The Stupidity of the Anti-War Movement

Just last week, George Bush spoke about the Iraq war at the Philadelphia World Affairs Council. President Bush finished his speech early, so he was able to take some questions from the audience.

Anti-war stupidity appeared in the very first question:

President Bush, recognizing the treachery of the question, answered the question appropriately:

President Bush's answer triggered a flood of media coverage:

Bush Estimates Iraqi Death Toll in War at 30,000
Bush: 30,000 Iraqis Killed In War
Bush puts deaths of Iraqis at 30,000
Bush Puts Iraqi War Dead at More Than 30,000

The problem, however, is that the media focused only on the answer and not on the question. Once the media heard '30,000' they knew they had sufficient material to illustrate the apparent 'failure' in the Middle East - in spite of the fact that Bush's speech was about progress.

It matters little what George Bush's answer was. The real issue here is Didi Goldmark's question:

Didi is a complete fool to put insurgent deaths in the same category as Iraqi civilian, military, police and translator deaths. Iraqi insurgents will never demonstrate good citizenship. Those who serve Iraq in the capacity of military, police or translator, on the other hand, deserve the title of 'citizen.' Unfortunately, Didi is unable to make that distinction. She thinks that an insurgent death is the same as the death of an Iraqi citizen. Such questions are representative of the stupidity of the anti-war movement. Sites such as Iraq Body Count, Anti-War.com and Iraqi Coalition Casualties demonstrate the leftists' fascination with the deaths of the US and its allies.

Didi Goldmark's question may be the first sign of a new era where leftists count enemy deaths as coalition deaths.

 

porra to peidando fedido pra caralho, se fuder

 

You use too fine a knife, Squirl. Fuck a damned KBar! Best thing to do is shoot anything that moves, approach it cautiously when the shit stops flying, kick it, turn it over with your boot, and smash it or give it some more lead. Kill the mofo!

Smash his head till it pops like a pumpkin!

I'm just joking. But I think you always over-simplify.

 

Such a little foot makes a fine breakfast! Prepare a tourniquete. Save the rest for dinner. Rest of it is easily stored in an Alice Pack until dinner

 

In another war the US was in [undeclared, just like this one] when a hamlet [that's a village] was wiped out and there were piles of dead, the bean counters were told they were enemies. This made it easier [for a while] to counter 'anti-war' pests who were claiming hamlets [villages] were being burnt and the inhabitants shot.

Looks to me like the first question was framed in a way to avoid the fudging of numbers like above...

If you are Pro-War, there is something very wrong with you, man....

 

one death is a tragedy, a million is statistic.....do you know who said that, dont you?


ok now begin to count numbers

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
30000+ poor americans decieved by their goverment

 

Stupidy...

lets see:

For 8 long years the Islamic republic of Iran fought a bloody war against the arab Iraq of Saddam. They hoped to get control over the iraqui shi´ites and especially the holy sites of Kerbala, Nedjaf and the city of Basra.
The US-president rescued Saddam by supporting him and so Iran failed to reach its political target.

Then another US-president came, destroyed Saddam and his sunnite minority power-system in iraq. In a so called democratic election the iranians finally reached their target in Iraq: Their grand ajatollah Sistani, an iranian, controls the iraqi shi ´ites. And the shi´ites are the majority of the iraqi people. If the Grand Ajatollah tells them to vote, they vote. And so Iran has today control over Kerbala and Nedjaf. And also they control Basra. While the iraqi constitution officially allows women to have the same rights as in the west iraqi female students are only allowed to enter the University of Basra in the chador.

And in the actual election the shi´ite alliance got more than 50% of the votes in Bagdad.

So - THATS what I call stupidy: To make a senseless war against one anti-american only to place a new government of more anti-americans. While wasting the lifes of american soldiers.

So its really not interesting what Bush tells in his interviews or the media shows us.
The result will be the same - even if the media would support Bush, like they did when he made his funny shows like this ridiculous "Mission Accomplished stunt" on the aircraft carrier.

The result is that today Iran has more influence in iraq than ever before since Iraq was created after WW1.

 

Maybe the thread should be renamed 'The Ignorance of Squirl'

 

I just wonder what Mr.Bush and rest of US is going to do, if after the election group that should hold the power in the Iraq is religiously led shi´ite partie.

Announce that "no country has formed a democracy without "challenges, setbacks and false starts." and make a new elections? Just say "I told you that "the elections "won't be perfect." "??

besides, insurgents are iraqis. They just think they're "freedom fighters".

