Key Sunni ally of U.S. assassinated

[sirs]

<<Cool, AlQeada is equivalent to French Resistance fighters, fighting the Nazis.   Priceless >>

Uh, no, not exactly.  There are some important moral distinctions to be drawn between the two.  But if it helps you to think of them as equivalent, in order to understand the dynamics of occupation and resistance, by all means feel free to do so. 

Realizing how revisionist history is one of your coveted strengths, French resistance fighters were trying to beat back another nation's occupying military.  A nation planning on ruling from their capital.  A nation that was systematically exterminating millions.  That's what the French resistance were dealing with, while the French populace had no say in the matter....they were just pummelled, mercilessly. 

AlQeada is a terrorist organization, who's purpose is to kill innocent men, women, & children, specifically those not aligning with their version of the Koran.  The Iraqi populace was given a chance to choose freedom over oppression.  People chose and are fighting for that freedom, and we're helping them.  Your pathetic attempt to portray AlQeada & insurgent terrorists targeting and killing families & politicians trying to bring peace & freedom to their country as so called "freedom fighters" analogus to the French Resistance, is both demeaning to those heroic French resistance fighters & a disgusting show of blinded ignorance stemming from your abhorent hatred of anything Bush and the military.  Your pathetic attempts to build some implied foundation of how we're basically the Nazi occupation force, while AlQeada and its ilk are the French Reistance fighters is beyond contemtable, and a complete slap at those who risk everything to bring freedom to their respectful countries.

Then I remind myself of the source, and it's not quite as bothersome

[Michael Tee]

<<Realizing how revisionist history is one of your coveted strengths, French resistance fighters were trying to beat back another nation's occupying military.  A nation planning on ruling from their capital.  A nation that was systematically exterminating millions.  That's what the French resistance were dealing with, while the French populace had no say in the matter....they were just pummelled, mercilessly. >>

Ahh, thank you for your informative explanation of the French Resistance.  Recognizing your great knowledge of the subject, I am very hesitant to clash with you on it, but however, here goes.  IMHO, there were various reasons why French men and women joined the Resistance.  About a quarter to a third of them were Communists, and the same proportion (obviously with considerable overlap) were Jews.  They would have joined from a combination of ideological opposition to fascism and simple self-preservation - - kill the enemy before the enemy kills you.  The largest part of the non-Communist, non-Jewish elements did not join until after the establishment of the Service du Travail Obligatoire ("S.T.O.") which was the conscription of French youth for dangerous factory labour in Germany, then under non-stop heavy Allied air bombardment.  There were also regular Army officers who at various points in time decided to throw in their fortunes with de Gaulle, many for purely careerist motives, and conservative, Roman Catholic and aristocratic organizations, some even anti-Semitic, who joined in out of purely nationalistic motives.  There was no unified Resistance POV, at least not in the political sense.  In particular, that the Germans were "systematically exterminating millions" was of little interest to most Resistants (apart from those who happened to be Jews.)  The common thread that united all of them was that there was a foreign occupation which, for various reasons peculiar to themselves, each of the components of the Resistance found highly offensive, and each had come to the conclusion that the occupation had to be resisted by force.

You also seem to be confusing al Qaeda, the bin Laden organization responsible (allegedly) for the Sept. 11 attacks, with al Qaeda in Iraq, a Resistance organization which with bin Laden's permission has borrowed the al Qaeda name for the duration of the Resistance struggle in Iraq.  The latter organization has certainly spewed a lot of anti-American blather about the need to confront the Great Satan anywhere and everywhere he is found, kinda similar in an eerie way to the insane ravings of the right about "Islamofascism" and the global war of civilizations, but the fact is that you have a locally-focused group intent on repelling an infidel invasion, similar to the mujahideen who with other Afghan resistants fought the Russians in Afghanistan.  In all fairness to you, it's not inconceivable that after the inevitable victory in Iraq, these jihadis will turn their hands to a broader struggle, but living in the present time and the real world, I think all you have is a group that is fighting off an illegal, criminal invasion of a sovereign state.

That you are helping the Iraqi people to fight for freedom is at once your biggest and your most transparent lie.  The obvious goal of any imperialistic venture (always taken against, and only against, resource-rich nations like Iraq) is subjugation for profit.  The United States has NEVER brought democracy to any Middle Eastern country, quite the contrary in fact - - it has subverted and undermined the first democratically elected government of the Palestinians just as it overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh government of Iran.  Everywhere in the Middle East, they support dictatorial and oppressive regimes, as they once supported Saddam himself.  They concocted a giant lie - - the "threat" posed to the mighty U.S.A. by insignificant little Iraq - - then invaded, and then even after the "threat" was found to be non-existent, concocted new lies to explain their occupation.  Only the most stupid of the terminally stupid will believe that the U.S. is "helping the Iraqi people to fight for their freedom."  Any intelligent person recognizes that instantly for the crock of shit that it is.

[sirs]

Minus the ususal Tee-leaf (il)logic, let me highlight the one lie (noting so many to choose from, but I'll limit it) that's being brandished this go around. 

That you are helping the Iraqi people to fight for freedom is at once your biggest and your most transparent lie.  The obvious goal of any imperialistic venture (always taken against, and only against, resource-rich nations like Iraq) is subjugation for profit

In Tee's corner of the universe, it's just impossible to consider that a Free Iraq is a good thing, that a Free Iraq is good to & for America, that a Free Iraq is bad for militant Islam, and that people trying to help bring about a Free Iraq are anolgus to those who sympathized and helped Nazi Germany.  This effort, besides how pathetic a position it is, does try to accomplish one of his favorite tactics, connect present day U.S to 1930's Nazi Germany.  You see this tactic, of his, in neary every post, where anyone that doesn't support his position is a fascist, or a nazi, or both.  Terms he uses so often, the real meaning and severity of them contines to be eroded to a point where it becomes meaningless. 

No, the U.S. hasn't brought about Democracy to any other Arab country....WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO.  The only reason we're doing it here, is because we did take out an oppressive murderous regime, and to have left after that, would have been morally reprehensible, to the people still there.  Now, you COULD actually join the contingent of folks who have legtimate reasons to not support the war, either before we went in or even after.  Reasons that are actually thought provoking and rationale.  But no, you have to side yourself with the MoveOn mutants, and claim garbage like your above quote. 

As has been demonstrated many times before, IF that were the reason, IF we simply wanted to enrich ourselves and screw the people in the process, as you keep claiming is our agenda, we WOULD have annexed the entire area.  We have the military capability, and could have easily rationlized that it was to be the "Iraqis payment to the U.S. for taking out their dictator.  THAT would have flown, IF we were simply in this for the profit.  Strange thing, we allowed the iraqis to vote for their own form of Government, and despite risk of life and limb, came out in droves to not only vote for their own form of government, but their own leader, vs the one the americans would have wanted, their own consitution vs our "seperation of church and state" form, their own plan on profit sharing using their own oil reserves, vs our dicating when, to whom, and how much

But no, you have to base it on completely unsubstantiated innuendo, selected tweaking of facts, and your vast ability to grasp our "true intentions".   

[Michael Tee]

<<In Tee's corner of the universe, it's just impossible to consider that a Free Iraq is a good thing, that a Free Iraq is good to & for America, that a Free Iraq is bad for militant Islam . . . >>

Actally, it's not impossible to consider that.  I've considered it and found it to be laughable bullshit.  If a Free Iraq is good for America, etc., why not a free West Bank, a free Iran, and so on?  And if a free West Bank is good for America, why did America subvert the freely elected democratic government of the West Bank?  Why did America overthrow the freely elected government of Iran and bring in the Shah?  Why does America support dictatorships which are not free, do not hold elections, and have no intention of ever allowing elections (except for the sham elections staged by Egypt last year for show?)


<< . . . and that people trying to help bring about a Free Iraq are anolgus to those who sympathized and helped Nazi Germany. >>

Well the real analogy is to the citizens of any invaded country who support the foreign invaders.  The Nazi collaborators of Occupied France were just one obvious example.

<< This effort, besides how pathetic a position it is, does try to accomplish one of his favorite tactics, connect present day U.S to 1930's Nazi Germany.  >>

Well, I do point out the numerous similarities.  They're hard to miss.

<<You see this tactic, of his, in neary every post, where anyone that doesn't support his position is a fascist, or a nazi, or both. >>

Oh, please.  Those who support fascist tactics and policies are called fascists.  What am I supposed to call them, dolphins?

<< Terms he uses so often, the real meaning and severity of them contines to be eroded to a point where it becomes meaningless. >>

Actually most people with an IQ higher than room temperature recognize an analogy when they see one.

<<No, the U.S. hasn't brought about Democracy to any other Arab country....WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO. >>

Oh.  But somehow you were "supposed to" bring democracy to lucky, lucky Iraq?

<< The only reason we're doing it here, is because we did take out an oppressive murderous regime . . . >>

(which for most of its life you had supported and sponsored)

<< . . .  and to have left after that, would have been morally reprehensible, to the people still there. >>

Oh.  Yeah.  Leaving them to settle their own affairs would have been morally reprehensible.  LMFAO.  And, if I may ask, what is so reprehensible about allowing the people of a sovereign state to solve their own problems between themselves?

<< Now, you COULD actually join the contingent of folks who have legtimate reasons to not support the war, either before we went in or even after. >>

I thought honouring one's international obligations like the Charter of the United Nations, which the U.S. actually signed up to, was a fairly legitimate reason not to violate the sovereignty of another member state.

<<Reasons that are actually thought provoking and rationale.  >>

Oh, I get it.  Honouring one's solemn treaty obligations is boring and dull.  The U.S. needs "thought-provoking" and novel reasons to abide by its obligations.

<<But no, you have to side yourself with the MoveOn mutants . . . >>

Oh, sure, until I heard of it from MoveOn, I had no idea that the Charter of the United Nations even existed.

<< . . . and claim garbage like your above quote. >>

What quote?  This quote?  "That you are helping the Iraqi people to fight for freedom is at once your biggest and your most transparent lie.  The obvious goal of any imperialistic venture (always taken against, and only against, resource-rich nations like Iraq) is subjugation for profit?"

That's a great quote.  I wouldn't exactly call it garbage.  Unless of course it hit me where I lived and I had no logical rebuttal to it.

<<As has been demonstrated many times before, IF that were the reason, IF we simply wanted to enrich ourselves and screw the people in the process, as you keep claiming is our agenda, we WOULD have annexed the entire area.  We have the military capability, and could have easily rationlized that it was to be the "Iraqis payment to the U.S. for taking out their dictator.  THAT would have flown, IF we were simply in this for the profit. >>

Ahh, sirs, how soon we forget, eh?  How short the memory of the right-wing fruit-bat.  And where is Ahmed Chalabi now?   Remember now, sirs?  The good old days when this was seen as a walk in the park, where the hand-picked successor to Saddam Hussein stood waiting in the wings to be anointed, the whole charade set to unfold as Chalabi had promised the moronic Bush that it would, a secular Shi'a elected by a grateful public to rule over them, his earlier conviction for embezzlement notwithstanding, and hand over every concession known to God and man to Western, largely American, oil interests. 

Wow, but talk about major fuck-ups.  The easy victory, the smooth transition to a waiting puppet stooge, the abject surrender to overwhelming military power.  Bush was convinced.  Cheney and Rummy were convinced.  The green light went on, the pieces moved across the board and . . .  Oh God NO! NO! NO!  Unforeseen elements entered the plan.  This was real life the morons were up against, little brown puppets who actually shot back when fired upon, moved, hid, shot again and then moved on once again.  But we coulda . . .   But we shoulda . . .   Poor sirs.  Poor deluded sirs.  The plans were excellent but the execution failed.  Real life does have a habit of not conforming to plan, sirs, even to Republican plans.

You would have annexed the whole area, eh sirs?  And so you would.  But as my late father would say, "There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip."  You had a better plan than annexation, one that would have left you smelling like roses and looking like saints, but it just.  Didn't.  Come off.

<<Strange thing, we allowed the iraqis to vote for their own form of Government, and despite risk of life and limb, came out in droves to not only vote for their own form of government, but their own leader, vs the one the americans would have wanted, their own consitution vs our "seperation of church and state" form, their own plan on profit sharing using their own oil reserves, vs our dicating when, to whom, and how much>>

Uh, that's not exactly accurate either, sirs, but nothing you ever post is, so it doesn't really matter all that much.  First of all, they weren't really voting for "their own" form of government, since their own government (prior to its physical destruction by illegal invasion) was a socialist republic in which the natural resources were owned by the people.  Paul Bremner "gave" (i.e. forced upon) them a brand new Constitution made in America which among other things outlawed socialism and provided for private ownership of hte country's natural resources (the real point of the invasion.)   The choice of candidates was also severely restricted (very similar to the phony "elections" which the U.S. ran in South Viet Nam in order to create the illusion of democracy and so defuse popular opposition to that war.)   When all the necessary rigging had been set up, the people were allowed to "vote" in this meaningless charade, which then resulted in so many ludicrous "purple finger" photo ops that even today some idiots are still using the "purple finger" bullshit as evidence of a thriving democracy and a free country.  ("Free" under 160,000 U.S. rifles)

<<But no, you have to base it on completely unsubstantiated innuendo, selected tweaking of facts, and your vast ability to grasp our "true intentions".>>

Uh, NEWS FLASH, sirs, your "true intentions" aren't all that hard to grasp.  Most of the world has figured them out by now.  If you pulled your own head out of your ass, you could too.