NationStates Jolt Archive

Didn't quite see this coming... Perhaps I've not been paying enough attention to what Talabani has been saying. Or is this really new?


"The decision to turn the liberation of Iraq into an occupation ... with the dire consequences this had internally and the fears (it aroused) in Arab, regional and international arenas -- all this was contrary to what Iraqi parties and national forces were planning at the time," he said.

"This applies equally to many hasty decisions and measures taken by the occupation's civil administration -- without understanding the Iraqis' point of view, and the consequences they had on the situation in the country and the political process as a whole," he added.


(Source (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/middle-east/20070330-arab-summit-bush.html))

My guess is Bush will do jack shit about this. Invaders, conquerers, rapists - they don't care what their victims think.

Why the quotation marks?

The Saudi King did, too.

Why the quotation marks?

To show that that's the exact word he used.

Doesn't mean I'm questioning it.

My guess is Bush will do jack shit about this. Invaders, conquerers, rapists - they don't care what their victims think.

Woohoo - another piece of information for Bush and Co. (and their special NSG buttkisser friends) to ignore.

When your only real power is coming from someone else, don't piss them off. As a rule. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

When your only real power is coming from someone else, don't piss them off. As a rule. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Or I guess in the case of Iraq, don't bite the hand that slaps, molests, violates, rapes, strangles and shoot you. Nah, just lie down and take it like a woman. That about right to you?

Didn't quite see this coming... Perhaps I've not been paying enough attention to what Talabani has been saying. Or is this really new?



(Source (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/middle-east/20070330-arab-summit-bush.html))

I agree with him, as does anyone else with any sense.

Or I guess in the case of Iraq, don't bite the hand that slaps, molests, violates, rapes, strangles and shoot you. Nah, just lie down and take it like a woman. That about right to you?

You know what would be cool? If you talked out of your mouth instead of your ass.

You know what would be cool? If you talked out of your mouth instead of your ass.

There you go again, proving to us all how denial with you ain't just a river in Egypt.

Woohoo - another piece of information for Bush and Co. (and their special NSG buttkisser friends) to ignore.

I know, did you see Karl Rove do that dance to that horrific rap? Anyone associating with him must be evil.

I'm sure Bush's spindoctors will take care of this minor problem, they tried to claim a British pullout means areas of Iraq are improving so I await what response this will bring.

There you go again, proving to us all how denial with you ain't just a river in Egypt.

Deny that "slaps, molests, violates, rapes, strangles and shoot you."? Seeing as that doesn't happen minus a few criminal cases then yes, he is wrong. As for Talabani he has religious leaders who control his votes to answer to. Namely Sadr.

Or I guess in the case of Iraq, don't bite the hand that slaps, molests, violates, rapes, strangles and shoot you. Nah, just lie down and take it like a woman. That about right to you?

That's bullshit and you know it.

Deny that "slaps, molests, violates, rapes, strangles and shoot you."? Seeing as that doesn't happen minus a few criminal cases then yes, he is wrong.

You really think we'll buy your nonsense? Wait, that'd actually make it even more of a hoot.

Or I guess in the case of Iraq, don't bite the hand that slaps, molests, violates, rapes, strangles and shoot you. Nah, just lie down and take it like a woman. That about right to you?YUS! Blaming the entire army contingent in the country for the deeds of a handful of black sheep, while ignoring any good it does! Stereotyping ahoi! It's not racism when it's done to americans (Multiethnic societies being useful that way)! Then it's just 'Constructive Criticism' and 'Political Awareness'!

Right on, brother. Keep going, and show the repugnant, stereotyping, know-nothings just how much more sophisticated you are, and how your higher education enables you to differentiate between the many nuances a people (Or army) tend to feature, an ability they're so sorely missing.

Oh, wait...

That's bullshit and you know it.

Actually no, we don't know that to be bullshit.

Actually no, we don't know that to be bullshit.


I think he is objectiong to "stealing" not being included :p

Good. Very good.

It's about damn time.

As for Talabani he has religious leaders who control his votes to answer to. Namely Sadr.

Sadr fled to Iran, if you didn't know, and his militia split.

Didn't quite see this coming... Perhaps I've not been paying enough attention to what Talabani has been saying. Or is this really new?

(Source (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/middle-east/20070330-arab-summit-bush.html))

I hope someone will listen.

Sadr fled to Iran, if you didn't know, and his militia split.

I knew he fled but somehow i missed that militia split. That adds a completely new dynamic if those reports of a group from his militia going to iran for training and arms are true.

I knew he fled but somehow i missed that militia split. That adds a completely new dynamic if those reports of a group from his militia going to iran for training and arms are true.

Yep, after Sadr fled to Iran he caused a big rift in his militia. The former Mahdi army has split into several splinter groups, precipitated by Sadr's retreat to Iran. The major opposing faction is led by Qais al-Khazaali, a young Iraqi cleric who was a close al-Sadr aide in 2003 and 2004, according to reports from militia commanders and Al-Maliki.

They reportedly are being trained by the Iranian Quds force in camps in southern Iran, and are paid a $600 dollar reward for making thier way there, then a monthly wage of $200. Rumors are this has the support of the highest echelons of Iranian government and at least 3 senior Iraqi officials, if Alireza Jafarzadeh, the leader of an Iranian dissident group is to be believed.

The violence this week has prompted some Shiites to call for the return to the streets of the Mahdi Army, the militia created by Mr. Sadr. Many Shiites see the Mahdi Army as a bulwark against militant Sunni Arabs, but Mr. Sadr has ordered the militia to lie low during the new Baghdad security plan so as not to provoke a direct confrontation with the Americans. The Mahdi Army rebelled twice in 2004 against the Americans and the Iraqi government.

In the incendiary Friday speech delivered by his clerics, Mr. Sadr called for an anti-occupation mass protest on April 9, the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad to American forces.

“Four years have passed since the occupation of our beloved country, the Iraq of Islam, by the great Satan, America, and its followers, who want to erase Islam from the world in order to maintain peace for themselves,” Mr. Sadr said.

He called on all Iraqis to “hoist Iraqi flags on the rooftops of homes, buildings and government offices as a sign of the sovereignty of Iraq and its independence, and to reject the presence of the flags of America and America’s allies in our country until they leave.”

“In the end, I renew my demands for the withdrawal of the occupier from our land,” he said.

Mr. Sadr has not appeared publicly since the start of the new security plan on Feb. 14, though he has had his clerics and followers deliver speeches on his behalf. The American military has said Mr. Sadr is in Iran, but some Iraqi officials say he is in Iraq.

Mr. Sadr, in his 30’s, has been stridently anti-American since the invasion and is arguably the most powerful political leader in Iraq, a populist who commands the loyalties of millions of worshippers. His Mahdi Army is believed to number in the tens of thousands, and its foot soldiers are seemingly unafraid to die in combat with the Americans or other Iraqis. Sunni Arabs often accuse the Mahdi Army of carrying out atrocities against the Sunnis, particularly in Baghdad, the front line of the sectarian war.

The fighting between the Mahdi Army and Iraqi forces erupted today in the Amel neighborhood of southwest Baghdad. One resident who called himself Abu Zaineb said militiamen attacked an Iraqi Army base housing Kurdish soldiers brought in from the north as part of the security plan. The militiamen used mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and Kalashnikovs, he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/30/world/middleeast/30cnd-Iraq.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Dated march 30, 2007.

YUS! Blaming the entire army contingent in the country for the deeds of a handful of black sheep, while ignoring any good it does! Stereotyping ahoi! It's not racism when it's done to americans (Multiethnic societies being useful that way)! Then it's just 'Constructive Criticism' and 'Political Awareness'!

Oh please. Race has NOTHING to do with it. I don't "hate or discriminate" against Americans. I *am* an American. I disagree with our foreign policy of invading, and occupying, foreign nations. I equate penetrating into a foreign country with armed force and staying there with rape. Don't like it? Too bad. Don't even try to fucking say I'm "racist" because of your dislike.

Right on, brother. Keep going, and show the repugnant, stereotyping, know-nothings just how much more sophisticated you are, and how your higher education enables you to differentiate between the many nuances a people (Or army) tend to feature, an ability they're so sorely missing.

Oh, wait...

I know you like to think this was some sort of clever quip that puts me in my place, but it just comes across as egotistical ranting that has nothing to do with what I've written or, for that matter, reality. Keep trying.

That's bullshit and you know it.

How the fuck do you know what I know? I'm sick of this "and you know it" argument, as if you don't actually have to be bothered to take into account the fact that you're not anyone but yourself. Why bother reading what anyone else says if you already "know" what they "know?" For that matter, if I "know" you're right, why do I claim otherwise? I must be just lying, and you know this because of your amazing telepathic abilities?

No. THAT is bullshit. Now come up with an argument if you want, but this "lol im right and you know it" crap seems to have one purpose only: to annoy the shit out of people.

How the fuck do you know what I know? I'm sick of this "and you know it" argument, as if you don't actually have to be bothered to take into account the fact that you're not anyone but yourself. Why bother reading what anyone else says if you already "know" what they "know?" For that matter, if I "know" you're right, why do I claim otherwise? I must be just lying, and you know this because of your amazing telepathic abilities?

No. THAT is bullshit. Now come up with an argument if you want, but this "lol im right and you know it" crap seems to have one purpose only: to annoy the shit out of people.

I guess it worked pretty well, didn't it?

I guess it worked pretty well, didn't it?

Yep. Trolling is often good at illiciting responses.

Deny that "slaps, molests, violates, rapes, strangles and shoot you."?
Hey leatherbrain, that's war for you.

You know what would be cool? If you talked out of your mouth instead of your ass.

Thanks for the tip, bluto. Have you raped any Iraqi children lately? Or have you simply participated in the metaphorical rape of Iraq as a whole?

Why the quotation marks?

You never learned proper English, as when you quote someone or something you should....

You never learned proper English, as when you quote someone or something you should....

You apparently never learnt proper English, as words should be separated by single spaces and when you use an ellipsis there should be three periods/dots only. Your own lack of proficiency in the language notwithstanding, the use of the quotation marks is superfluous as the occupation is referred to as such in general and not something coined by this person.

You apparently never learnt proper English, as words should be separated by single spaces and when you use an ellipsis there should be three periods. Your own lack of proficiency in the language notwithstanding, the use of the quotation marks is superfluous as the occupation is referred to as such in general and not something coined by this person.

You really don’t have hemorrhoids do you. (That is a statement not a question so no ? is necessary at the end.}

You really don’t have hemorrhoids do you. (That is a statement not a question so no ? is necessary at the end.}

What is necessary, though, is a comma preceding "do you". To retort, of course I don't have haemorrhoids. My anus and rectum are immaculate.

Thanks for the tip, bluto. Have you raped any Iraqi children lately? Or have you simply participated in the metaphorical rape of Iraq as a whole?

Whoa man, even addressed to Leatherneck that's over the fucking line.

To retort, of course I don't have haemorrhoids. My anus and rectum are immaculate.

Wow, I must give you credit. You are the first person I have known who publicly admitted they were a perfect asshole.

Wow, I must give you credit. You are the first person I have known who publicly admitted they were a perfect asshole.

It just makes you want to lick me.

If the Iraqi government officially asks us to leave I don't see Bush ignoring it. One of the last arguements still in his favor is "we are in Iraq because the Iraqi government wants us there". If the Iraqi President says what he just said more directly i'm sure the President will quickly sign the legislation that has just passed through the senate and then say that was his opinion all along.

It just makes you want to lick me.

Flirt. And to think I once promised to piledrive you up and down Sweden...

Flirt. And to think I once promised to piledrive you up and down Sweden...

You know you still want to, perhaps even more now.

Whoa man, even addressed to Leatherneck that's over the fucking line.

In what way?

In what way?

If you don't understand there's nothing I can do to help you. Just remember when the wrath of mod comes down on YOU and not him that I warned you.

<edit> Wrath of mod for the flame aside you just handed Eve Deep Online Kimchi a loaded gun to use against those of us who oppose the war. Now he CAN point directly to asshatery by those of us who are anti-war.

If you don't understand there's nothing I can do to help you. Just remember when the wrath of mod comes down on YOU and not him that I warned you.

I think you should let the mods decide who is worthy of their wrath and for what.

Rape originally meant "to seize and take away by force." An extremely apt metaphor for any invasion of a nation, which seize and takes away, by force, life and liberty.

In it's modern meaning, it means "unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent." Compare this with invading a nation, which is also carried out forcibly under threat of injury (and death), against the will of the victims, who are incapable of consenting to having themselves bombed and shot.

So it is an ugly, but extremely apt, metaphor for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Now perhaps you would rather me choose a more flattering metaphor? Shall I ask him if he's "liberated" Iraq? Maybe unkind metaphors to describe an invasion are not allowed anymore. Only nice ones.

<edit> Wrath of mod for the flame aside you just handed Eve Deep Online Kimchi a loaded gun to use against those of us who oppose the war. Now he CAN point directly to asshatery by those of us who are anti-war.

Eve doesn't need a "loaded gun" and I am not going to censor myself in fear of another poster's nonsense.

And why don't you ask Abeer Qassim al-Janabi whether the idea that a US soldier might rape a child is "asshattery." Oh wait, you can't - she was raped and killed.

And why don't you ask Abeer Qassim al-Janabi whether the idea that a US soldier might rape a child is "asshattery." Oh wait, you can't - she was raped and killed.

No, but the idea that Leatherneck might, with NOTHING to back it is most definitely asshattery. That's all I have to say on this subject.

No, but the idea that Leatherneck might, with NOTHING to back it is most definitely asshattery. That's all I have to say on this subject.

He is one of those who argues that America can do no wrong. You really can't argue with someone who won't even accept the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the U.S. isn't doing such a great job where Iraq is concerned.

He is one of those who argues that America can do no wrong. You really can't argue with someone who won't even accept the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the U.S. isn't doing such a great job where Iraq is concerned.

I completely agree with that. That doesn't make Greater Trostia's quote any less over the line. It's like asking someone if they've molested any children today just because they're gay. Or asking an African American if they've stolen anything today based solely on their race.

I completely agree with that. That doesn't make Greater Trostia's quote any less over the line. It's like asking someone if they've molested any children today just because they're gay. Or asking an African American if they've stolen anything today based solely on their race.

Alright I can agree with that. I hardly care for flames of any kind myself. Even those seemingly mild, subtle ones.

There is of course no doubt whatsoever that the CPA in their brief months in power, and through the neocon policy of 'Debaathization' contributed greatly to most of Iraq's problems today. Whether it be the billions of US aid squandered by politicans in the CPA and through war profiteers as a result of the privatisation of Iraqi civil services and infrastructure. That breakdown and the sacking of basically the entire Iraqi Army and Civil service for having 'links' with Saddam created the nationalist sectarian conflict from disenfranchised and unemployed soldiers and public servants.

I have said it once, and I'll say it again, the Arab socialist policies of Saddam in public administration were greatly beneficial to Iraq, the imposition of US capitalist fascism on Iraq ruined the country.

No, but the idea that Leatherneck might, with NOTHING to back it is most definitely asshattery. That's all I have to say on this subject.

Why is asking a question "asshattery?" He can answer "no," you know.

Or he could be like DK and say, "killing Muslims is better than sex."

I believe I have the right to ask questions. I believe the US public has a right to ask questions too. I don't believe it's unreasonable in light of the facts.

How do I think that the U.S. can do no bad? I know that invading Iraq was a misstep. I have never defended any of our political leaders, in fact I have attacked them. Maybe you should do some research before you talk. And to greater trostia, all i have to do to win this argument is to not flame like an ass but I'll even add something of worth unlike you. The rate of rape per capita in sweden are much greater than the rate by U.S. troops in Iraq. Let's not even start to compare the rates between Saddam's Iraq and the current one.

My guess is Bush will do jack shit about this.

I guess the same.

I have said it once, and I'll say it again, the Arab socialist policies of Saddam in public administration were greatly beneficial to Iraq, the imposition of US capitalist fascism on Iraq ruined the country.

Oxymoron.

Wow, I must give you credit. You are the first person I have known who publicly admitted they were a perfect asshole.

I'm an asshole.

Am I second the person? :p

Oxymoron.

No, on the contrary, I make the definition plainly because the US brand of 'capitalism' is not so much free market as corporatist monopolies of the state.

No, on the contrary, I make the definition plainly because the US brand of 'capitalism' is not so much free market as corporatist monopolies of the state.

That's true, in which case it's just "fascist."

That's true, in which case it's just "fascist."

Sure, I was just trying to get across the privatisation point is all.

Why is asking a question "asshattery?" He can answer "no," you know.

Or he could be like DK and say, "killing Muslims is better than sex."

I believe I have the right to ask questions. I believe the US public has a right to ask questions too. I don't believe it's unreasonable in light of the facts.

What "facts"? The facts that there are less rapes per capita among troops in Iraq than civilians in America or western european countries such as Sweden? Maybe all swedes are rapists?

I think having foreign soldiers involved in an occupation raping the natives is a little different than rapes in other countries not at war.

I think having foreign soldiers involved in an occupation raping the natives is a little different than rapes in other countries not at war.

How? If anything the non-war rates should be lower. There is much less stress and animosity between possible victims and possible perps. It doesn't matter which country the victim is from. They are a human being. Any rape is highly regrettable but to paint everyone in the U.S. military with the same brush even when they have a much lower rate is hypocritical, illogical and idiotic.

How? If anything the non-war rates should be lower. There is much less stress and animosity between possible victims and possible perps. It doesn't matter which country the victim is from. They are a human being. Any rape is highly regrettable but to paint everyone in the U.S. military with the same brush even when they have a much lower rate is hypocritical, illogical and idiotic.

It matters more because of the debated legality of the war and it's controversy, etc.

What "facts"?

The fact that the United States has invaded, bombed, mined, occupied Iraq based on lies, hollow propaganda, and the desire for foreign wars. This is analogous to rape by it's very nature.

The fact that as a result of these acts, US forces have killed, maimed, injured, and raped Iraqi civilians of all ages and gender.

These facts are undeniable.

The facts that there are less rapes per capita among troops in Iraq than civilians in America or western european countries such as Sweden?

Doing a body cavity search on all schoolchildren may well result in less crime. But this end does not justify that mean, nor you yours.

Maybe all swedes are rapists?

This is not a valid analogy, since the situation of Swedish citizens choosing to live in Sweden under the government of Sweden is inherently different from the situation of Iraqi civilians forcibly ruled by a foreign invasion force.

But even if it were, I don't recall saying that "all US soldiers are rapists." You can fight strawmen if you wish... but all you are doing is talking out of your ass.

It matters more because of the debated legality of the war and it's controversy, etc.

How the hell does that matter to the person who was raped? They raped either way. That's besides the point anyway b/c date rape was an accepted practice under Saddam's regime.

Oh please. Race has NOTHING to do with it. I don't "hate or discriminate" against Americans.No, only against the roughly one-hundred and fifty-thousand (Plus change) soldiers deployed in Iraq, all of which you summarily accused of being murderers and rapists, be it metaphorically or actually.

If that's not discrimination...

I disagree with our foreign policy of invading, and occupying, foreign nations. I equate penetrating into a foreign country with armed force and staying there with rape.Yus! Because it's so much nicer to just let every tinpot dictator and Pol Pot wannabe to continue with their little games! Idly standing by and doing nothing because, hey, they're a sovereign country is so the better option. Same thing that applies to households, really - it's totally unacceptable to interfere when that middle-aged lady's new boyfriend starts raping her daughters. Their house, after all. Not yours.

Sue, the occupation(s) following the invasion(s) turned out to be... Somewhat unsuccessful, to no small part due to an overly optimistic administration living in lala-land - but if you call 'Attempting to turn absurdly oppressive theocracies famous for considering women slightly less humanely than sheep (And hosting mass murderers) & dictatorships famous for randomly gassing and shooting sizeable segments of their population into - possibly even vaguely almost-secular - functioning democracies', something that is, sadly, difficult to do without resorting to force, 'Rape', particularly considering the stated intention of the US Administration to leave as soon as things are under control (Presumably because invading and then leaving in order to watch the violence increase tenfold, and the whole area turning into the recruiting ground for various militant movements would be somewhat counterproductive - but hey, staying to simply avoid the tenfold increase in violence sounds like a good enough reason to me) is a bit of a strong word, I believe.

But sure. If 'Sitting back and watching shit happen' is your definition of 'Ethically Acceptable Actions'... That it's equivalent to sitting back and munching popcorn while that guy next door's getting gutted (Times thousand) shall not concern us.

Don't like it? Too bad. Don't even try to fucking say I'm "racist" because of your dislike.Oh, but I'm not. I'm saying you follow the same thought processes of one by managing to summarily calling a hundred and fifty thousand people, a fair number of which are trying to keep roughly twenty million civilians alive while being randomly bombed, shot, and gassed by the more nutty locals and a sizeable number of 'Immigrants', 'Murderers' and 'Rapists'.

Or, if you went for a more metaphorical approach, the willing henchmen of the same, there exclusively to break the self-esteem of a country, to pillage it and to turn it into a colony, which is slightly at odds with reality.

How the hell does that matter to the person who was raped? They raped either way. That's besides the point anyway b/c date rape was an accepted practice under Saddam's regime.

Your forgetting that most victims of rape in aforementioned European states indeed survive their encounter, albeit very hurt. When some US soldiers rape an Iraqi women, or child, they generally make the family watch, then massacre the entire family and put multiple bullet wounds in the raped womens head, prior to giving them all AK's and setting it up as a militant attack thing.

The fact that the United States has invaded, bombed, mined, occupied Iraq based on lies, hollow propaganda, and the desire for foreign wars. This is analogous to rape by it's very nature.
Rape, the crime, is very different than a war. Yes, senior political officials were severely mistaken and may have even lied but that is not relevant at all to you choosing to spew even more inflammatory propaganda.

The fact that as a result of these acts, US forces have killed, maimed, injured, and raped Iraqi civilians of all ages and gender.

These facts are undeniable.
It is a fact that, unfortunately, our weapons have mistakenly killed Iraqi civilians. That's not deniable and as unfortunate as it is, that is war. It is also a fact that criminal elements within the U.S. military have raped Iraqi civilians. As I have stated twice within 4 posts on this 1 thread but you have obviously chosen to ignore, the rate of rape (extremely low) in Iraq by U.S. soldiers is lower than the rate of any other country that I could find numbers for. So your argument holds no weight.


Doing a body cavity search on all schoolchildren may well result in less crime. But this end does not justify that mean, nor you yours.

What the fuck are you talking about?

This is not a valid analogy, since the situation of Swedish citizens choosing to live in Sweden under the government of Sweden is inherently different from the situation of Iraqi civilians forcibly ruled by a foreign invasion force.

1) Iraqis aren't ruled by a foreign invasion force. They have a sovereign government.

2) How is living in Sweden different than living in Iraq? Citizens of either country are free to leave if they wish.
But even if it were, I don't recall saying that "all US soldiers are rapists." You can fight strawmen if you wish... but all you are doing is talking out of your ass.

You said that the U.S. rapes Iraqis. By saying that, you infer that there is state sponsored raping of Iraqis. So yea, ya did.

Your forgetting that most victims of rape in aforementioned European states indeed survive their encounter, albeit very hurt. When some US soldiers rape an Iraqi women, or child, they generally make the family watch, then massacre the entire family and put multiple bullet wounds in the raped womens head, prior to giving them all AK's and setting it up as a militant attack thing.

I can find maybe 15 or 20 cases of rape for the all 4 years of the war. There is no general pattern with such a small number. And I'm sure that there are more homicidal rapes in European countries also.

Didn't quite see this coming...
Really?
It's all part of the plan, guy. If the Iraqi government is being "unappreciative" the American public will be more susceptible to a pull out, possibly saving the GOP some face.

No, only against the roughly one-hundred and fifty-thousand (Plus change) soldiers deployed in Iraq, all of which you summarily accused of being murderers and rapists, be it metaphorically or actually.

If that's not discrimination...

...then it's not.

Sorry, you're trying to portray a stance towards war as, of all things, RACISM. That's REALLY reaching.

