How to Improve Capitalism

[untermensche]

ISIS grew out of the ashes of Iraq.

It's military leadership is made up of former Iraqi military that were put out of a job when the US invaded.

To not blame the US is just to live in a fantasy world where massive violence and torture and destruction have no consequence.

Those that absolve the US of this can't be taken serious about anything in terms of ME politics.

Their capital is in Raqqa, Syria - I suppose the US is also responsible for that civil war as well? Is there any conflict in the world you could name that the US isn't responsible for?

Do you support the Nuremberg principles the US spelled out at the end of WWII or not?

Because according to the Nuremberg principles, invented by the US, and used to hang Germans, the supreme crime is aggressive war.

And the aggressor is responsible for all subsequent crimes that arise because of it's aggression.

The US is responsible for ISIS. If it had not attacked and destroyed Iraq ISIS would not exist.

I don't blame the US for everything, but I certainly blame it for the invasion and destruction of Iraq.

 

[Trausti]

Their capital is in Raqqa, Syria - I suppose the US is also responsible for that civil war as well? Is there any conflict in the world you could name that the US isn't responsible for?

Do you support the Nuremberg principles the US spelled out at the end of WWII or not?

Because according to the Nuremberg principles, invented by the US, and used to hang Germans, the supreme crime is aggressive war.

And the aggressor is responsible for all subsequent crimes that arise because of it's aggression.

The US is responsible for ISIS. If it had not attacked and destroyed Iraq ISIS would not exist.

I don't blame the US for everything, but I certainly blame it for the invasion and destruction of Iraq.

The US is responsible for a Syrian rebel faction, originally founded as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999 in Jordan, whose founder espoused a belief that Shiites should be exterminated? You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. And boy we're way OT.

 

[untermensche]

Do you support the Nuremberg principles the US spelled out at the end of WWII or not?

Because according to the Nuremberg principles, invented by the US, and used to hang Germans, the supreme crime is aggressive war.

And the aggressor is responsible for all subsequent crimes that arise because of it's aggression.

The US is responsible for ISIS. If it had not attacked and destroyed Iraq ISIS would not exist.

I don't blame the US for everything, but I certainly blame it for the invasion and destruction of Iraq.

The US is responsible for a Syrian rebel faction, originally founded as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999 in Jordan, whose founder espoused a belief that Shiites should be exterminated? You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. And boy we're way OT.

No, the US is responsible for present day ISIS.

As I said, it's leadership, and thus really it's power, is made up of Iraqi's. It's military leaders are former Iraqi military.

Without the chaos and destruction in Iraq, by the US, there is perhaps something else, but there isn't present day ISIS.

This is not opinion.

who are ISIS’s top 20 leaders?

The investigation revealed that 19 out of ISIS’s top 20 leaders are from Iraq, while one is Syrian. Despite this, the Syrian city of Raqqa is the group’s stronghold.

ISIS is led by Ibrahim Awwad al-Badri, known as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, originally a lecturer in Islamic studies and an imam in Iraq.

He was detained by U.S. forces in 2004, and joined Al-Qaeda following his release.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/09/19/Meet-ISIS-top-20-leaders.html

 

[bilby]

As I said, it's leadership, and thus really it's power, is made up of Iraqi's. It's military leaders are former Iraqi military.

FFS, three in one sentence? Four in the space of just thirteen words? If you don't know how to use an apostrophe, then don't use them at all.

Not one of those was used correctly; if you hadn't touched the apostrophe key when typing that paragraph, then it would have been grammatically correct. What on earth possessed you to touch that key even once?

 

[untermensche]

As I said, it's leadership, and thus really it's power, is made up of Iraqi's. It's military leaders are former Iraqi military.

FFS, three in one sentence? Four in the space of just thirteen words? If you don't know how to use an apostrophe, then don't use them at all.

Not one of those was used correctly; if you hadn't touched the apostrophe key when typing that paragraph, then it would have been grammatically correct. What on earth possessed you to touch that key even once?

What the fuck are you babbling about?

Does this have anything to do with what I was talking about?

 

[Trausti]

The US is responsible for a Syrian rebel faction, originally founded as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999 in Jordan, whose founder espoused a belief that Shiites should be exterminated? You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. And boy we're way OT.

No, the US is responsible for present day ISIS.

As I said, it's leadership, and thus really it's power, is made up of Iraqi's. It's military leaders are former Iraqi military.

Without the chaos and destruction in Iraq, by the US, there is perhaps something else, but there isn't present day ISIS.

This is not opinion.

who are ISIS’s top 20 leaders?

The investigation revealed that 19 out of ISIS’s top 20 leaders are from Iraq, while one is Syrian. Despite this, the Syrian city of Raqqa is the group’s stronghold.