@squirl: And don't give me that crap about uniforms or "legal" army. I'd fight the guerilla war just like the insurgents are doing if I'd face a overwhelming enemy (in both materially and manpower)

 

I agree with you up to this point, but your next sentence departs from reality:

Wikipedia and several other articles explain how Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani does not believe in Islamic theocracy. The Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani therefore strongly disagrees with the Islamic leaders in Iran.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani (Iraq):

Let's see how that contrasts with the system of government in Iran:

Jaber Habib, a professor of politics at Baghdad University, reinforced the fact that Iran has little influence in Iraq:

This article further explains the differences between Iraqi Shia Islam and Iranian Shia Islam. You say that Iran has control over Iraq, but this is not borne out by the facts. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has no interest in creating an Islamic theocracy as Iran has done. And, due to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's high status among Iraqi Shiites, the majority of Iraq also has little interest in an Islamic theocracy.

You quoted Babek as though it was somehow evidence of my 'ignorance.' Figuratively speaking, your argument has just had its mount shot out from beneath it.

 

And why is that? Because of your response which, you have admitted yourself, came from a website? Dont get me wrong, wiki is a good site. But babek is Iranian. I know who I would trust for info.

Your ignorance knows no bounds. Same with your arrogance. I suppose the arrogance comes with the ignorance, since you are always forced to defend your extreme views.

 

Them arabs in Iran is a bad crowd.

 

The fact that most Iranians are of Persian decent serves as yet another divide between the Iraqi Shiites and the Iranian Shiites. Ironically, the al-Sadrs (Arab Shiites) favor the Iranian system of Islamic theocracy but are suspicious of Iranians:

There are many facets of this situation and I can see why babek could mix them up.

1. Though Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is Iranian (Persian), he does not agree with the form of theocracy began in Iran by fellow Persian Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Khomeini.

Babek did not realize this when he implied that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani receives orders from Iran:

As I have shown, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's Iranian background does not connect him to the doctrine of the Iranian clerics.

2. Though the al-Sadrs are Arabs, they agree with the form of theocracy began in Iran by Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Khomeneini (a Persian), yet remain suspicious of Iranians (Persians).

Not all Muslims are the same, divided as they are into Shia and Sunni sects. Those who think that Iran will gain control over Iraq, however, must learn that Shiites also are not all the same.

 

History shows that a country can only become democratic be itself, after it's tried various forms of goverment, from one extreme to the other over a period of time.

The questions with the developing nations are:

A> How much are they persecuted* in some form by an external goverment (the level of persecution by an external source seems to directly relate to the extremity of leadership a country has)

B> Because the world is now smaller how dangerous to the rest of us are extremist goverments.

Iran, at present is a good example, the present Goverment was elected because the population as a majority felt there was to much external pressure on there country by the Western goverments to conform to the Western way of thinking.

Because of this we now have a problem.


Mal

*persecuted, by this I mean exploited, persecuted, marginalised etc.

 

[troll]
Quote:
Originally Posted by biles
Them arabs in Iran is a bad crowd.
[/troll]

The fact that most Iranians are of Persian decent
and blah blah blah blah.

Hahaha.
I knew it. Just teasin ya.

Persians and arabs are incompatable.

 

What sort of historical wisdom does the world's policeman have?
Cops like to be the only ones in a nieghbourhood who have guns.
When was the last time those world's policemen people were bled white?
never, right?
Never


There was a boy in my nieghbourhood. He had money [his dad did]. He had nice clothes and a car at sixteen bought for him. he was on all the picked teams at school. He was member of student counsel.
he was a big fat fresh faced bully also.

he got his face smashed in one day after slamming the wrong boy into the lockers.
I mean he was beat bad.
If he had acted that way in a man's world [or perhaps in today's schools] he might have simply been killed.
Moose [that was his name], after having his face kicked in real bad, I mean REAL BAD, improved somewhat in his attitude.

Then again, Moose's family may have had money and some power, but they didn't have the will or the means to go out and burn half the houses in the nieghbourhood...

 

Germany, Japan and Italy being 3 notable exceptions. Iraq hopefully on the way to become the 4th?

 

Not quite. Islam and Islamic law have more influence in the government of Iran than the country's broader population does. This does not mean that there is no reform movement, however. Mohammad Khatami, president of Iran from 1997 to 2005, favored reform. This article mentions the Iranian reform movement:

Reformists are not well represented in the government of Iran, but they do exist.

I think it is inaccurate to say that "the population as a majority felt there was to much external pressure on there country by the Western goverments to conform to the Western way of thinking."

Iranians have access to the Western way of thinking, but they are not intimidated by it. The Iranian government may have recently banned Western music, but the citizens are unfazed: