Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Pendergast · Nov 1, 2005, 10:27 PM

Ramadan Comes Early for Iraq: 500 Iraqi Prisoners Freed
Mon, 26 Sep 2005 02:37:29 -0700
Summary:
It took the Israelis decades to release this many Palestinian prisoners. Way to go USA for shooting above par. Maybe we can disengage from Iraq like Israel did from Gaza too. Of course IDF still bombs the Strip, but hell, what are cruise missiles for anyhow, if not to lob into Baghdad! This is another example of an empire loosing its grip from a thrashing colony. Barter, deal, attain “peace with honor.”
[Posted By Sergio]
By AP
Republished from AP National News
The US Military Releases 500 Prisoners from Abu Ghraib
ABU GHRAIB, Iraq— The U.S. military freed 500 Iraqi detainees from Abu Ghraib prison on Monday, a goodwill gesture requested by the Iraqi government ahead of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
Another 500 will be released later this week, the military said.
The first batch was loaded onto Iraqi public buses and driven out of the notorious prison in the morning.

Hmm... I wonder if this could not have some effect on votes or something...

Thoughts?

loki74 · Nov 2, 2005, 12:13 AM

Okay, thats all fine and dandy, but what is this, and how is it related:

This is another example of an empire loosing its grip from a thrashing colony.

Um...I DO hope the reference here is NOT to the US (Empire) and the Iraq war (colony). I cannot put into words how unfathomably, massively, astoundingly stupid such a statement would be.

As for an impact on votes, I'm not really sure what if any impact the release of these people will be. Certainly the 1000 that get released will favor whichever officials withiin the current Iraqi government that made this request to the US, should anyone be named specifically.

What are your thoughts, btw? Rule 8...

Millennium · Nov 2, 2005, 07:33 AM

How exactly do the US and Iraq have an empire-colony relationship? That sort of relationship implies strongly that the empire has no intention of leaving, which is not true in this case.

analogika · Nov 2, 2005, 07:44 AM

Ah, yes, millennium's right: The currently acceptable euphemism is "hegemony".

mojo2 · Nov 2, 2005, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

How exactly do the US and Iraq have an empire-colony relationship? That sort of relationship implies strongly that the empire has no intention of leaving, which is not true in this case.

No one should get too serious about this thread as I believe it was posted in the panic P-gast felt when faced with the truth that he and all the so-called MODERATE Muslims are actively or tacitly supporting terrorism by not speaking out against it.

I believe their problems having to do with being discriminated against and feared and hated and etc. JUST because they are Muslim have everything to do with THEIR unwillingness to do anything to oppose the aggression and killing that is part and parcel of the belief.

I doubt that this thread was posted out of genuine interest and enthusiasm in the subject matter sufficiently compelling to start a thread. (

) I think it was just a smoke screen to divert attention from the damning and painful truths I was leveling at that point in the evening (I think he suddenly started THREE bogus threads in a row, he was that affected by the truths I was confronting him with!).

gadster · Nov 3, 2005, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

How exactly do the US and Iraq have an empire-colony relationship? That sort of relationship implies strongly that the empire has no intention of leaving, which is not true in this case.

I think you'll find that the US intends to stay in Iraq (and other choice mid-east locales) for the foreseeable future. Haven't you read the PNAC stuff?

Athens · Nov 4, 2005, 05:30 AM

Originally Posted by loki74

Okay, thats all fine and dandy, but what is this, and how is it related:

Um...I DO hope the reference here is NOT to the US (Empire) and the Iraq war (colony). I cannot put into words how unfathomably, massively, astoundingly stupid such a statement would be.

Of course they are, and its true too

Athens · Nov 4, 2005, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

How exactly do the US and Iraq have an empire-colony relationship? That sort of relationship implies strongly that the empire has no intention of leaving, which is not true in this case.

The empire invads, installs government, installs its form of goverment system, trains military and attempts to make Xcountry now colony Pro Empire... Quebec was a french Colony, then the British won it and made it there own Colony in the British Empire forming Canada...

Millennium · Nov 4, 2005, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by gadster

I think you'll find that the US intends to stay in Iraq (and other choice mid-east locales) for the foreseeable future. Haven't you read the PNAC stuff?

Concpiracy theorist, much? Not that I doubt the PNAC exists (it has its own website and everything), but I think you're attributing more government influence to it than it actually has.

Millennium · Nov 4, 2005, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by Athens

The empire invads, installs government...

Which is given a strict timetable after which it must replace itself with an elected government...

...installs its form of goverment system...

The government system framed in the Iraqi Constitution bears only faint resemblance to the American system. It's closer to a standard parliament, actually, and it has no commitment to a separation of Church and State.

...trains military...

As opposed to whem, exactly? Someone needs to train those who will train future generations. Right now, Iraq is quite vulnerable, and it has no shortage of enemies -both foreign and domestic[/i]- who would love nothing more than to take over. You might or might not count the US as one of these, but I think you'd find it very difficult to argue that Iraq wouldn't be quickly and violently overrun by one of these groups if the US were to simply cut and run. We learned that lesson in Afghanistan, back in the 1980s. Would you have the US repeat that mistake, on top of the mistake you believe they've already committed?

You can argue the immorality of the invasion all you want, and there are some very powerful arguments on your side. But it happened, and no amount of wishful thinking will cause it to un-happen. Planning for a future course of any action in any context other than the present is useless, if not actively counterproductive. If you have a better solution that actually works in the context of right here and right now, then I'd be glad to hear it, but thus far I've heard nothing from you that qualifies.

...and attempts to make Xcountry now colony Pro Empire...

How is the US doing this in Iraq, apart from the accusations you've already made in this post? I don't see the people of Iraq being subjected to US laws, paying taxes to the US, or electing representatives to any government other than their own.

Moderator · Nov 4, 2005, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Concpiracy theorist, much? Not that I doubt the PNAC exists (it has its own website and everything), but I think you're attributing more government influence to it than it actually has.

we're there for good....at least 50 years...bet me.

mojo2 · Nov 4, 2005, 05:55 PM

Go ahead, Millennium, bet him. Any way you look at it there's no way he'll be able to collect.

He's wrong.
The oil shortage will hit the world by then.
Armageddon.
Global warming will melt the glaciers and polar ice caps.
The West Coast is due for THE big one.
Nuclear terrorism.

Take the bet!

mojo2 · Nov 4, 2005, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Athens

The empire invads, installs government, installs its form of goverment system, trains military and attempts to make Xcountry now colony Pro Empire... Quebec was a french Colony, then the British won it and made it there own Colony in the British Empire forming Canada...

MAJOR-MAJOR-MAJOR-MAJOR MISTAKE YOU GUYS CONTINUE TO MAKE HERE.

We help the people install a form of government that would NORMALLY exist if some strongman didn't come in and try to take over.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

If it's good enough FOR YOU, why isn't it good enough for them???

Hmmmm, maybe you ARE a little elitiest/racist!

I shouldn't have defended you so quickly.

Jim Paradise · Nov 4, 2005, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by Athens

The empire invads, installs government, installs its form of goverment system, trains military and attempts to make Xcountry now colony Pro Empire... Quebec was a french Colony, then the British won it and made it there own Colony in the British Empire forming Canada...

Sort of. Canada's history is a bit more complex then simply "Brtis won, things changed to be all British." Quebec retained much of its land-holding system, religion, and in some cases, forms of government. More to the point, look at how many Prime Ministers have been from Quebec. True the Brits won and did install new systems, blah blah., but if you were comparing it to Iraq, it certainly bares no resemblance.

Pendergast · Nov 4, 2005, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Concpiracy theorist, much? Not that I doubt the PNAC exists (it has its own website and everything), but I think you're attributing more government influence to it than it actually has.

Huh?

How is that a conspiracy theory???

And, btw, when do you expect to see any and all US influence out of Iraq?

Pendergast · Nov 4, 2005, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

How is the US doing this in Iraq, apart from the accusations you've already made in this post? I don't see the people of Iraq being subjected to US laws, paying taxes to the US, or electing representatives to any government other than their own.

Hmm..

How much was spent for the Freedom of the Iraqi so far?

Who will pay?

mojo2 · Nov 5, 2005, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Hmm..

How much was spent for the Freedom of the Iraqi so far?

Who will pay?

Excuse my butting in, but EVERYONE IS PAYING SOMETHING and will continue to pay until the terrorists stop or are stopped.

mojo2 · Nov 5, 2005, 12:13 AM

Originally Posted by Jim Paradise

Sort of. Canada's history is a bit more complex then simply "Brtis won, things changed to be all British." Quebec retained much of its land-holding system, religion, and in some cases, forms of government. More to the point, look at how many Prime Ministers have been from Quebec. True the Brits won and did install new systems, blah blah., but if you were comparing it to Iraq, it certainly bares no resemblance.

Yeah. Athens seems to have this abstract/impressionist/shorthand way of looking at things. It's always simplistic yet convoluted and he uses an off the wall example to serve as representative for every body/thing in the category or group.

Irritating and annoying.

loki74 · Nov 5, 2005, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by Pendergast

when do you expect to see any and all US influence out of Iraq?

Well lets see... how about when the Iraqi government is completely and totally stable and when they have a military capable of defending them from terror, as well as a stabilized economy.

Phasing out a country from a dictatorship to a government established by the people is no fast job. Be patient.

Athens · Nov 5, 2005, 06:26 AM

Originally Posted by mojo2

Excuse my butting in, but EVERYONE IS PAYING SOMETHING and will continue to pay until the terrorists stop or are stopped.

explain this to me Mojo, when the people of a country accept you open arms, they are citizens, when the people of the country refuse to accept you and resist you they are called terrorists. Why is this?

Pendergast · Nov 5, 2005, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by mojo2

Excuse my butting in, but EVERYONE IS PAYING SOMETHING and will continue to pay until the terrorists stop or are stopped.

So far, you haven't answered any of the questions I've asked.

Good work!

Millennium · Nov 5, 2005, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by Pendergast

And, btw, when do you expect to see any and all US influence out of Iraq?

When it's ready; meaning they have an approved constitution, have elected a government according to that constitution, and their troops are trained enough to handle their own security matters.

The first part of this has already occurred. The timetable I've mentioned before lists the second. The third is less certain. But why do you insist on an artificial timetable for even that, when in truth there is no good way to predict when it will be?

Pendergast · Nov 5, 2005, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

When it's ready; meaning they have an approved constitution, have elected a government according to that constitution, and their troops are trained enough to handle their own security matters.

The first part of this has already occurred. The timetable I've mentioned before lists the second. The third is less certain. But why do you insist on an artificial timetable for even that, when in truth there is no good way to predict when it will be?

Your reply makes sense only when quoting half of my post.

Persephone · Nov 5, 2005, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by Pendergast

And, btw, when do you expect to see any and all US influence out of Iraq?

When they run out of crude oil.

IOW, a long freckin' time.

Pendergast · 09:38 AM

Back on topic, what does that mean that so many prisoners be freed not too long before an election?

What are the benefits?