ISIS is led by Ibrahim Awwad al-Badri, known as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, originally a lecturer in Islamic studies and an imam in Iraq.

He was detained by U.S. forces in 2004, and joined Al-Qaeda following his release.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/09/19/Meet-ISIS-top-20-leaders.html

Abu Omar al-Shishani is a Georgian (not American).

Abu Sayyaf, recently made deceased by US special forces, hailed from Tunisia.

My point is simply that the formation of ISIS and its ideology predates the 2003 Iraq invasion. (Indeed, the Sunni fundamentalist's goal of resurrecting the Caliphate predates the US as a superpower.) It's original aim was to overthrown the Jordanian King and then take over the Levant. The Jordanian King is still alive, but half the Levant is now controlled by ISIS. That Al-Baghdadi (who may die soon from his wounds) is the currently head of ISIS doesn't mean he founded it. The US did not create violent fundamentalism in the Middle East. It's been there since the fall of the Ottoman empire.

 

[untermensche]

No, the US is responsible for present day ISIS.

As I said, it's leadership, and thus really it's power, is made up of Iraqi's. It's military leaders are former Iraqi military.

Without the chaos and destruction in Iraq, by the US, there is perhaps something else, but there isn't present day ISIS.

This is not opinion.

who are ISIS’s top 20 leaders?

The investigation revealed that 19 out of ISIS’s top 20 leaders are from Iraq, while one is Syrian. Despite this, the Syrian city of Raqqa is the group’s stronghold.

ISIS is led by Ibrahim Awwad al-Badri, known as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, originally a lecturer in Islamic studies and an imam in Iraq.

He was detained by U.S. forces in 2004, and joined Al-Qaeda following his release.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/09/19/Meet-ISIS-top-20-leaders.html

Abu Omar al-Shishani is a Georgian (not American).

Abu Sayyaf, recently made deceased by US special forces, hailed from Tunisia.

My point is simply that the formation of ISIS and its ideology predates the 2003 Iraq invasion. (Indeed, the Sunni fundamentalist's goal of resurrecting the Caliphate predates the US as a superpower.) It's original aim was to overthrown the Jordanian King and then take over the Levant. The Jordanian King is still alive, but half the Levant is now controlled by ISIS. That Al-Baghdadi (who may die soon from his wounds) is the currently head of ISIS doesn't mean he founded it. The US did not create violent fundamentalism in the Middle East. It's been there since the fall of the Ottoman empire.

ISIS is not long established goals of some sect.

It is a real force, and it exists because of it's current leadership, which is mainly Iraqi.

And the reason these Iraqi's are leading ISIS is because of what the US did in Iraq.

The US created ISIS, in it's current form.

The US did not create the ideas many of the members of ISIS possess. But the violent nature of the US was an example.

 

[bilby]

FFS, three in one sentence? Four in the space of just thirteen words? If you don't know how to use an apostrophe, then don't use them at all.

Not one of those was used correctly; if you hadn't touched the apostrophe key when typing that paragraph, then it would have been grammatically correct. What on earth possessed you to touch that key even once?

What the fuck are you babbling about?

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise you didn't know; an apostrophe is the little mark like a comma, but higher up, that is used before the letter "S" to differentiate between a possessive and a plural, or to indicate the use of a contraction.

So "Iraqis" means "more than one Iraqi", while "Iraqi's" means "belonging to Iraqi"; and "it's" means "it is", while "its" means "belonging to it". (Note that "its" is the exception to the rule regarding possessives in this case).

It's really very simple, so there is no excuse for getting it wrong four times in as few as thirteen words.

Does this have anything to do with what I was talking about?

No, but it does have to do with how you were talking about it.

I hope that helps to clarify things for you; if you need any further help, please do not hesitate to ask.

 

[Jayjay]

I'll repeat what I said before. Muslims have been slaughtering muslims and infidels, more than 1000 years before the USof A was even discovered. To blame America for the birth of ISIS, or any other of the world's ills is like blaming the god Thor for thunder and lightning!

ISIS grew out of the ashes of Iraq.

It's military leadership is made up of former Iraqi military that were put out of a job when the US invaded.

So, the mistake was not the invasion per se, but firing Saddam's underlings? Sure that was a mistake in retrospect, but it's hardly "massive violence and torture and destruction". The guys who founded/repurposed ISIS weren't nice guys to begin with, and were quite likely responsible for their fair share of violence and torture even before the invasion.

 

[Jayjay]

As for Nuremberg principles, that would make US entirely blameless because it was merely a continuation of the war started by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

 

[untermensche]

As for Nuremberg principles, that would make US entirely blameless because it was merely a continuation of the war started by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

Talk about tinfoil hats.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was long over when the US deliberately and aggressively attacked Iraq. Events don't magically last forever.

And if you know anything about the Nuremberg principles you would know that aggressive warfare is not justified because a decade earlier a nation engaged in aggressive warfare.

The US had no legitimate justification and if there was a power able to enforce the US constructed Nuremberg principles, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld would have hung right next to Saddam Hussein.

 

[Jayjay]

As for Nuremberg principles, that would make US entirely blameless because it was merely a continuation of the war started by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

Talk about tinfoil hats.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was long over when the US deliberately and aggressively attacked Iraq. Events don't magically last forever.

The US invasion of Iraq is also over.

 

[untermensche]

Talk about tinfoil hats.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was long over when the US deliberately and aggressively attacked Iraq. Events don't magically last forever.

The US invasion of Iraq is also over.

The violence that began with the US invasion of Iraq is still in progress.

ISIS is mostly, at least its leadership, Iraqis.

And they want to take Iraq back because they don't see the US imposed and propped up government as legitimate.

And the US is still actively fighting in both Syria and Iraq.

You are wrong when you say the invasion of Iraq is over.

Mission is not accomplished.

 

[lpetrich]

AthenaAwakened's opening posts have some great goals, but they seem short on how to achieve them. That's the big problem that Marxists have had.

For my part, I'm a believer in Noblesse Oblige, as opposed to the hoarse screaming of Noblesse N'Oblige Jamais that I get from right wingers and capitalism groupies.

I also like the Pacific Northwest First Nations custom of Potlatch -- getting status by giving stuff away rather than how much one can take.

But enforcing these ideals as social norms seems difficult. Given AthenaAwakened's research skills, she could point us to possible examples of successes.

 

[Jayjay]

The US invasion of Iraq is also over.

The violence that began with the US invasion of Iraq is still in progress.

ISIS is mostly, at least its leadership, Iraqis.

And they want to take Iraq back because they don't see the US imposed and propped up government as legitimate.

And the US is still actively fighting in both Syria and Iraq.

You are wrong when you say the invasion of Iraq is over.

Mission is not accomplished.

So? The issue isnot whether the mission was accomplished, it's whether it's over. The US troops left in 2011 and Iraq has elected their own government since 2005. You can argue that the violence continues, but my point is that as far as the Nuremberg principles are concerned, the US is not responsible for it but ISIS.

You should apply your own standards to the first gulf war:

1) You say that invasion is not over because ISIS doesn't think so. Did the US think Saddam's government was legitimate? No. Did Saddam think that the US-imposed no-fly zones and sanctions were legitimate? No.

2) After the Gulf War, US and Iraq forces were still fighting if not daily, at least weekly, due to no-fly zones.

By these criteria, the Gulf War was never over either and the US invasion in 2003 was just a continuation of it.

 

[arkirk]

Talk about tinfoil hats.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was long over when the US deliberately and aggressively attacked Iraq. Events don't magically last forever.

The US invasion of Iraq is also over.

It actually isn't over. The U.S. is still dropping bombs. The U.S. is still sending war materiel to that country. The U.S. is still pulling strings...but it has to share responsibility for the shit there today with Iran. The brutal vicious ISIS is pitted against the equally brutal and vicious Shia Militias, both of which frequently shoot at each other with American Made Weapons.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The US invasion of Iraq is also over.

It actually isn't over. The U.S. is still dropping bombs. The U.S. is still sending war materiel to that country. The U.S. is still pulling strings...but it has to share responsibility for the shit there today with Iran. The brutal vicious ISIS is pitted against the equally brutal and vicious Shia Militias, both of which frequently shoot at each other with American Made Weapons.

I know that you didn't start this derail, but what does the US involvement in Iraq have to do with capitalism. The vast majority of capitalist countries in the world don't invade anyone.

 

[untermensche]

The violence that began with the US invasion of Iraq is still in progress.

ISIS is mostly, at least its leadership, Iraqis.

And they want to take Iraq back because they don't see the US imposed and propped up government as legitimate.

And the US is still actively fighting in both Syria and Iraq.

You are wrong when you say the invasion of Iraq is over.

Mission is not accomplished.

So? The issue isnot whether the mission was accomplished, it's whether it's over. The US troops left in 2011 and Iraq has elected their own government since 2005. You can argue that the violence continues, but my point is that as far as the Nuremberg principles are concerned, the US is not responsible for it but ISIS.

You should apply your own standards to the first gulf war:

1) You say that invasion is not over because ISIS doesn't think so. Did the US think Saddam's government was legitimate? No.

ISIS is Iraqis, at least it's leadership is mostly Iraqis. It is Iraqis who think, for good reasons, that a government imposed by a foreign nation by force is illegitimate.

