


Okinawia  http://www.transpacificradio.com/2008/02/13/american-soldier-allegedly-rapes-14-year-old-girl-in-okinawa-japan/ (http://www.transpacificradio.com/2008/02/13/american-soldier-allegedly-rapes-14-year-old-girl-in-okinawa-japan/)

African Peacekeepers http://programs.ssrc.org/gsc/gsc_quarterly/newsletter5/content/graybill/ (http://programs.ssrc.org/gsc/gsc_quarterly/newsletter5/content/graybill/)
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: BT on July 30, 2008, 01:37:38 AM
Quote
Stalin was faced with the problem of subversion from within in the form of Trotskyite-Fourth International penetration of the Soviet government and Communist Party, some in collusion with agents of French and British intelligence and a looming war with Nazi Germany, financed in part by foreign capital.  The fate of the Revolution was in his hands.  I don't know what Stalin did, exactly, but there is no doubt he had to cast a wide net and that some good Communists and loyal Party members were caught up in it.

I'm sure whatever he did was justified in his and fellow travelers minds. last i read his purges killed 620k to 2 million. Makes the yanks look like pikers.

Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 30, 2008, 09:29:37 AM
I think Stalin was a whole lot worse than the US has ever been, being as his excesses were due to incompetence in determining who was actually guilty of subversion. Stalin betrayed the Revolution, and was at least as incompetent as Mao was with his failed Cultural Revolution and his disastrous and poorly named Great Leap Forward.


Stalin executed and banished anyone who might be suspected in his mind or the minds of his henchmen.

He did more harm than fools like the Dulles Brothers because far more power than they did.

The saying "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" comes to mind.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 30, 2008, 10:55:57 AM
First of all, to answer plane, "Why bring up Viet Nam," etc., I am sure that one of America's biggest crimes of the 20th century is something he would like to keep buried forever, or if that should turn out to be impossible, then whitewashed by the usual U.S. bullshit about the benevolence of such atrocities as Operation Phoenix, which targeted the VC infrastructure (teachers, tax collectors, Scout leaders, village women's organizations, etc.) for torture and murder, usually in such horrific circumstances that no one would ever again want to make the same "mistake" as participating in the Viet Cong.  In the end, some 60,000 extremely brave and extremely unfortunate human beings were tortured to death under this program.  True enough, it was not, strictly speaking, an Army or Marine program, it was the CIA's baby.  But IMHO, they all work for the same boss and they all represent but one nation.

When the issue of U.S. servicemen's misconduct was raised, plane IMMEDIATELY turned to the African Union in Africa, the UN in Africa, Canada in Africa and BT IMMEDIATELY turned (but of course!!) to Stalin.  However, there are some limits, apparently.  plane is completely at a loss to understand why I would turn to the U.S. in Viet Nam.

Stalin's purges were unfortunate necessities and in hindsight perhaps might have been accomplished with the spilling of some innocent blood, how much we will never know.  The Revolution was in danger and had Stalin done nothing to counteract the danger, it is certain that a combination of Trotskyite and Western subversion would have rendered it incapable of resisting Hitler's attack.  As it was, the Revolution and the Red Army survived to destroy fascism in Europe forever (with the sole exception of the non-belligerent fascists of the Iberian Peninsula, who basically earned their way out of the catastophe, Spain by not joining in when beseeched by Hitler, Portugal by permitting first British, then U.S. operation of radar in the Azores to protect the North Atlantic convoys through part of their route.)  Instead of routinely slandering Stalin, we should all recognize him as the leader whose forces killed more Germans than any other Allied power and who was the main engine in the destruction of Nazi Germany.  Were mistakes made in the purges?  Sure.  Was every mistake avoidable?  Get real.  What would have happened had the purges not been undertaken?  You wouldn't even want to think about it.  Start with the triumph of Nazi Germany allied with fascist Russia, and take it from there.

As far as the numbers allegedly killed in the purges (and the Ukrainian famine, which in fact resulted from hoarding by selfish kulaks) these seem to grow exponentially every time I read about them.  I fully expect that in another twenty years, some "scholar" will "prove" that the death toll exceeded the actual population by a factor of some 20%.  I don't trust any one of the numbers I've seen and I've never seen any that didn't depend on sources that were founded in anti-Soviet and anti-Semitic agitation.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: BT on July 30, 2008, 01:21:51 PM
Quote
As far as the numbers allegedly killed in the purges (and the Ukrainian famine, which in fact resulted from hoarding by selfish kulaks) these seem to grow exponentially every time I read about them. 

It wouldl be interesting to see what number the Lancet could come up with.

Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Plane on July 30, 2008, 05:54:41 PM
First of all, to answer plane, "Why bring up Viet Nam," etc., I am sure that one of America's biggest crimes of the 20th century is something he would like to keep buried forever, or if that should turn out to be impossible, then whitewashed by the usual U.S. bullshit about the benevolence of such atrocities as Operation Phoenix, which targeted the VC infrastructure (teachers, tax collectors, Scout leaders, village women's organizations, etc.) for torture and murder, usually in such horrific circumstances that no one would ever again want to make the same "mistake" as participating in the Viet Cong.  In the end, some 60,000 extremely brave and extremely unfortunate human beings were tortured to death under this program.  True enough, it was not, strictly speaking, an Army or Marine program, it was the CIA's baby.  But IMHO, they all work for the same boss and they all represent but one nation.

When the issue of U.S. servicemen's misconduct was raised, plane IMMEDIATELY turned to the African Union in Africa, the UN in Africa, Canada in Africa and BT IMMEDIATELY turned (but of course!!) to Stalin.  However, there are some limits, apparently.  plane is completely at a loss to understand why I would turn to the U.S. in Viet Nam.

Stalin's purges were unfortunate necessities and in hindsight perhaps might have been accomplished with the spilling of some innocent blood, how much we will never know.  The Revolution was in danger and had Stalin done nothing to counteract the danger, it is certain that a combination of Trotskyite and Western subversion would have rendered it incapable of resisting Hitler's attack.  As it was, the Revolution and the Red Army survived to destroy fascism in Europe forever (with the sole exception of the non-belligerent fascists of the Iberian Peninsula, who basically earned their way out of the catastophe, Spain by not joining in when beseeched by Hitler, Portugal by permitting first British, then U.S. operation of radar in the Azores to protect the North Atlantic convoys through part of their route.)  Instead of routinely slandering Stalin, we should all recognize him as the leader whose forces killed more Germans than any other Allied power and who was the main engine in the destruction of Nazi Germany.  Were mistakes made in the purges?  Sure.  Was every mistake avoidable?  Get real.  What would have happened had the purges not been undertaken?  You wouldn't even want to think about it.  Start with the triumph of Nazi Germany allied with fascist Russia, and take it from there.

As far as the numbers allegedly killed in the purges (and the Ukrainian famine, which in fact resulted from hoarding by selfish kulaks) these seem to grow exponentially every time I read about them.  I fully expect that in another twenty years, some "scholar" will "prove" that the death toll exceeded the actual population by a factor of some 20%.  I don't trust any one of the numbers I've seen and I've never seen any that didn't depend on sources that were founded in anti-Soviet and anti-Semitic agitation.


The CIA should be comared with the NKVD , and I am not worried about the comparison.

The behavior of Soviet troops , I do not expect to be nearly as bad as NKVD nor do I need to lump them together to make the comparison, still I understand that in the early period of Soviet occupation of Germany unraped women were scarce.


Still I was not hopeing to jump back decades and compare us all for all time. I was talking about recently and currently , the UN troops that are being used as occupation forces have as spotty a record as any troops in the world today , that is a fair comparison to the trouble in Iraq.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 30, 2008, 08:27:39 PM
The CIA should be comared with the NKVD , and I am not worried about the comparison.
==========================
No.
The CIA should be compared with what it could have been had it not been doing the bidding of the oligarchy, and instead sought to inculcate the actual democratic and egalitarian beliefs of most Americans.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 30, 2008, 10:08:12 PM
<<The CIA should be comared with the NKVD , and I am not worried about the comparison.>>

Well, maybe you should be, because with all due respect, I don't think you know all that much about the NKVD.  Probably 100% of what you have heard about them comes from anti-Soviet sources.

<<The behavior of Soviet troops , I do not expect to be nearly as bad as NKVD nor do I need to lump them together to make the comparison, still I understand that in the early period of Soviet occupation of Germany unraped women were scarce.>>

Maybe you should read up a little bit more on the behaviour of the German troops in Russia, you can't know very much about it if you are still concerned about the poor, innocent, raped women of Germany, almost all of whom lived to tell about it.  Unlike the dozens of millions of Russian civilian victims of the German Army, police and SS units in Russia and the six million murdered Jews.


<<Still I was not hopeing to jump back decades and compare us all for all time. I was talking about recently and currently , the UN troops that are being used as occupation forces have as spotty a record as any troops in the world today , that is a fair comparison to the trouble in Iraq.>>

No, I think you are dead wrong.  I would think if you compared civilian death tolls, the U.S. is the undisputed champ.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Plane on July 30, 2008, 11:23:22 PM
No, I think you are dead wrong.  I would think if you compared civilian death tolls, the U.S. is the undisputed champ.

That is because the Lancet has been ignoreing Rawanda.
Title: Re: What? AP says we're WINNING in Iraq?
Post by: Michael Tee on July 30, 2008, 11:49:17 PM
<<That is because the Lancet has been ignoreing Rawanda.>>

Rwanda was 800,000 killed, Viet Nam was 2,000,000 and Indonesia was 500,000, Guatemala 100,000.  Don't be so modest, you guys are the no. 1 killers of civilians world-wide, hands down.  500,000 children just in Iraq, just during the embargo, and Madelyne Albright said it was "worth it."