It's an apt metaphor. Tell me, did the nation of Iraq consent to having the United States penetrate it's borders by force?

Yus! Because it's so much nicer to just let every tinpot dictator and Pol Pot wannabe to continue with their little games! Idly standing by and doing nothing because, hey, they're a sovereign country is so the better option. Same thing that applies to households, really - it's totally unacceptable to interfere when that middle-aged lady's new boyfriend starts raping her daughters. Their house, after all. Not yours.

Houses reside within the jurisdiction of the nation they are located in and are therefore subject to it's laws.

Nations do not reside within the jurisdiction of the United States.

So, another faulty analogy.

Sue, the occupation(s) following the invasion(s) turned out to be... Somewhat unsuccessful, to no small part due to an overly optimistic administration living in lala-land - but if you call 'Attempting to turn absurdly oppressive theocracies

Whoa, Saddam was a theocrat?

famous for considering women slightly less humanely than sheep (And hosting mass murderers) & dictatorships famous for randomly gassing and shooting sizeable segments of their population into - possibly even vaguely almost-secular - functioning democracies',

Functioning democracies who apparently have no say in whether their "liberators" get to stay "liberating" their women and children. Yeah, call me impressed with that revolutionary change. And certainly, it is better to be oppressed and killed by foreigners "by accident" than domestics "on purpose." A real comfort, I'm sure, to the victims.

'Rape', particularly considering the stated intention of the US Administration to leave as soon as things are under control (Presumably because invading and then leaving to leave in order to watch the violence increase tenfold, and the whole area turning into the recruiting ground for various militant movements would be somewhat cunterproductive - but hey, staying to simply avoid the tenfold increase in violence sounds like a good enough reason to me) is a bit of a strong word, I believe.

People are dying. And indeed being raped. I don't care how "strong" you think a word to describe that is. It is not and can not ever be strong enough.

But sure. If 'Sitting back and watching shit happen' is your definition of 'Ethically Acceptable Actions'... That it's equivalent to sitting back and munching popcorn while that guy next door's getting gutted (Times thousand) shall not concern us.

Mmm. Rape is ethically acceptable to you? Congratulations - it's not to me.

Oh, but I'm not. I'm saying you follow the same thought processes of one by managing to summarily calling a hundred and fifty thousand people, a fair number of which are trying to keep roughly twenty million civilians alive while being randomly bombed, shot, and gassed by the more nutty locals and a sizeable number of 'Immigrants', 'Murderers' and 'Rapists'.

I'll ask you again - did the Iraqi nation consent to being invaded and occupied by a foreign nation?

They did not.

Nonconsentual invasion and a violent assault is equatable with rape. Once again, I'm sorry you think this is offensive language. I think it's an offensive reality that you and others seem so willing to endorse.

I'll ask you again - did the Iraqi nation consent to being invaded and occupied by a foreign nation?

They did not.

Nonconsentual invasion and a violent assault is equatable with rape. Once again, I'm sorry you think this is offensive language. I think it's an offensive reality that you and others seem so willing to endorse.

How could the Iraqi people consent prior to the invasion? They were oppressed by Saddam and he certainly wasn't going to allow a vote to see if he should leave. However, the reaction of the Iraqi people immediately following the invasion does indicate that they would have consented if given the opportunity.

Rape, the crime, is very different than a war.

Yes - war is even worse than rape, since war includes rape and mimicks rape in every way. And while it's not politically correct to support rape, it's considered the height of common decency to support war. Yep, pretty different.

It is a fact that, unfortunately, our weapons have mistakenly killed Iraqi civilians. That's not deniable and as unfortunate as it is, that is war.

It is a fact that, unfortunately, a rapists's penis has mistakenly invaded a victim's body. That's not deniable and as unfortunate as it is, that's rape.

Hmm, why does this justification not work for me? Maybe I should remove my conscience first and see how it is then.

It is also a fact that criminal elements within the U.S. military have raped Iraqi civilians. As I have stated twice within 4 posts on this 1 thread but you have obviously chosen to ignore, the rate of rape (extremely low) in Iraq by U.S. soldiers is lower than the rate of any other country that I could find numbers for. So your argument holds no weight.

"I only raped her once. In comparison, other rape victims have been raped MANY times! Therefore, what I did is not so bad at all, and it is INFLAMMATORY of someone to dare suggest it is!"

What the fuck are you talking about?

Do you have some sort of trouble with the english language?

1) Iraqis aren't ruled by a foreign invasion force. They have a sovereign government.

Which is ignored. Which has no power. The power in Iraq is the US military, which is occupying their territory, and has been ever since it forcibly entered and overthrew the nation. Anything else you'd like me to correct you on...? Like how down is the opposite of up?

2) How is living in Sweden different than living in Iraq?

That's a tough one. I'll have to think, real hard, what the differences might be between Iraq and Sweden. In the meantime, you can promise to think about it, real hard, too.