If some nation invaded the US, dismantled the government, then set up a different government, even if there were elections in the hopes the invader would go away, the Americans who felt that government was legitimate would be known as traitors.

Did Saddam think that the US-imposed no-fly zones and sanctions were legitimate? No.

He had good reason to think that.

They were illegal, not imposed by the UN, imposed by the US, as you say.

They were a war crime.

2) After the Gulf War, US and Iraq forces were still fighting if not daily, at least weekly, due to no-fly zones.

Prior criminal activity by the US does not justify further criminal activity.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was long over. There were no Iraqi forces in Kuwait. Kuwait had full control over it's country and had full sovereignty.

It is beyond insane to claim the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was still happening.

Something only an American could possibly say.

 

[Jayjay]

So? The issue isnot whether the mission was accomplished, it's whether it's over. The US troops left in 2011 and Iraq has elected their own government since 2005. You can argue that the violence continues, but my point is that as far as the Nuremberg principles are concerned, the US is not responsible for it but ISIS.

You should apply your own standards to the first gulf war:

1) You say that invasion is not over because ISIS doesn't think so. Did the US think Saddam's government was legitimate? No.

ISIS is Iraqis, at least it's leadership is mostly Iraqis. It is Iraqis who think, for good reasons, that a government imposed by a foreign nation by force is illegitimate.

If some nation invaded the US, dismantled the government, then set up a different government, even if there were elections in the hopes the invader would go away, the Americans who felt that government was legitimate would be known as traitors

Except in this case the invader did go away. Also by that definition millions of US citizens of Hawaiian, Mexican, or native American descent should be considered traitors.

Also, taking your definition to its logical conclusion, almost no government in the world would not be legitimate either simply because every single nation on Earth has at some point in its history been at losing end of a war. In particular, if the Iraqi government isn't legitimate, then neither are those of Germany or Japan, as they were likewise imposed during US military occupation.

Did Saddam think that the US-imposed no-fly zones and sanctions were legitimate? No.

He had good reason to think that.

They were illegal, not imposed by the UN, imposed by the US, as you say.

They were a war crime.

2) After the Gulf War, US and Iraq forces were still fighting if not daily, at least weekly, due to no-fly zones.

Prior criminal activity by the US does not justify further criminal activity.

I agree. You seem to be arguing against yourself> it's you who's saying that US is responsible for criminal activity and violence by ISIS, according to Nuremberg principles. So regardless of whether you think US-imposed sanctions or no-fly zones were war crimes or not, the party that initiated the war, i.e. Saddam Hussein's Iraq, should be considered responsible.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was long over. There were no Iraqi forces in Kuwait. Kuwait had full control over it's country and had full sovereignty.

It is beyond insane to claim the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was still happening.

It was happening only in the same bizarre sense that you think US invasion of Iraq is still happening.

Something only an American could possibly say.

I'm not an American, but I take that as a compliment.

 

[untermensche]

ISIS is Iraqis, at least it's leadership is mostly Iraqis. It is Iraqis who think, for good reasons, that a government imposed by a foreign nation by force is illegitimate.

If some nation invaded the US, dismantled the government, then set up a different government, even if there were elections in the hopes the invader would go away, the Americans who felt that government was legitimate would be known as traitors

Except in this case the invader did go away. Also by that definition millions of US citizens of Hawaiian, Mexican, or native American descent should be considered traitors.

The US is still carrying out military activities in Iraq.

And the invader left an legitimate government.

It is the same government in Kuwait that existed before Iraq invaded.

And if you knew anything about Hawaiians, Mexicans and Native Americans you would know that many think the US government is ruling them illegitimately.

Also, taking your definition to its logical conclusion, almost no government in the world would not be legitimate either simply because every single nation on Earth has at some point in its history been at losing end of a war. In particular, if the Iraqi government isn't legitimate, then neither are those of Germany or Japan, as they were likewise imposed during US military occupation.

I'm not claiming illegitimate governments can't evolve into legitimate governments if they can remain in place for a generation or so.

I'm not claiming the illegitimate government in Iraq won't remain the government of Iraq for decades.

I'm expressing a moral principle. Governments formed by occupying powers are illegitimate. Even if they involve elections.

People under occupation are living under a form of coercion.

....So regardless of whether you think US-imposed sanctions or no-fly zones were war crimes or not, the party that initiated the war, i.e. Saddam Hussein's Iraq, should be considered responsible...

Hussein was defeated. He was driven from Kuwait. Kuwait had full sovereignty restored. The invasion of Kuwait was over.

The illegal no-fly zones cannot logically be thought of as a response to the invasion. That was completely over.

They were aggression. A crime.

I'm not an American, but I take that as a compliment.

I can see where you say you are from. So much for the great Finnish educational system. For some it is as bad as the American.