Shiite cleric Al-Sadr asks his followers to oust U.S. forces in Iraq.
The powerful Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr says he wants to oust American forces from Iraq. According to a statement issued today, he's prepared to unleash his "guerrilla fighters to concentrate on pushing American forces out of the country."…
Article comments
226 - Les Slater
Workers are being bombarded with all kinds of nonsence. Some of it is that the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq. The Militant is there to give an accurate picture of what is happening.
Dave says, 'It even has a relatively positive spin - more of one than I provided in my very brief coverage.'
That's because Dave does, at various times, and to varying degrees, believe the propaganda about U.S. losing the war.
227 - Clavos
So, are you saying the US is winning the war?
228 - Les Slater
It will do whatever it has to to win it. It may not in the long run but there are no reasons to believe otherwise at the present time. For one thing the Democrats are totally in favor of winning the war. They want more money to be spent. This time limit thing is totally fake.
229 - Clavos
The Dems want to win??
Aren't they the ones saying we've already lost?
I DO believe they want more money spent (by the Republicans) so they can continue to point to the Bush people's spending as another reason for the public to vote for them on '08.
230 - Les Slater
"Aren't they the ones saying we've already lost?"
They are saying that Bush administration is not fighting this war to win. Remember Kerry?
"I DO believe they want more money spent (by the Republicans) so they can continue to point to the Bush people's spending as another reason for the public to vote for them on '08."
I am talking about upping what Bush asked for in his war budget. They will not deny that it was they that voted more than the President asked for. They are nervous though. If the war is lost they hope it will be on Bush's watch. They will be able to say that they did not obstruct. The current administration will not give up trying to win. If the Dems get in in '08 they will continue the war.
231 - Clavos
Les,
"If the Dems get in in '08 they will continue the war."
You have to be the only guy in the country who believes that. Why?
They've spent six years slamming the republicans for the war, and you think they're going to continue it if it isn't over by '08?
Why? So they won't be known as the party that lost it?
232 - Andy Marsh
In the country Clavos??? You meant only guy on the planet...didn't you?
233 - Les Slater
"Why? So they won't be known as the party that lost it?"
That's only a small part of it. The war was always supported by the vast majority of the Democrats. They complain that they were mislead but now that 'we' are in there we can't just pull out. They have no intension of forcing the current administration to pull out.
I'm not the only one that believes the war will continue if the Democrats get in office.
There are two main reasons that the U.S. feels it does not have to get out and can win this war. One is there is no force in Iraq or in the region that can defeat the U.S. forces, and two there is not only no anti-war movement in the U.S. but there is no widespread opposition to the war. The war is broader than Iraq. It includes Afghanistan, Phillipines and threatens to spread to Iran.
There are those who say that that troops would be better used in Afghanistan or to put down the 'real' enimy in Iran.
234 - Clavos
Les,
I see almost all of your points in 233. Except:
there is no widespread opposition to the war
I don't see that. It seems to me that every day, opposition to the war on the part of the voters is growing.
Don't you think the election results in November were in part due to growing opposition to the war?
235 - Les Slater
Clavos,
I had a discussion with a leading anti-war activist in Boston (by phone)about a week ago. She made the same points that you make. It started by me making the statement that there is no widespread anti-war sentiment in the U.S. She alluded to all the polls that show otherwise. I pointed out some of what the polls actually showed. There is a lot of questioning about the prosecution of the war in Iraq. The majority, however agrees that 'we' should not pull out because 'we' have an obligation not to just cut and run and leave the mess that 'we' created. Others say 'we' are stretched too thin and 'we' can't solve the 'real' problems in Afghanistan and Iran.
The elections did not show much of anything. The party out of office gained ground. The party in office is blamed for much that is happening. It does not mean the Democrats are going to do any better.
236 - Les Slater
Oh, the elections did show that the Democrats were successful in painting the whole Bush administration with the brush of the most extreme on the right that are part of his administration and supporters.
237 - Clavos
Hard to argue with that, Les.
I would call this "opposition to the war", though:
Others say 'we' are stretched too thin and 'we' can't solve the 'real' problems in Afghanistan and Iran.
Simply because logically, pulling out is the only solution to those problems, if one believes that.
This next is true (and is only opposition to the Administration, not the war):
There is a lot of questioning about the prosecution of the war in Iraq. The majority, however agrees that 'we' should not pull out because 'we' have an obligation not to just cut and run and leave the mess that 'we' created.
238 - Les Slater
Clavos,
"Simply because logically, pulling out is the only solution to those problems, if one believes that."
Iraq is only part of 'the' war. It's much bigger.
239 - Dave Nalle
Interesting exchange there between Les and Clavos, but I want to go back to an earlier point.
Les, you suggest that the article in The Militant is designed to give workers straight news they can't get anywhere else. I'm willing to accept that as a statement of their intentions. It's believable.
But I don't see that the problem they're addressing actually exists. From what I can tell the article in The Militant is factually indistinguishable from coverage in a number of other sources. The only slight difference that caught my eye was the emphasis on capitalism as one of the objectives for the Iraqi state. You don't find that emphasis in mainstream coverage.
So my question is, why do workers need to go to The Militant to get news which is pretty much the same as what the popular media is offering on the same topics?
Dave
240 - Les Slater
Dave,
My discussion with Clavos and Andy's me being the only one on the planet are examples of what the press does to people. The question of who is winning the war is lost in all kinds of subtle and not so subtle propaganda. I also have seen you go pretty far at times thinking the U.S. for all practicle purposes has lost the war.
It can't be just one article that shows this beyond a doubt. There is consistency that workers will find in NO other source.
241 - Clavos
Les 238,
I agree about the war being bigger, but my impression was that in this discussion we were just focusing on the Iraq/Afghanistan theater, though we were using the term "war."
242 - Les Slater
Clavos,
I am trying to focus it on the broader reality. None of these can be taken separately. It’s an imperialist war of great magnitude and dimensions. The war against the working class at home is part of this same broader war. It all has to do with trying to maintain and increase profits of a capitalist system in crisis.
Les
243 - Clavos
Les,
I'm enjoying this (not the least because you and I have always had civil discussions), and I especially want to talk about your #242, but it's 2AM here, and this worker has to...work tomorrow.
Would REALLY like to resume this shortly.
Buenas noches, amigo...
244 - Les Slater
Clavos,
Sweet dreams. I'm off too. And Dave, it's 1 am, go to sleep.
Les
245 - Mark Schannon
Gadfry Daniels, I leave you guys alone for a day or two and we're back knee deep in Iraqi shit. But before I offer my three cents:
Les "Another reason people are put off by BC is a tendency to get way off topic and an IN culture."
Is that just a feeling you have or have you talked to more than just a few people about it. I've never gotten complaints about our tendency to go flying off topic. I kind of like it. I could see how people would consider this a kind of "in" culture, but as long as bullmoose loonies are leashed, it's not a hard culture to join. (By the way, I am serious about the question because we have to expand the number of people of who play in this section.)
I have one problem with Old Sadr and all the rest of those fucking crazy Iraqis--they're slaughtering innocent women and children as a way of getting at us. They don't have the courage to just fight openly (oh well, overwhelming force & numbers & all that) so they rely on terrorism. They're worse than subhuman. I don't care that we invaded his country & made a muck of the whole thing. I don't care what religious bullshit he drops and dances around.
I do care that hundreds of innocents every day are being killed by these Islamic fascists. It's become another Vietnam. We might have been able to win at one point, but we can't now. We can't cause any more damage by just saying, Hey, sorry, but we're getting our asses out of here now.
And we'll carry with us the guilt & blame for having caused so much needless suffering. And Bush, Cheney, Rummy & the rest of those criminals will get lovely pensions and sip fine wine.
They all suck--the fascists in Iraq & the fascists in Washington.
And that has to be true because...
In Jameson Veritas
246 - Les Slater
Mark,
"Les 'Another reason people are put off by BC is a tendency to get way off topic and an IN culture.'"
It's mostly just a feeling of mine. Are there stats on how many read but don't comment? Some of the tone here can be quite intimidating. A timid soul may not dare utter. I have seen some that may be naive but seem to have an honest opinon or question are responded to with mostly epithets.
Les
247 - Mark Schannon
Les, sorry to take so long to respond, but weekend was lost while we put our house on the market & suffered through first open house...yuk.
Anyway, that possible fear of commenting because of the potential vitriolic resonse is one of the prime reasons we've been taking steps to, shall we say, bridle the more vicious members of the community. Nobody cares what their point of view is--but most of the editors are in agreement that they're damaging the politics site. So we'll see what happens.
If there are stats, I don't see them. It's a good question & I'll raise it.
If you know of anyone specifically who doesn't comment for fear of getting fileted, please either let me know or ask them to e-mail me.
Thanks...
In Jameson Veritas
248 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Mark,
Where you planning to run off to when you sell the house? Anywhere close to eh Jerusalem perhaps? If that is anywhere in your mind, give me a holler at the usual address, and I'll look into details for you.
Listen, I know you have a reasonably good knowledge of politics and the like, but you've got to realize there is a real difference between Nazi and Fascist. Fascism was an economic system of corporatist control. Nazism was (and still is) a race based philosophy of world domination with satanic roots.
"Islamo-fascist" is a compliment the bastards do not deserve. It implies they have the intelligence to organize and efficiently run an economy. If you want to toss name around, "Islamo-nazi" nails the beast on the head because the Wahhabi philosophy that dominates so much of these groups is satanic in nature, and is steeped with an admiration for Nazism. The main difference is that you replace "Aryan" with "Moslem".
As to the "fascists" in Washington, you may be dead on.
Soon
Independence Day celebrations start here...Gotta run.
249 - Mark Schannon
Reuven,
Literally you're right about the meaning of the term "fascist" but I think that the usage is changing so it means more, dictatorial rule.
The problem with Islamo-Nazis is that it's loaded with emotional baggage that could quickly get a conversation off topic.
As for moving, alas, I don't think Jerusalem is high on the list...my shiksa bride would have major problems with that...and I could move that far as long as my mother's still alive.
It's either going to be Western North Carolina up in the mountains or maybe, gulp, Little Rock, just because we have a fair number of friends there. But a trip to Jerusalem is high on my list if I can convince the bride that the ax murderers have all left...sigh.
But I can go on bravely because...
In Jameson Veritas
250 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Well, Mark, I think I'll start using the term "Islamo-nazi" precisely because of the emotional baggage. It's about time the bastards blew up in anger every time they heard themselves ACCURATELY described. I'm getting good and sick of the bastards trying to stick that satanic label on us.
Besides, not all Moslems are Islamo-nazis.