You said that the U.S. rapes Iraqis.

And it does. On a metaphoric, strategic level, and on a tactical level. You dismiss the latter by saying they were "criminal elements," but that's just being modest about the use of initiative by the swell boys in brown that my tax dollars are paying for.

By saying that, you infer that there is state sponsored raping of Iraqis.

...did Iraq consent to being invaded?

...were the US soldiers guilty of rape - the ones we KNOW about, the ones the lovely boys in brown haven't successfully covered up so far - paid by the United States? Were they there as a direct result of the foreign policy of the United States?

Here's your answers. No, yes, and yes, respectively.

Yes, indeed it is sad that US weapons, including rape, have mistakenly killed Iraqi civilians. It was an accident.

How could the Iraqi people consent prior to the invasion?

If they could not, then they did not consent. Therefore. Nonconsentual.

"She WOULD HAVE consented" is not a successful defense against rape. Like hey, maybe little 13 year old girl WOULD HAVE consented... if she was old enough to consent... therefore hey, maybe raping her isn't really rape. And maybe it's a good thing. That about what you're saying.

However, the reaction of the Iraqi people immediately following the invasion does indicate that they would have consented if given the opportunity.

"She LIKED it! Therefore it wasn't rape!"

Yes - war is even worse than rape, since war includes rape and mimicks rape in every way. And while it's not politically correct to support rape, it's considered the height of common decency to support war. Yep, pretty different.
War doesn't mimic rape at all. It shows that you have no experience in that area.


It is a fact that, unfortunately, a rapists's penis has mistakenly invaded a victim's body. That's not deniable and as unfortunate as it is, that's rape.
That might be the dumbest thing that I have heard at all. Rape is on purpose, a civilian walking in a line of fire in an accident.

Hmm, why does this justification not work for me? Maybe I should remove my conscience first and see how it is then.
Because you suck at making analogies.


"I only raped her once. In comparison, other rape victims have been raped MANY times! Therefore, what I did is not so bad at all, and it is INFLAMMATORY of someone to dare suggest it is!"
Where the hell do you come up with this stuff? Nobody in their right mind would condone rape. However, you are unfairly accusing all U.S. service personnel of carrying out rape. I might as well accuse you of it since the rate among civilians is higher. I shall now refer to you as "rapist"


Which is ignored. Which has no power. The power in Iraq is the US military, which is occupying their territory, and has been ever since it forcibly entered and overthrew the nation. Anything else you'd like me to correct you on...? Like how down is the opposite of up?
Ummm, it actually has complete authority over Iraq. They have never passed legislation to get us out of their country. They therefore condone it.


That's a tough one. I'll have to think, real hard, what the differences might be between Iraq and Sweden. In the meantime, you can promise to think about it, real hard, too.

Rapist, your bad at reading. What is the difference between leaving Iraq and leaving Sweden?

And it does. On a metaphoric, strategic level, and on a tactical level. You dismiss the latter by saying they were "criminal elements," but that's just being modest about the use of initiative by the swell boys in brown that my tax dollars are paying for.
Oh, so basically you don't mean anything that you say. It's all just a metaphor.




...were the US soldiers guilty of rape - the ones we KNOW about, the ones the lovely boys in brown haven't successfully covered up so far - paid by the United States? Were they there as a direct result of the foreign policy of the United States?

I don't know where you get them being there b/c of foreign policy and them raping somebody being the fault of our foreign policy but whatever helps you sleep at night.

If they could not, then they did not consent. Therefore. Nonconsentual.

"She WOULD HAVE consented" is not a successful defense against rape. Like hey, maybe little 13 year old girl WOULD HAVE consented... if she was old enough to consent... therefore hey, maybe raping her isn't really rape. And maybe it's a good thing. That about what you're saying.



"She LIKED it! Therefore it wasn't rape!"

Rapist, invasion is not rape. There are literally no parallels between OIF and rape. According to someone like you, we went there for oil. How is that like rape at all? We also went there to depose Saddam. How is that like rape at all? After all you are the expert. We also went there to get rid of nukes (which i know turned out to be a mistake b/c there were none). How is that like rape?

Sorry, you're trying to portray a stance towards war as, of all things, RACISM. That's REALLY reaching.No, I'm not. I'm calling the mindset that causes your stance towards every single man and woman ever deployed to Iraq equivalent to the mindset of a racist.

Because judging by what you wrote, everyone partaking in the occupation automatically has to be a murderer and rapist. You're claiming that everyone within a given demographic group has $Negative_Trait, which seems to be pretty much inherent to being a member of this demographic group. Whether this demographic group is 'Soldiers' or 'Blacks' doesn't matter overly much - the thought process leading to the conclusion is the same (And mindbogglingly stupid).

It's an apt metaphor. Tell me, did the nation of Iraq consent to having the United States penetrate it's borders by force?Did Kuwait consent to the Iraqi invasion?

Congrats - you're Jesus. Always willing to take it. Now, let me introduce you to the real world and its less-than-perfect morality...

Houses reside within the jurisdiction of the nation they are located in and are therefore subject to it's laws.

Nations do not reside within the jurisdiction of the United States.So you're willing to respect a nation murdering (Or raping) thousands, nay, millions within its own borders because it isn't subject to US law, meaning that it doesn't have a legal basis for intervention?

Congrats - you've just become the willing henchman of every single murderous regime in the world, and are implicitly, but definitely sanctioning all of their actions on the basis of not willing to do anything to prevent them.

Curious little moral code you have there.

EDIT: Oh, and it just occurs to me... If the government was to legalise domestic violence and rape, would it be okay to do it? If you make the LAW as it is writting down your highest standard, it'd be, yes? And it'd be totally ok to ignore such things happening, yes?

Whoa, Saddam was a theocrat?If you didn't notice, afghanistan's occupied, to... I used plural for a reason.

Functioning democracies who apparently have no say in whether their "liberators" get to stay "liberating" their women and children. Yeah, call me impressed with that revolutionary change. And certainly, it is better to be oppressed and killed by foreigners "by accident" than domestics "on purpose." A real comfort, I'm sure, to the victims.And you continue to stereotype a hundred and fifty thousand (More, actually, seeing as they rotate) people as nothing but murderers and rapists... God forbid that the roughly 149990 soldiers who are just doing their duty, and trying their best to keep the country and the people within safe could be anything less than criminals, and god forbid that the US Administration doesn't quite believe that the present government could survive its retreat.

But no, you have to portray the actions of a handful of soldiers - who are, of course, standing trial for their very actions, but we shall ignore this detail and continue as if rape and murder are sanctioned by the US Gov, to keep your happy illusion of righteousness alive - as being standard for every soldier, while completely ignoring every single action related to policing duties, preventing bombings, the likes.

I mean, hell, surely they're doing nothing but fucking and shooting civilians there! That the entirety of Iraq would be dead if this was true shall not concern us...

Hum. Yes, I stand by my previous notion - you may be targetting a different group than the average white supremacist, but the thought processes behind their 'Logic' and yours are pretty much identical.

People are dying. And indeed being raped. I don't care how "strong" you think a word to describe that is. It is not and can not ever be strong enough.It's fun how you write this in response for a bit where I was assuming a metaphorical definition of rape (Under the mistaken assumption that you're not quite as insane as you apparently are)... But well, the above still holds. Hey, actually, by using your logic, I can say with perfect certainty that you are a rapist, murderer, thief and probably a number of other things. After all, all of these crimes do happen in the United States. So doubtlessly, all americans must commit these crimes, therefore you must have committed these crimes, too!

Yummy. I like your logic. It's so easy to use it.

Mmm. Rape is ethically acceptable to you? Congratulations - it's not to me.

For a moment, lets examine the sentence you replied to with this statement.

But sure. If 'Sitting back and watching shit happen' is your definition of 'Ethically Acceptable Actions'... That it's equivalent to sitting back and munching popcorn while that guy next door's getting gutted (Times thousand) shall not concern us.

We can observe the following:

You're not actually replying to my statement
You are, in fact, totally disconnected from it, and just throwing up words in an attempt to be witty
Your 'Retort' does therefore hang around in thin air, basically baseless and without cause

There's some rather amusing subtext involved, too, but meh.

I'll ask you again - did the Iraqi nation consent to being invaded and occupied by a foreign nation?

They did not.

Nonconsentual invasion and a violent assault is equatable with rape. Once again, I'm sorry you think this is offensive language. I think it's an offensive reality that you and others seem so willing to endorse.Too bad that your analogy fails on more levels than I care counting.

A country is not a sexual object. Your rather worrying use of semi-sexual terms to describe an invasion aside (Seriously. Seek some help, m'kay?), it's difficult to rape something that's neither a) sexual nor b) sapient
A country, believe it or not, is just a legal framework within which people live
These people may, on occasion, suffer from this legal framework being of a questionable nature. Cambodia during the reign of the Khmer Rouge comes to mind, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the [OMFG GODWIN], Iraq under Hussein, and so on
Considering that a country cannot suffer an aggravated sexual assault unless you're sufering from severse psychological disorders and probably some NSFW fantasies we'd rather not have you share with us, a better analogy for 'Invasion' is required - the closest analogy one can find on the individual level would be long the lines of 'Violent Assault'. Without a 'Sexual' in between, as disappointing as this may be for you
This is actually rather fitting - 'Violent Assault' can happen for a variety of reasons, not all of which are malevolent in nature. After all, preventing a thug from beating up his girlfriend by way of knocking him unconscious wouldn't usually be considered malevolent - not even by you, which explains your 'Rape' analogy. After all, everyone needs to justify his or her personal moral standards, and saying 'I'd refuse to rape this man!' sounds infinitely better than saying 'I'd rather sit down on the sidewalk and wait to see how this particular scene of domestic violence works out, rather than preventing an obvious injustice from happening.'