no, they will not forget the horrors of Saddam. They will not forget how the french,germans,russians,and the UN sold them out for badly needed cash. The will not forget the pacifascists that consider them so sub-human they do not deserve freedom and should remain under a deadly regime - or are oppose their freedom just because the oppose their liberators and exploit them by using pictures of their suffering because it is real good agitprop




and I will not forget
RACHEL CORRIE!

Yeah, that's right. We anti-war protesters are "pacifascists" - 'cos we don't think the best way to "liberate" Iraqis is to blow them to bits.

"Pacifascists" - you really are a sick bastard aren't you, Guy?

To equate peaceniks with fascists - nationalist warmongers who would kill their political, social and racial opponents and who unleashed the Holocaust - just because you think it is the ultimate insult is really twisted. Seriously.

The only people who consider Iraqis "sub-human" are the US/UK leaders who regard the deaths of 500,000 kids under sanctions acceptable because they are not white.

And who consider their deaths as pawns for an imperialist power struggle in the Middle East acceptable "collateral damage."

We are not "exploiting" their suffering for "agitprop", arsehole - these images are being shown because our official/state/millionaire media does not want them to be seen.

And another thing - if Iraqis are so glad that the good ol' USA is liberating them from the regime it helped to establish and arm in the first place, then how come (å la Vietnam) they are overwhelmingly resisting the illegal invasion and occupation? Huh?

How come anti-Saddam dissidents are re-entering Iraq in order to take up arms against UK/US forces? Answer: Because, funnily enough, people tend to react rather badly to armed troops bombing and invading their country.

The "coalition" is no more 'liberating' Iraq than the Red Army would have been 'liberating' Britain if it had marched in during the Cold War.

Finally - how dare you soil the memory of Rachel Corrie with your sick ranting? She was campaigning against Israel's illegal occupation - of a similar stamp to what is happening in Iraq!

Rachel Corrie was on OUR side, prick, not yours or the warmongers.

God, some people really are stupid (I don't believe in evil).

MM

You see, you are only pacifists when you're talking about US action not at the whim of the United Neofascists - scratch a pacifist and you'll find a Stalinist underneath. You'd exterminate me in a moment because I don't believe in your version of utopia that has only been proven successful in creating poverty and dead bodies.

As for Rachel.... well if you do not understand why I won't forget her ....

backside: Why are you counting Iraqi soldiers? Just because they're Iraqi doesn't mean they're legitimate targets? How about the women and children that the Fedayeen Saddam are shooting, torturing, and holding hostage so their menfolk fight? You must have missed that on the news.

Oh, by the way...the US/UK soldiers are not mercenaries...they volunteered to serve. Duh. Mercenaries are in it for the money...and believe me, no one joins the service for the money.

Mad Monk: Before you get all bent out of shape about the children who died under the sanctions, may I remind you that the entire UN Security Council approved the sanctions. If you're gonna blame somebody, blame everybody. Furthermore, had Saddam complied with the UN resolutions and the terms of the cease-fire in '91, no sanctions would have been required. Now, how can you blame anyone but Saddam for that? Please tell me how anyone else can be responsible for Saddam not complying. Perhaps even, if he had not spent all that food-for-oil cash on palaces and illegal wepaons the French, Russians, and Germans sold him, those half-million children would be alive today.

Nope. None of your criticisms of my criticisms hold water. Unsurprisingly, as you almost as ill-informed as IMC's old friend Harlequin.

I am NOT a cheerleader for the UN. I would have opposed this war with or without UN backing. "United NeoFacists?" There you go again. Histrionic sloganising in place of any sensible analysis.

The UN is a sadly ineffectual and corrupt defunct organisation, NOT an evil fascist plot. You sound like a loony redneck survivalist. Get a grip.

HOW on EARTH can anyone equate pacifism with Stalinism? Especially when I made a clear point that a Red Army invasion would not have been a liberation, but rather an imperialist invasion.

Pacifism is NOT a political creed, it transcends politics, encompassing socialists, liberals, Tories, Christians and anyone else who doesn't think KILLING PEOPLE is acceptable. OK?

DON'T get hysterical about people (apparently, I don't recall even mentioning it) wanting to commit "genocide" against warmongers/apologists like yourself.

Regrettably I believe you have every right to hold your views, wrong-headed and obnoxious as they are.

"Exterminate you in a moment?" Bollocks. Calm down and stop trying to act like a fearless martyr - nobody wants to kill you, just wind you up a bit.

Peace campaigners tend to be against killing. I really don't understand why you don't get this. Its bloody obvious.

