Iraq violence will rise

Huzington Meatballs


1 pound Huzington meat; chopped or ground
1 Egg
1 tablespoon Finely-chopped onion
2 tablespoons Finely-chopped celery
1 tablespoon Finely-chopped parsley
2 tablespoons Finely-chopped shallots
2 teaspoons Lemon pepper
1/2 teaspoon Salt
1/4 cup Bread crumbs
Flour; for dredging
1 cup Cooking oil

Mix all ingredients, form into 1-inch balls. Allow to set for 1 hour. Dredge in the flour and fry until brown. Serve hot.

Yield: 1 serving

Yum.
 
Obviously another bored political science major...........His(dads) Beemer is in the shop getting the heated seats fixed so he had no wheels for the weekend.


When Manifesto's old enough for college-----perhaps they could room together.......
 
1 Tablespoon of finely-chopped parsley? Personally, I'd put in a quarter-cup of fresh, finely-chopped parsely. Only if it's fresh.
 
You guys should try using more dill in your recipies!
 
Huzington said:
This article is worth reading:

http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=29040&lang=en

The resistance is growing stronger and stronger, support for the
Iraqi resistance is getting stronger worldwide, more and more
people are becoming disillusioned with these so-called 'liberators'.
Conditions are worse in Iraq than under the rule of highly
oppressive tyrant Saddam Hussein.
Click to expand...

With support from people like you, it's not surprising that death and destruction will rise.

Are you proud of what you're responsible for?
 
Re: Re: Iraq violence will rise

jj said:


With support from people like you, it's not surprising that death and destruction will rise.

Are you proud of what you're responsible for?
Click to expand...

I am proud of those who resist Yankee imperialist aggression.
The resistance in Iraq is simply the anger of an occupied people. I
would support the people of the Iraq before supporting the U$
usurpers, who have committed many horrible acts of genocide
and terror, any day.
 
Re: Re: Re: Iraq violence will rise

Huzington said:


I am proud of those who resist Yankee imperialist aggression.
The resistance in Iraq is simply the anger of an occupied people. I
would support the people of the Iraq before supporting the U$
usurpers, who have committed many horrible acts of genocide
and terror, any day.
Click to expand...

If history has taught us one thing, it's that it's wrong whoever is wearing the brown shirts. Both sides—capitalism and communism—have had their share of atrocities, so don't try and throw stones at someone else when your own house is in such disarray.

Michael
 
Violence in Iraq probably will rise in the immediate future, as the insurgents who are not Saddam loyalists seek to establish power bases from which to promote their own agendas on the population and the new regime.

This is actually going to be a fairly dangerous time for both the coalition forces and the Iraqi population, but it is disingenuous to claim that all insurgents have the same agenda and that it would now be better to withdraw from Iraq and let the people sort things out for themselves - down that path, lies anarchy and civil war, not to mention more violence and intimidation of the population.
 
down that path, lies anarchy and civil war, not to mention more violence and intimidation of the population.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would see it as that as well.
It is more peaceful for US troops to keep the guerrillas (sp?) from going on a killing spree and recruiting more people into a movement against the current Iraqui government. It'd be like just inviting the Taliban into Iraq to run amock right?
 
Eos of the Eons said:


Yeah, I would see it as that as well.
It is more peaceful for US troops to keep the guerrillas (sp?) from going on a killing spree and recruiting more people into a movement against the current Iraqui government. It'd be like just inviting the Taliban into Iraq to run amock right?
Click to expand...

I would like to see a much broader-based peace-keeping and reconstruction force in Iraq from here on out, because I think that many Iraqis who welcomed the removal of Saddam from power will now be unafraid of his return and will perceive continued "US occupation" as unnecessary and now turn their anger towards the continued presence of primarily US troops there.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq violence will rise

coalesce said:


If history has taught us one thing, it's that it's wrong whoever is wearing the brown shirts. Both sides—capitalism and communism—have had their share of atrocities, so don't try and throw stones at someone else when your own house is in such disarray.

Michael
Click to expand...

And I completely agree with you, sir. There have been Marxist
tyrants (Pol Pot, Deng, Krushchev and his successors) as well as
Capitalist tyrants (Hitler, Churchill, Franco, Pinochet, Hussein,
George Bush, etc.).

........But how is this relevant?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq violence will rise

Huzington said:


And I completely agree with you, sir. There have been Marxist
tyrants (Pol Pot, Deng, Krushchev and his successors) as well as
Capitalist tyrants (Hitler, Churchill, Franco, Pinochet, Hussein,
George Bush, etc.).

........But how is this relevant?
Click to expand...

It is relevant in that I see far too often on this board, people of one political mind decrying "the other side" as evil incarnate, while gleefully ignoring some of the darker periods of their own political persuasion. I'm glad to see that you can acknowledge that not every Marxist was a kindly person who had only the common people's best interests at heart, just as not every capitalist was interested in making life better for the common people by paying them a living wage and encouraging economic growth for one and all.

However, on your list, I don't believe that Churchill belongs there, and I think that Mao and Stalin do.

Michael
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq violence will rise

Churchill, not a tyrant?

"Churchill was an anti-communist leader, a racist, a political opportunist, a reactionary and a fervid imperialist class warrior. In 1910 as the Home Minister he sent troops against striking miners in Liverpool and transport workers, and advised the compulsory sterilization of the mentally deranged to "improve British racial stock."

"During the Civil War in Russia he organized British intervention to fight against the Bolsheviks who were trying to establish a workers' state. He indulged in imperialist adventures with the Malakand Field Force in India, the Omdurman massacre in the Sudan, and the Boer war in South Africa. He advocated the use of poison gas in Iraq against the rebelling Arabs and was responsible for organizing the Black and Tans, which terrorized Catholics in Ireland. He was fervently against giving independence to India in 1947, even after the rest of the British ruling class decided that the cost of continuing to keep India directly subjugated was too high.

"During the war, Churchill was instrumental in delaying the opening of the Second Front in the west. Among other crimes, he sent British troops to Greece, after it had been liberated of Nazi occupation by the Communist partisans, and installed a fascist king. Churchill was a good war Prime Minister for the British ruling classes, because he kept their empire for them. But even this pitiable contribution turned out to be of little historical significance, because the struggling masses in India, China, and Africa booted out open colonial rule by the British soon after the war."

From http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/cd4.html#RTFToC4
 
Hope springs eternal eh, Huzington?

Your profile has your occupation as "human liberator".

Given your level of zealous propaganda and devotion to Soviet communism, do you have any plans to try and foil the evil Imperialistic American master-plan by trying to rescue Saddam from his captors?? :rolleyes:



:dl:
 
Kodiak said:
Hope springs eternal eh, Huzington?

Your profile has your occupation as "human liberator".

Given your level of zealous propaganda and devotion to Soviet communism, do you have any plans to try and foil the evil Imperialistic American master-plan by trying to rescue Saddam from his captors?? :rolleyes:



:dl:
Click to expand...

Yo, big bear, I don't think this one believes a thing he says. I think he's just a big, silly wind-up.

Churchill is a tyrant, and Stalin didn't kill anyone in the Ukraine, he says.

Okaaay, if he really believes that, I think he needs medical attention.
 
jj said:


Yo, big bear, I don't think this one believes a thing he says. I think he's just a big, silly wind-up.

Churchill is a tyrant, and Stalin didn't kill anyone in the Ukraine, he says.

Okaaay, if he really believes that, I think he needs medical attention.
Click to expand...

You know how people ignore those "Do Not Feed The Bears" signs? Well, I can't help but ignore the "Do Not Prod The Woo-Woo"... :D
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq violence will rise

Huzington said:
Churchill, not a tyrant?

"Churchill was an anti-communist leader, a racist, a political opportunist, a reactionary and a fervid imperialist class warrior. In 1910 as the Home Minister he sent troops against striking miners in Liverpool and transport workers, and advised the compulsory sterilization of the mentally deranged to "improve British racial stock."

"During the Civil War in Russia he organized British intervention to fight against the Bolsheviks who were trying to establish a workers' state. He indulged in imperialist adventures with the Malakand Field Force in India, the Omdurman massacre in the Sudan, and the Boer war in South Africa. He advocated the use of poison gas in Iraq against the rebelling Arabs and was responsible for organizing the Black and Tans, which terrorized Catholics in Ireland. He was fervently against giving independence to India in 1947, even after the rest of the British ruling class decided that the cost of continuing to keep India directly subjugated was too high.

"During the war, Churchill was instrumental in delaying the opening of the Second Front in the west. Among other crimes, he sent British troops to Greece, after it had been liberated of Nazi occupation by the Communist partisans, and installed a fascist king. Churchill was a good war Prime Minister for the British ruling classes, because he kept their empire for them. But even this pitiable contribution turned out to be of little historical significance, because the struggling masses in India, China, and Africa booted out open colonial rule by the British soon after the war."

From http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/cd4.html#RTFToC4
Click to expand...

Somewhat one-sided, but at least Huzington presented his case for Churchill. However, the silence about Uncle Joe and Mao is most telling.

Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom