LOL You seem to get corrected quite often. Mayhaps you oughta leave politics to the adults?
22nd August 2007 03:32 PM
Chuck
Ha ha ha. I knew you'd chime in with an insult.
22nd August 2007 03:36 PM
glencar
I'd call it a trenchant observation. You constantly post items of dubious provenance & veracity & you're constantly called for it yet you continue to do so. Keep it up & your credibility will suffer even within the Pelosi crowd.
22nd August 2007 04:18 PM
Chuck
quote:glencar wrote:
I'd call it a trenchant observation. You constantly post items of dubious provenance & veracity & you're constantly called for it yet you continue to do so. Keep it up & your credibility will suffer even within the Pelosi crowd.
I might lose credibility with followers of the liberal wing of imperialist capital?
GEORGE W. Bush’s strategy in Iraq is to keep the U.S. occupation going indefinitely--these days, we’re told, to prevent Iraq from becoming a base for al-Qaeda in the “war on terror.”
So it’s little wonder that so many people have looked to the field of Democratic presidential candidates to provide a plan to bring the troops home. But these Democrats are promoting plans that would keep the U.S. military on the ground in Iraq for the foreseeable future.
“Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years,” the New York Times observed.
Take, for example, John Edwards, who claims to be one of the most antiwar of the Democratic contenders. “We’ve got to be prepared to control a civil war if it starts to spill outside the borders of Iraq,” Edwards declared in a recent candidates’ debate.
Then there’s Barack Obama, who argues that it’s necessary to “leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis,” as the Times put it.
In other words, the major Democratic presidential contenders are struggling to redefine “withdrawal” to mean downsizing--but not ending--the occupation.
In fact, during the seven months they’ve held Congress, the Democrats not only failed to stand up to the Bush administration on Iraq, but they voted to give Bush even more war funding for the war than he requested.
At the very moment that the Democrats could drive a nail into the coffin of the Bush regime by appealing to the antiwar majority, the party’s presidential candidates are instead extending a helping hand to Bush by buttressing his central claims about the war.
Thus, Hillary Clinton argued in the recent debate that if there’s any “possibility that al-Qaeda would stay in Iraq, I think we need to stay focused on trying to keep them on the run, as we currently are doing in Al Anbar province.” George W. Bush couldn’t have said it better.
The party’s leadership is now attempting the ultimate high-wire act on Iraq--playing to antiwar sentiment among its base, while lowering expectations and keeping all options on the table in the event that a Democrat lands in the White House.
In early August, Obama said that he ruled out the use of nuclear weapons against “terrorist targets” in Pakistan and Afghanistan--hardly a controversial point of view.
Immediately, however, candidate Clinton went on the offensive, calling Obama “unpresidential” and irresponsible for foreswearing the use of nuclear weapons. “I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons,” said Clinton.
For his part, Obama threatened to pursue Osama bin Laden into Pakistan, with or without the permission of Pakistan’s government. “Let me make this clear: There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans,” warned Obama. “They are plotting to strike again...If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
Democrats--especially those in Congress--are paying the price for promising to end the war while allowing its escalation. According to a Gallup poll, just 14 percent of Americans express confidence in Congress--the lowest number since the organization began tracking government institutions 34 years ago.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WHAT’S BEHIND the Democrats’ failure to stand up to Bush? The fundamental issue is the Democrats’ historic role as a party of U.S. imperialism--one just as committed as the Republicans to maintaining Washington’s world dominance. It’s true that Democrats have occasionally swung to the left to capture antiwar sentiment--as, for example, in the 1972 presidential campaign of George McGovern, which tapped into the movement against the Vietnam War.
But it was Democratic President Lyndon Johnson who dramatically escalated that war. More recently, Bill Clinton presided over the expansion of NATO and a series of “humanitarian” military interventions, including the invasion of Haiti and the war over Kosovo in the Balkans.
Today, Democrats are as committed to the project of dominating the Middle East and the world’s oil supply as the Republicans--and they are promoting policies with these priorities, even as they mouth antiwar rhetoric to appeal for votes.
As the 2008 campaign wears on and the Iraq occupation lurches into new crises, the Democrats may again tack left. But it’s clear that any real shift in U.S. politics around the war will come from pressure of grassroots antiwar activists.
22nd August 2007 05:19 PM
Chuck
The Iraqi resistance gets my vote.
22nd August 2007 05:56 PM
the good
quote:Chuck wrote:
The Iraqi resistance gets my vote.
So go over there and die for Allah.
22nd August 2007 06:15 PM
Some Guy
quote:Jumacfly wrote:
politics sucks so I won t post in this thread, I prefer weeding with Joey while listening to Emotional Rescue.
Now feel free to fight guys
my nizzle.
22nd August 2007 06:56 PM
Chuck
"So go over there and die for Allah."
I'll do that when you go over there and die for US imperialist hegemony.
22nd August 2007 06:58 PM
Brainbell Jangler
quote:Promo wrote:
Bob Dylan knows.
And I'll bet Alan Freed did
There are things in night
That are better not to behold
22nd August 2007 07:07 PM
Brainbell Jangler
quote:glencar wrote:
I'd call it a trenchant observation. You constantly post items of dubious provenance & veracity & you're constantly called for it yet you continue to do so. Keep it up & your credibility will suffer even within the Pelosi crowd.
Trenchant, provenance and veracity in one post? Lil Fiji would have a fit if I posted high-priced vocabulary like that.
22nd August 2007 07:25 PM
BONOISLOVE
This thread confusesd the Bono and maks him bite his nails (although he actually pays Eno the big dough so he can chew his own dirty pushy lirtle hands. Try not to get in the way with my china dishes, you bastard!)
You have to SEIZE the day, gentlemen. And be patient for our latest CD!!!
22nd August 2007 08:07 PM
pdog
quote:Chuck wrote:
Ronald Reagan on Dubya:
'A moment I've been dreading. George brought his ne're-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida. The one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work.'
From the just published REAGAN DIARIES. The entry is dated May 17, 1986.
I don't care if Reagan said that or not... It's fucking true...
22nd August 2007 08:51 PM
Chuck
quote:pdog wrote:
I don't care if Reagan said that or not... It's fucking true...
From the Beast's 50 most loathsome people in America 2006:
Charges: This spoiled, whiny pinhead is, regrettably, responsible for the nauseating fiasco he's made of America and the world. Employs an effective strategy of creating so many deplorable scandals that it's impossible for anyone to keep up, guaranteeing that most will slip by with little notice. Has managed to staff the entire federal regulatory system with obedient corporate drones intent on destroying it from within. More concerned with the fate of discarded embryos than the actual humans being shot at from both sides in an idiot war he conned us into. Is clearly annoyed to be president at this point. Dumber than Paris Hilton and almost as popular.
Exhibit A: "The point now is how do we work together to achieve important goals. And one such goal is a democracy in Germany."
Sentence: Trapped in a library with no picture books.
22nd August 2007 08:53 PM
BONOISLOVE
"Dumber than Paris Hilton and almost as popular"
Joey?
22nd August 2007 08:54 PM
Chuck
Divide et Impera
The US is using a hoary imperial tactic dating back to the Romans to dominate Iraq and to justify a long-term military presence in the country
A US-financed program to build a Sunni paramilitary Guardian organization in Iraq, and US proposals for a soft partition of the country, are the latest steps in a divide and rule strategy the US is pursuing to keep Iraqis fighting among themselves so they won’t fight the occupation. Sectarian strife also provides the US with the pretext it needs to establish a long-term military presence in the country.
The US occupation authority has made ethnicity and religion salient in Iraq, where once it was a matter of little moment in the daily political lives of Iraqis. The US organized elections and the army along sectarian lines. It decided which parties could run in elections, favoring those that emphasized religious affiliations (Sunni vs. Shia) and ethnicity (Arab vs. Kurd), while banning the largest non-sectarian party, the Baath party. Key government positions were doled out along sectarian lines. The interior ministry was turned over to the Badr Brigade, a sectarian Shia paramilitary organization. From head to toe, Iraq has been transformed from a secular society into one in which religious and ethnic identity matter. Imagine the Department of Homeland Security being turned over to the KKK, the Pentagon to Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, while the Democrat and Republican parties are banned and replaced by religious and ethnic parties. If ever there was a recipe to get people fighting among themselves, this is it.
The most recent manifestation of the US divide and rule policy is a program to create a Sunni paramilitary Guardian force whose mandate is to protect Sunni neighborhoods (1). Imagine Washington creating a Black paramilitary Guardian force, a White paramilitary Guardian force, and a Hispanic paramilitary Guardian force in the US. The effect in sparking racial tension would be the same.