You are nothing more than a useful idiot for the rich elite that run the world - hardly a persecuted minority.

And finally, the responsibly for the sanctions does not solely lie with Saddam. If you actually bothered studying the history of the early 1990s, rather than spewing out officially approved media briefings, you would see a sorry tale of US goalpost-changing intended to put Iraq in an impossible position.

One marvellous effect of the sanctions (are you ready?) was to place the entire economy of Iraq under the absolute control of the Saddam regime, because everything had to be accounted for. All free enterprise disappeared and his squalid dictatorship gained even more of a stranglehold.

Saddam is a Western creation. He just is. End of story. It is rank hypocrisy for these creators to then attack peace campaigners with claims that they are letting him off the hook.

I didn't sell him anthrax and VX gas, Donald Rumsfeld *did.*

ONCE AGAIN - We hate Saddam too. But if your talking about building huge palaces while people go hungry, what about the Millenium Dome? Have you seen the opulence in Washington just half a mile from starving children and grinding poverty?

Stop being such a bunch of establishment muck-swallowing hypocrites. It's pathetic.

Oh - and suppose you tell me why Rachel Corrie would have supported the attack on Iraq, rather than clever dicking about with ellipsises...

Peace and love and tolerance for the ignorant :-)

MM

...but here's a thing or two:

Pacifism believes that killing people is unacceptable. That's fine; a noble and worthy belief. However, until everyone on earth believes that way, one single nation, one single group can overrun the entire planet. Sometimes a wrong must be committed to prevent an even larger wrong. Wishing won't make it go away; demonstrations won't make it go away. Bin Laden and Saddam and company would like to kill peaceniks, too.

Sorry, I don't believe your version of history. It's fairly simple: break the rules, live with the consequences. Saddam broke the rules...and now he's got to deal with it.

Your moral equivalence of equating the Saddam regime's criminal misuse of oil-for-food money and the Millenium Dome is ludicrous but not surprising. Can you say "free enterprise"? The money that was spent on the Dome was spent voluntarily...it was not destined to feed children. Are there hungry people in America? Yes. Does America regularly regularly torture children and rape their mothers in front of them? No. Spare us your moral equivalncies; they just don't hold water.

I spoke of Rachel Corrie in my previous post, but it didn't make it to the board. Rachel Corrie would have opposed the war on the Iraqi regime because she apparently never met an Islamofascist she didn't like. She was on record as being against everything that America stands for...you know, freedom, self-expression, not exterminating Jews, etc. Her death was a tragedy, as are all deaths, but was of her own doing. I feel sorry for her parents' loss, but I can't generate much sympathy for her.

You said you don't believe in evil, but you believe in stupidity. I believe not only in evil, but that its continued existence and success requires exploitaion of the stupid. Unbelief in evil merely plays into it hands.

Dave

"Since when did ignorance become a point of view?" Dilbert

Sorry about that; kept getting a message that it didn't post...

Can't you stupid lefties see? These so-called 'civilians' dying in Iraq are all Muslims, and as we know, Muslims are Nazis, so they deserve to die!

I know what you'll say; what about the kids? But that just shows how naive you all are. Those aren't really kids, they're Islamofascist demon clones created by Saddam Bin Laden in his vast underground laboratory!

Why are you so blind? When the US/UK imprison, torture and kill, they do so in the name of Freedom-n-Democracy (TM). And that's a GOOD thing! Honestly, didn't any of you see Black Hawk Down?

Oh yeah, and anyone who replies to this is a guilt-ridden anti-semite, thousand times no returns, ner ner ner.

...having an intelligent conversation, a nonny mouse, please do.

Until then, you may feel free to be quiet if you can't make an honest attempt to understand someone else's opinion and twist the words of others to suit your own agenda.

Dave

trouble is dave, people who talk self-deluded shit, like you mate, aren't worth having a reasoned conversation with, coz you will continue to talk that shit until you are made to eat it. and u take yourself far too seriously to recognise satire when you see it.

...fowl, I love satire. Unfortunately, what a nonny mouse posted was pretty typical of what I've seen of the left's attitude towards the right.

Also, "coz you will continue to talk that shit until you are made to eat it" is your idea of a reasoned conversation? Ah, yes, I'm wriggling in the crushing grip of your reason! Please, master, may I study logic and debate at your feet?

...I love satire. But what I saw in a nonny mouse's post was a fairly typical commentary on the left's perception of the pro-action crowd.

So your idea of a reasoned conversation is "coz you will continue to talk that shit until you are made to eat it."?

Wow! I'm writhing in the crushing grip of your reason! Please, master, may I study logic and debate at your feet?