Now, some US policy makers are talking about partitioning Iraq into Kurd, Sunni and Shia regions. Leading advocates include senior politicians and US ruling class foundations. Joseph Biden, chairman of the US Foreign Relations Committee and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination endorses “soft” partition, as does Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the influential Council on Foreign Relations (2). Last year, the two put together the Biden-Gelb plan, which calls for a “soft” partition of Iraq. Soft partition would see Iraq divided into three distinct ethno-religious regions: Kurdistan, Shiastan and Sunnistan, held together by a weak federal government.
Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, argues the “time may be approaching when the only hope for a more stable Iraq is soft partition (3).” The Brookings Institution, associated with the Rockefellers, is one of the most influential US ruling class policy-making organizations.
Western politicians portray Iraq as a country whose simmering sectarian tensions were held in check by the brutal repression of Saddam Hussein, a Sunni who ruled on behalf of the Sunni population and its political vehicle, the Baath party. It’s only now that Mr. Hussein’s tyranical rule has ended that sectarian conflict has slipped its restraints and come to the surface. At least, that’s the favored US view. Trouble is, it’s a crock of shit. When “the Committee of Debaathification issued a list of 100,000 senior Iraqi Baathists who would not be allowed to enjoy government posts,” 66,000 of them turned out to be Shiites (4). And anyone who cared to check the deck of cards used to list the 55 top Iraqi officials the US invasion force wanted dead or alive, would discover that half were Shiite, and the remainder a mix of Sunnis, Christians and Kurds (5).
The former Ottoman territory that is now Iraq was governed as a single territory before 1880. The three provinces that were pieced together in 1921 to form modern Iraq had no “clear sectarian identities (6).” “For much of Iraq’s history, the two communities (Shia and Sunni) co-existed peacefully (7).”
Partitioning the country would be no mean feat. “The geographic boundaries do not run toward partition. There is no Sunnistan or Shiastan.” On the contrary, conditions are “highly commingled” with people “totally intermixed, especially in the major cities (8).” Five million Iraqis would have to be moved were the country to be divided into homogeneous ethno-religious slices (9).
More importantly, most Iraqis don’t want their country partitioned. “Apart from the Kurds in the north, there is no unanimous, popular demand for federalism or soft partition or any partition at all (10).”
The 1920 Revolution Brigades, one of three resistance groups to form the political office of the Iraqi resistance, rejects the idea of a sectarian division in Iraq. “Our position,” says its spokesman, “is that there are two kinds of people in Iraq: not Sunni and Shia, Kurdish and Arab, Muslim and Christian, but those who are with the occupation and those who are against it (11).” Sectarian divisions in Iraq have been amplified, he says, “as part of the ‘British imperial tactic of divide and rule (12).’”
The British employed the Roman principle of divide et impera to enslave colonial peoples. The US has taken up the tradition. “Our endeavour,” remarked Lieutenant-Colonel Coke, Commandant of Moradabad during the middle of the nineteenth century, “should be to uphold in full force the (for us fortunate) separation which exists between the different religions and races, not to endeavour to amalgamate them. Divide et impera should be the principle of Indian government (13).” Lord Elphinstone, Governer of Bombay, seconded the motion. “Divide et impera was the old Romon motto, and it should be ours (14).”
Adumbrating US imperial tactics in Iraq, the British devised a system of separate electorates in India and separate representation by religion, caste and ethnicity. Sound familiar? “The effect of this electoral policy,” observed one commentator, was “to give the sharpest possible stimulus to communal antagonism (15).” Prior to British rule in India there was no trace of the type of Hindu-Muslim conflict that later emerged under British rule (16).
“There is no natural inevitable difficulty from the cohabiting of differing races or religions in one country (17).” Mulsim and Hindu lived side-by-side peacefully until the British arrived in India; Sunni and Shiite commingled peacefully before the US imposed its occupation on the country. “The difficulties arise from social-political conditions. They arise, in particular, whenever a reactionary regime is endeavouring to maintain itself against the popular movement (18).”
In the USSR, diverse religions and races lived together amicably. Germans and Jews lived together peacefully under Germany’s Weimar Republic. It wasn’t until the Nazis emphasized national identity to weaken growing working class consciousness that systematic persecution of Jews began.
The strategy is simple. The last thing an occupying power wants is for the people it’s dominating to recognize their common situation and interests. Were they to do that, they might mobilize their energies to fight their common enemy. So occupied countries are organized by their occupiers along color, religious and ethnic fault-lines. Iraqis mustn’t think of themselves as Iraqis, but as Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, locked in a struggle with each other for access to resources.
The same is true within imperialist countries. People who work for a living mustn’t identify with their class, but with their ethnic, religious or racial cohorts, or must be imbued with patriotism, so that they equate their personal interests with those of their ruling class. In this way, Americans and Britons who have nothing to gain personally from their country’s occupation of Iraq, and much to lose, are bamboozled into supporting the war. Likewise, employees who have much to gain from coming together as a class are diverted by racism, religion and patriotism.
Another thing the US divide et impera tactic provides is an excuse to maintain a military presence in Iraq, and therefore, the continued domination of Iraq by Washington. For liberals, the argument that the US can’t leave Iraq now, otherwise a full-scale civil war will erupt, is decisive. But what this view ignores is that the possibility of a full-scale civil war is the product of the occupation itself. Had the US not fomented ethnic and religious divisions, the possibility of a civil war would never have arisen. On the other hand, were the US to cease efforts to pit Iraqi against Iraqi, the occupation – already greatly challenged by the resistance, despite US divide and rule tactics – would surely be defeated, an outcome the US will never willingly consent to. Soft partition, then, seems to those seeking both sectarian peace and US withdrawal, to be the answer. But slicing the country up into Sunnistan, Shiastan and Kurdistan, won’t set the stage for a US pull-out. On the contrary, “senior military planners caution that should partition become American policy, withdrawal almost certainly wouldn’t. Partition would require a stabilization force – code for American military presence – of 75,000 to 100,000 troops for years to come (19).” Heads I win, tails you lose. No matter what, the US figures to be hanging around Iraq for a long time, using sectarian tensions as the justification for its ongoing presence. What will foil these plans are non-sectarian groups, like the 1920 Revolution Brigades, that recognize there are only two kinds of people in Iraq: those who are with the occupation and those who are against it.
1. New York Times, August 19, 2007.
2. The CFR brings together CEOs, government and military officials and scholars, to recommend policy to the US State Department. The policy recommendations are typically responses to problems identified in corporate boardrooms, or exclusive clubs catering to the ultra-wealthy. The State Department relies on very little internal expertise, and uses the ruling class funded, directed and staffed think tanks and foundations to suggest policy. The CFR is the most important and influential of these organizations in matters of US foreign relations. See G. William Dumhoff, Who Rules America? McGraw-Hill, 2005.
3. New York Times, August 19, 2007.
4. Workers World, February 11, 2007.
5. Ibid.
6. Reidar Visser, who studies Iraq’s sectarian issues at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, quoted in New York Times, August19, 2007.
7. New York Times, March 26, 2006.
8. Joost Hilterman, deputy director of Middle East programs for the International Crisis Group, quoted in New York Times, August 19, 2007.
9. New York Times, August 19, 2007.
10. Hilterman.
11. Guardian (UK), July 19, 2007.
12. Ibid.
13. R. Palme Dutt, The Problem of India, International Publishers, New York, 1943, p. 98.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid., p. 101.
16. Ibid. p. 97.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. New York Times, August 19, 2007.
22nd August 2007 08:59 PM
Chuck
The constant references to the resistance movements in Anbar and other areas of Iraq as 'Al Qaeda', while certainly effective propaganda, are probably laughed at by experts.
Among the armed resistance groups based in the Sunni areas of Baghdad, Anbar, Salah ad-Din and Diyala are: The General Command of the Armed Forces, Resistance and Liberation in Iraq (mostly former Ba'athists); Popular Resistance for the Liberation of Iraq (secular Sunni outfit); Iraqi Resistance and Liberation Command (secular nationalist, anti-Ba'ath); Al 'Awdah (former security personnel of the Ba'ath); Harakat Ra's al-'Afa (Ba'athist, linked to tribes in Ramadi and Fallujah); Nasserites, (a small bunch of non-Ba'ath pan-Arab nationalists); Thuwwar al-'Aral-Kata'ib al-Anbar al-Musallahuh (anti-Saddam nationalists); General Secretariat for the Liberation of Democratic Iraq (leftist nationslists); Higher Command of the Mujahideen in Iraq (both religious and nationalist); Munazzamat al-Rayat al-Aswad (religious nationalist); Unification Front for the Liberation of Iraq (anti-Saddam and anti-Baath); National Front for the Liberation of Iraq (incorporates both former Republican Guards and Islamists); Jaish Ansar al-Sunnah (one of the largest groups in Iraq, incorporating both Kurdish and Sunni Arab Islamists); Mujahideen al ta'ifa al-Mansoura (Salafist, includes non-Iraqis); Kata'ib al Mujahideen fi al-Jama'ah al-Salafiyah fi al-'Arak (Salafists, with some connections to former Afghan groups); Jihad Brigades/Cells (Islamist guerillas); Armed Islamic Movement of the Al Qaeda Organization, Fallujah Branch (a little known group with some amount of support in the city); Jaish Muhammad (apparently one of the largest Islamist groups); Islamic Army of Iraq (Salafist); Jaish al Mahdi (you know these guys already, and they do sometimes operate in the north where there are Shi'ites living).
And that's far from comprehensive.
23rd August 2007 01:47 AM
Promo
Large numbers of Iraqi women are now prostituting themselves
to keep their children from starving.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/15/iraq.prostitution/index.html
More horrible crimes going unsolved.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.boy/index.html
Chuck and Promo: some of my favorite posters. Keep it up. Let the fat pigs stuff themselves to death.
23rd August 2007 07:13 AM
Chuck
Thanks for the kind words MrPleasant.
It seems Bush has given up trying to persuade the country and has focused on addressing the 30% of the population who will believe that puppies talk in Latin if the government tells them so....
One clear result is that he's doing his utmost to keep that 30% in its own little Idaho....
23rd August 2007 12:47 PM
monkey_man
23rd August 2007 03:11 PM
the good
quote:Chuck wrote:
"So go over there and die for Allah."
I'll do that when you go over there and die for US imperialist hegemony.
Yes, one of the hallmarks of imperialism is to hold free elections. Dude, don't talk back. Just go have your name listed with the martyrs. Do all of us a favor.
23rd August 2007 04:06 PM
glencar
quote:Brainbell Jangler wrote:
Trenchant, provenance and veracity in one post? Lil Fiji would have a fit if I posted high-priced vocabulary like that.
That's because it'd be obvious that you stole again.
23rd August 2007 05:03 PM
mojoman
quote:monkey_man wrote:
i'd vote for her!!!!
23rd August 2007 05:12 PM
Joey
" War analogy strikes nerve in Vietnam "
" President Bush touched a nerve among Vietnamese when he invoked the Vietnam War in a speech warning that death and chaos will envelop Iraq if U.S. troops leave too quickly.
People in Vietnam, where opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is strong, said Thursday that Bush drew the wrong conclusions from the long, bloody Southeast Asian conflict.
"Doesn't he realize that if the U.S. had stayed in Vietnam longer, they would have killed more people?" said Vu Huy Trieu of Hanoi, a veteran of the communist forces that fought American troops in Vietnam. "Nobody regrets that the Vietnam War wasn't prolonged except Bush."
He said U.S. troops could never have prevailed here. "Does he think the U.S. could have won if they had stayed longer? No way," Trieu said.
Vietnam's official government spokesman offered a more measured response when asked at a regular media briefing to comment on Bush's speech to American veterans Wednesday.
"With regard to the American war in Vietnam, everyone knows that we fought to defend our country and that this was a righteous war of the Vietnamese people," Foreign Ministry spokesman Le Dung said. "And we all know that the war caused tremendous suffering and losses to the Vietnamese people."
Dung said Vietnam hopes that the Iraq conflict will be resolved "very soon, in an orderly way, and that the Iraqi people will do their best to rebuild their country."
Although Vietnam opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Dung stressed that ties between Hanoi and Washington have been growing closer since the former foes normalized relations in 1995, two decades after the war's end.
In his remarks to U.S. veterans, Bush said a hasty retreat from Iraq would lead to terrible violence.
"One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields,'" Bush said.
Many people in Vietnam said Bush's comparison was ill-considered.
The only way to restore order in Iraq is for the United States to leave, said Trinh Xuan Thang, a university student.
"Bush sent troops to invade Iraq and created all the problems there," Thang said.
If the U.S. withdrew, he said, the violence might escalate in the short term but the situation would eventually stabilize.
"Let the Iraqis determine their fate by themselves," Thang said. "They don't need American troops there."
Ton Nu Thi Ninh, former chairwoman of the National Assembly's committee on foreign affairs, said Bush was unwise to stir up sensitive memories of the Vietnam War.
"The price we, the Vietnamese people on both sides, paid during the war was due to the fact that the Americans went into Vietnam in the first place," Ninh said. '
quote:Joey wrote:
" War analogy strikes nerve in Vietnam "
" President Bush touched a nerve among Vietnamese when he invoked the Vietnam War in a speech warning that death and chaos will envelop Iraq if U.S. troops leave too quickly.
People in Vietnam, where opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is strong, said Thursday that Bush drew the wrong conclusions from the long, bloody Southeast Asian conflict.
"Doesn't he realize that if the U.S. had stayed in Vietnam longer, they would have killed more people?" said Vu Huy Trieu of Hanoi, a veteran of the communist forces that fought American troops in Vietnam. "Nobody regrets that the Vietnam War wasn't prolonged except Bush."
He said U.S. troops could never have prevailed here. "Does he think the U.S. could have won if they had stayed longer? No way," Trieu said.
Vietnam's official government spokesman offered a more measured response when asked at a regular media briefing to comment on Bush's speech to American veterans Wednesday.
"With regard to the American war in Vietnam, everyone knows that we fought to defend our country and that this was a righteous war of the Vietnamese people," Foreign Ministry spokesman Le Dung said. "And we all know that the war caused tremendous suffering and losses to the Vietnamese people."
Dung said Vietnam hopes that the Iraq conflict will be resolved "very soon, in an orderly way, and that the Iraqi people will do their best to rebuild their country."
Although Vietnam opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Dung stressed that ties between Hanoi and Washington have been growing closer since the former foes normalized relations in 1995, two decades after the war's end.
In his remarks to U.S. veterans, Bush said a hasty retreat from Iraq would lead to terrible violence.
"One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields,'" Bush said.
Many people in Vietnam said Bush's comparison was ill-considered.
The only way to restore order in Iraq is for the United States to leave, said Trinh Xuan Thang, a university student.
"Bush sent troops to invade Iraq and created all the problems there," Thang said.
If the U.S. withdrew, he said, the violence might escalate in the short term but the situation would eventually stabilize.
"Let the Iraqis determine their fate by themselves," Thang said. "They don't need American troops there."
Ton Nu Thi Ninh, former chairwoman of the National Assembly's committee on foreign affairs, said Bush was unwise to stir up sensitive memories of the Vietnam War.
"The price we, the Vietnamese people on both sides, paid during the war was due to the fact that the Americans went into Vietnam in the first place," Ninh said. '
Yes, one of the hallmarks of imperialism is to hold free elections. Dude, don't talk back. Just go have your name listed with the martyrs. Do all of us a favor.
LOL! You make a fetish of democracy in the imperialist First World.
Democracy in the First World is materially sustained by the LACK of democracy in the (neocolonial) Third World. Due to the productive interconnection of the Third and the First Worlds (one supplies raw materials while the other processes them; one supplies the cheap labor while the other furnishes the capital that sets it to task), it's meretricious to posit democracy in the First World: it's like George Washington saying 'we've got democracy here... er, as long as you look past the slaves'---only now, thanks to the expanding international division of labor (globalization) it's easier than ever to 'look past the slaves.'
23rd August 2007 06:08 PM
Chuck
"Nowhere do 'politicians' form a more separate, powerful section of the nation than in North America. There, each of the two great parties which alternately succeed each other in power is itself in turn controlled by people who make a business of politics, who speculate on seats in the legislative assemblies of the Union as well as of the separate states, or who make a living by carrying on agitation for their party and on its victory are rewarded with positions. It is well known that the Americans have been striving for 30 years to shake off this yoke, which has become intolerable, and that in spite of all they can do they continue to stink ever deeper in this swamp of corruption."
Frederick Engels, Introduction to Marx's 'The Civil War in France', (International 1940, p.20), 1891.
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour
NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
