Is the War Still Worth Opposing?

[Rosa Provokateur]

Back in my sophomore year of 2006-2007 I was really active against the war; demonstrated against it in my school, protested recruiters coming onto the campus, etc. Lately I've felt the need to get back into it and shake up the political apathy of the under-classmen but according to my friends, the war is no longer an issue. They arent pro or anti-Obama but feel that since he actually has a plan to get out and violence has died down, there's no real reason to demonstrate. Are they right and if not, what's the situation in Iraq that I can present as being worth opposition?

[Poison]

Is the occupation and murder of a nation's people still worth opposing...?

Seriously...?

[ZeroNowhere]

Obama's not getting out. He's leaving tens of thousands of troops in there, and his 'withdrawal' is basically superficial, getting the liberals to further worship him while getting more troops to Afghanistan (though he had started that before any withdrawals).

[choff]

I'm not too knowledgeable on the subject, but his plans to "double up" in Afghanistan is still worthy of opposition. The war is costing the US a couple billion dollars weekly. Moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is not going to negate that figure, only allocate it.

[BobKKKindle$]

Opposing the occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan is now more important than ever before. Obama has pledged to withdrawal all troops from Iraq by the end of next year, and during the course of his election campaign he made a great deal of the fact that he was the only candidate to have oppossed the invasion of Iraq right from the beginning, and to have remained a consistent critic of the war, whereas the other candidates were initially in favour of the invasion and subsequent occupation. Socialists need to keep organizing and fighting to make sure that Obama - now the leader of a bourgeois state apparatus - keeps to this promise and does end the occupation. There are already signs that, despite his success in creating the illusion that he will change the direction of American foreign policy, and transform the way America is perceived in the Middle East, Obama represents more of the same, and his election does not signify any fundamental break with the policies of the Bush administration. He has extended his promised timeframe for withdrawing "combat troops" to 19 months (in comparison to the initial promise of 16 months) and now plans for a "residual force" of up to 50,000 soldiers to remain in Iraq through at least 2011. More importantly, the main purpose of withdrawal for Obama is to free up troops that will later be deployed to Afghanistan - a war which Obama has always supported. Obama's plan for Afghanistan involves sending tens of thousands of additional US troops into the troubled south of the country, where the resistance commands popular support, and boosting the size of the Afghan army from 65,000 to 230,000. Obama may also decide to extend the war to Pakistan, where predator drones have already been deployed, resulting in civilian casualties, All of this is disappointing for progressive activists who hoped that Obama would be able to deliver, but socialists need to be exposing Obama, because, unlike left-liberals, we don't see imperialism as a dynamic tied to any particular leader, or political party - we see imperialism as bound up with the capitalist system, and so the only way to abolish the most violent and destructive manifestations of imperialism - wars - is to overthrow capitalism.

NATO is going to be celebrating its 60th anniversary in Strasbourg next month. Marxists from around Europe are going to be there - and our comrades around the world need to be doing the same thing in their own communities.

[BobKKKindle$]

Another issue we should be keeping in mind is Iran. Obama rightly argued for engagement with Iran, and has even sent an appeal to the Iranian people in the form of a televised address - ostensibly to prevent the outbreak of war, although it's likely that the appeal was designed to make the Iranian regime lose face by making it seem as if the United States is committed to peace. However, despite this appearance of diplomacy, Obama continues to argue that, if Iran pursues its nuclear program (which is currently a civilian program - there is no evidence showing that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, and there are legitimate reasons for the Iranian government to research nuclear energy, such as diminishing oil reserves, and the declining price of oil) military force will be used to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure, and, if necessary, enforce "regime change", which would amount to yet another country under US occupation. This is another "front" of the anti-war movement that Marxists need to be developing.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I'm not worried about Afghanistan, I can support a fight against the Taliban. It's Iraq that I need info on.

[BobKKKindle$]

I'm not worried about Afghanistan, I can support a fight against the Taliban

Do you mean that you would oppose an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of NATO forces?

[Rosa Provokateur]

It depends on whether or not the Taliban would re-take power. I usually oppose all use of military and violent force but after reading about the Taliban's human-rights violations, I dont know.

[mykittyhasaboner]

It depends on whether or not the Taliban would re-take power. I usually oppose all use of military and violent force but after reading about the Taliban's human-rights violations, I dont know.

Lol, so you support the US over the Taliban on the grounds of human rights violations?

:lol::lol::lol:

[Rosa Provokateur]

I support the Afghani people and whatever can be done to help them. My issue is Iraq.

[Poison]

How does occupying a nation help anyone? Especially when we've done the same or worst in their country (raped their women, bombed them, used chemical weapons, shot at them just for shits and giggles)?

We can't liberate a people from their oppressors by being their oppressors.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Right, so you think the US military occupying Afghanistan is going to help them? In that case your either naive or just disgustingly inhumane.

Why do you even have an "issue" with the war in Iraq? It's an imperialist invasion of a country, that has killed many, many people since its begun. I really don't even see the point in explaining the situation to you, because this is a non-question.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Just checked the IVAW site and got everything I need http://ivaw.org/faq

[BobKKKindle$]

it depends on whether or not the Taliban would re-take power. I usually oppose all use of military and violent force but after reading about the Taliban's human-rights violations, I dont know.Marxists base our political positions on what will best allow the working class to improve its conditions, and eventually liberate itself from capitalism, and so what we need to consider in this case is whether the position of the working class is better under NATO occupation, or under a Taleban-dominated government - assuming that the latter would inevitably come into being after a withdrawal. It's worth pointing out at this stage that the Taleban is not a unified or coherent organization - it consists of different factions which are loosely bound together only by a shared commitment to Islamic fundamentalism, and opposition to the occupation. This is also true of the Northern Alliance. I would argue that, however much we may despise the Taleban, and despite the prospect of women and other oppressed groups being mistreated by Taleban militants if the Taleban is able to expand its control of the country and surrounding region, the ongoing occupation of Afghanistan represents the single biggest threat to the well-being of workers and their communities, and the situation in that country will only become worse if Obama pushes ahead with his "mini-surge". There is no easy solution to the situation in Afghanistan, but it is in the interests of Afghan workers for NATO forced to withdraw immediately. It is partly for this reason that many Afghans welcome the expulsion of NATO forces when the Taleban takes control of the area they inhabit, especially in the case of Pashtuns, who have suffered persecution at the hands of the US-backed Northern Alliance. The war in Afghanistan has not solved any of the things it set out to do - women still suffer political and social oppression, and Afghan workers are still denied access to basic services such as water and education, despite repeated claims that a "democratic" government, assisted by NATO forces, would be able to improve conditions for the most vulnerable and exploited sections of Afghan society.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Especially when we've done the same or worst in their country (raped their women, bombed them, used chemical weapons, shot at them just for shits and giggles)?


I wasnt there so I cant comment, I know that the majority of troops arent like that. Is the U.S. sinless, no. But is she the blood-thirsty war-machine many make her out to be, I dont think so either.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I wasnt there so I cant comment, I know that the majority of troops arent like that. Is the U.S. sinless, no. But is she the blood-thirsty war-machine many make her out to be, I dont think so either.

Your nationalism gets more banal by the post, the US imperialist war machine, as you described is what it is. If your going to deny that, then you need to go research some US history.

[JohannGE]

Is the War Still Worth Opposing?

Not to oppose it would be to support it. The only war I will support is war against oppresion in any of it's forms. I am sure we all have our own ideas of what and who that means in the complexities of todays world. Personaly I would rather form my own opinions than easily accept those of others, even "friends".

The enthusiasm re Obamas election will in the long term be a minor blip in history. The rejection of subjugation by military might will go on untill those who promote it are totaly defeated.

[BobKKKindle$]

Especially when we've done the same or worst in their country (raped their women, bombed them, used chemical weapons, shot at them just for shits and giggles)?Why do you describe the US as "we"? The notion that the inhabitants of any given country have a shared set of interests, or are all responsible for the actions of their government, is a classic bourgeois notion, that has been used to justify all sorts of reactionary politics. There are American workers (in the sense of workers who have been designated US citizens by the state) and there is an American ruling class - and these social groups have absolutely nothing in common with each other, especially when it comes to foreign policy, which, as something that is controlled by a bourgeois state, reflects the interests and aims of the American ruling class, and not any illusory "national interest".

This isn't unique to you, it's somethings lots of American leftists seem to do.


I support the Afghani people and whatever can be done to help them. My issue is Iraq. You can't compartmentalize these issues. The occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan are products of the same imperialist system - and their geographical proximity, and the dominant role of the United States in both countries, means that events in one country are always going to have an impact on how the occupying forces manage their affairs in the other country, as well as other possible candidates for invasion, such as Iran. There's a simple question here - is it better for the Afghan working class to have NATO remain in Afghanistan, or for NATO to be expelled?

[Poison]

Why do you describe the US as "we"? The notion that the inhabitants of any given country have a shared set of interests, or are all responsible for the actions of their government, is a classic bourgeois notion, that has been used to justify all sorts of reactionary politics.
I'm not sure why you find it reactionary. I feel that I and much of America needs to share some responsibility for this war. We haven't fought hard enough against it, and have been too concerned with things like American Idol to care about rape, torture, murder, etc. Of course it's not our fault but we can't go blameless.

Many Americans, including myself I am ashamed to say (though I was only 11 so maybe I'm being a bit hard on myself), allowed ourselves to call for the invasion of a country. Yes, our government lied to us but we were more than willing to let it go unquestioned why we should invade a country when it was a few extremists that attacked us. Too many of us didn't even blink at human rights abuses and at the reports that continued to come out about soldiers raping Iraqis and worse.

We do share a little responsibility. Not all of us, but most of us didn't care enough to oppose it actively. That's why I say "we".

[Bitter Ashes]

Here's a question then.
Is it possible to bend the strategy in Afghanistan so that the coalition troops actualy benefit the Afghan people?
Obviously, nobody wants the Afghan people to be oppressed by either the Taliban or NATO, so what's the best way of ensuring that both parties do not harm them?

[ZeroNowhere]

Obama has pledged to withdrawal all troops from Iraq by the end of next year
Well, not as President. As for the rest...
"Oh no, the socialists disapprove of my occupation of Iraq! What am I to do? Oh yeah... Not give a shit." And hell, even the people united in an anti-war protest, regardless of whether they can be defeated or not, can most certainly be ignored.


I support the Afghani people and whatever can be done to help them. My issue is Iraq.
Civilian deaths have been going up by loads ever since the US war. I'm not entirely sure when death became liberating outside poetry, but it's annoying.


But is she the blood-thirsty war-machine many make her out to be, I dont think so either.
Profit-thirsty would be a better description.


Just checked the IVAW site and got everything I need http://ivaw.org/faq
Deceive Congress? Heh.


Obama rightly argued for engagement with Iran, and has even sent an appeal to the Iranian people in the form of a televised address - ostensibly to prevent the outbreak of war, although it's likely that the appeal was designed to make the Iranian regime lose face by making it seem as if the United States is committed to peace.
Not especially. Of course the US wants allies in the Middle East, but only if they sell their soul (oh, yeah, and oil. Especially the oil. Gimme the oil) first, which is pretty much what Obama was asking for there. The Iranian government had the sense to see that nothing was changing. Though apparently they set the bar too high: "Khamenei set the bar impossibly high — demanding an overhaul of U.S. foreign policy, including giving up "unconditional support" for Israel and halting claims that Iran is seeking nuclear arms." Oh dear. Anything but that! And, of course, Iran's "rightful place in the community of nations...cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions." Look who's talking, Obama. Which reminds me... Heh (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/world/middleeast/21hormuz.html?_r=1).
(Original quote: "Has your hostility towards the Iranian nation changed? Where are its signs? Have you unblocked the assets of the Iranian nation? Have you lifted the oppressive sanctions? Have you given up your mudslinging and making accusations against this great nation and its popular officials? Have you stopped your unconditional support for Israel? What has changed? They give the slogan of change but we have seen nothing in practice. We have seen no change." Wow, way too demanding, man. Just... Yeah.)
I mean, according to Obama, the Iran conflict is simply "serious differences that have grown over time." Nothing to do with violent overthrow of their elected government in 1953, support for a brutal dictator, and backing Iraq as it killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians. I mean, fuck, they took over the US Espionage Den in 1979. The destruction was mutual. But then again, rather than, I don't know, even mention any of this, Obama's just going around being paternalistic. Whee.
Also, I just watched The Candidate yesterday. It's not fiction, it seems, it's a primer.

[BobKKKindle$]

I'm not sure why you find it reactionary.In what sense do you see "American" as a meaningful political concept? What is it that makes you identify as an American? The United States, like every other country in the entire world, and throughout human history, with the exception of Russia in 1917, is a class-divided society, and the interests of American workers - as well as those workers from other countries who have traveled to the US with the intention of providing for the needs of their families back in their home countries through remittances - are fundamentally oppossed to those of the American bourgeoisie, in addition to every other section of the international bourgeoisie. Any superficial cultural or social links, such as a shared language, and certain aspects of your identity, are ultimately secondary to the reality of class struggle - and that reality is that every American worker has far more in common with an Iranian worker than even the most worker-friendly members of the American bourgeoisie.

If you feel that you share responsibility for the war - and that could be an honorable sentiment - then that's got nothing to do with you being a bad American, and everything to do with you not being a consistent internationalist, because it was in the interests of the American bourgeoisie to go to war - even if their state (it's not "your government" - it's the political manifestation of bourgeois economic dominance) needed to lie to other people to get them to go along with it.


Is it possible to bend the strategy in Afghanistan so that the coalition troops actualy benefit the Afghan people?There's nothing we can do to shift the strategy of NATO, so that it's in the interests of Afghan workers for NATO to remain in place. The entire point of the occupation is to exploit Afghanistan's markets and economic resources, and to provide a strategic base for other operations in the Middle East. There is no such thing as a cuddly imperialism. The ultimate solution to the oppression and poverty of the Afghan working-class is socialist revolution, and that's far more likely to occur under Taleban dictatorship, when the focus point of political activity is no longer anti-imperialist resistance, but class struggle, than under NATO occupation.

[Bitter Ashes]

hmmm. What about giving the Afghan people the oportunity to defend themselves against the Taliban and withdrawing NATO troops?
I can see what you're saying about it not benefitting the NATO bourgeois, so I guess it's hypothetical. Even so, would such a practice be a benefitial way forward?
edit: Now that I think about it, would this work in other places too? I mean, there's a heated debate regarding Northern Ireland elsewhere, so would a similar strategy help end sectarianism in Northern Ireland?

[BobKKKindle$]

hmmm. What about giving the Afghan people the oportunity to defend themselves against the Taliban and withdrawing NATO troops?It would be great if the resistance was not being led by the Taleban. The revolutionary left lacks a mass base in Afghanistan partly because local communists supported the Stalinist regime in the 1970/80s, as well as the subsequent Soviet invasion, which, consistent with Stalinist practice, attempted to impose socialism from above - or, to be more precise, what many communists thought was socialism - without the active participation or leadership of the Afghan working class, and at the cost of one million lives by the time the Soviets were forced to withdraw in 1989, not to mention the detestation of Afghan society and the economy. The SWP (my own organization) was the only party in the UK to support the resistance against the Soviets, even when the resistance was being led by the Mujahideen, which received financial and material support from the United States, and committed many acts of terrible cruelty, but unfortunately we didn't have any comrades in Afghanistan at that time so we weren't able to build a socialist resistance.

[BobKKKindle$]

Even so, would such a practice be a benefitial way forward?As always, the working class is our central concern, so if it turned out that it was better for the working class, in terms of what will best allow the working class to cast off its national prejudices and overthrow the bourgeoisie, for an imperialist occupation to remain in place, with a benevolent policy, then it would make sense for socialists not to support resistance against the occupying power in question. On the question of Northern Ireland, in fact, the current position of the SWP - as far as I'm aware - is to support the current peace treaty, not because we favour the occupation of the six countries, but because, at the current time, there is not a mass anti-imperialist movement fighting against the British presence, and Irish workers are liable to oppose isolated acts of violence designed to disrupt the peace process - as we saw recently with the protests following the CIRA and RIRA attacks. This is our position even though we see the British state as fundamentally imperialist. In most cases, this question is academic, in that any imperialist occupation will always be brutal, and will always pressure workers to rise up against their oppressors, often alongside the national ruling class, simply because, in situations of national oppression, domestic class struggle is less immediately important than than the violence and suppression posed by imperialist occupation. You should remember that imperialist powers have always tried to justify their wars as being motivated by benevolent aims - manifested most explicitly in the claim that imperialism would allow inferior races to develop and attain civilization, something they would (so the argument went) not be able to do without the aid of western colonialists. More recently we have seen an attempt to use feminism in order to justify imperialist interventions, without much success, given that women have actually been some of the greatest victims of Blair's wars, as you probably know.

[Poison]

In what sense do you see "American" as a meaningful political concept? What is it that makes you identify as an American? The United States, like every other country in the entire world, and throughout human history, with the exception of Russia in 1917, is a class-divided society, and the interests of American workers - as well as those workers from other countries who have traveled to the US with the intention of providing for the needs of their families back in their home countries through remittances - are fundamentally oppossed to those of the American bourgeoisie, in addition to every other section of the international bourgeoisie. Any superficial cultural or social links, such as a shared language, and certain aspects of your identity, are ultimately secondary to the reality of class struggle - and that reality is that every American worker has far more in common with an Iranian worker than even the most worker-friendly members of the American bourgeoisie.

If you feel that you share responsibility for the war - and that could be an honorable sentiment - then that's got nothing to do with you being a bad American, and everything to do with you not being a consistent internationalist, because it was in the interests of the American bourgeoisie to go to war - even if their state (it's not "your government" - it's the political manifestation of bourgeois economic dominance) needed to lie to other people to get them to go along with it.

Sorry, but you're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I'm saying.

What I said has nothing to do with class struggle--just that mainstream America happily allowed, helped even, the government to pull several layers of wool over our heads. I don't feel I can point fingers without taking some blame myself, as I was very much a part of that crowd the first few years.

You're taking what I said and interpreting it to mean what you want it to say. For example:

"Our government" doesn't mean ownership, it means that it's the government in charge, just as much as my parent doesn't imply ownership.

Where did I say I was a bad American? Or that people who live in America had somehow failed some imaginary cause handed down to them by god? Nowhere.

Middle & working class America --regardless of how you want to argue, we can all understand who exactly who that is-- allowed itself to be fooled.

That's all I'm saying. No need to go on a spiel about class struggle. ;)

[BobKKKindle$]

What I said has nothing to do with class struggle--just that mainstream America happily allowed, helped even, the government to pull several layers of wool over our heads.The invasion of Afghanistan, and imperialism in general, especially when it manifests itself in the form of direct political control, as opposed to informal empire, has everything to do with class struggle. Marxists oppossed the war because we recognized that it was an imperialist war that would allow capitalism to sustain itself, and a war that would undermine the struggles of the Afghan working class, as well as other sections of the international working class. What makes Marxists (and Anarchists - in theory) different from other sections of the anti-war movement is that we recognize the structural and underlying causes of war - capitalism - and advocate radical solutions as a consequence of that analysis. The lies that were promoted by the American state were necessary (from the viewpoint pf government officials) because workers would never have agreed to support the war if the government had been honest and open about why the war was being conducted in the first place - to serve the economic and strategic aims of the American ruling class, by oppressing and exploiting the class comrades of American workers. As I mentioned in my previous post, this is nothing new - imperialism has always needed an ideological facade to legitimize itself.

Anyway, maybe you're right and I did misunderstand you - but I stand by my statement that Americans tend to use the word "we" when describing the actions of their own government.

[Poison]

The invasion of Afghanistan, and imperialism in general, especially when it manifests itself in the form of direct political control, as opposed to informal empire, has everything to do with class struggle. Marxists oppossed the war because we recognized that it was an imperialist war that would allow capitalism to sustain itself, and a war that would undermine the struggles of the Afghan working class, as well as other sections of the international working class. What makes Marxists (and Anarchists - in theory) different from other sections of the anti-war movement is that we recognize the structural and underlying causes of war - capitalism - and advocate radical solutions as a consequence of that analysis. The lies that were promoted by the American state were necessary (from the viewpoint pf government officials) because workers would never have agreed to support the war if the government had been honest and open about why the war was being conducted in the first place - to serve the economic and strategic aims of the American ruling class, by oppressing and exploiting the class comrades of American workers. As I mentioned in my previous post, this is nothing new - imperialism has always needed an ideological facade to legitimize itself.

Anyway, maybe you're right and I did misunderstand you - but I stand by my statement that Americans tend to use the word "we" when describing the actions of their own government.

Lol--yea, a bit odd that a whole separate discussion came from the word "we".

And yes--I do agree with you about how capitalism was the reason for the war. But I don't feel it changes that many Americans had no problem with the war until it became fashionable.

Though, you're right about most Americans referring to the nation & their government as "we". I highly doubt it's because they feel collectively responsible, though.

[ZeroNowhere]

Middle & working class America
Middle and working class America?
Um, a large amount of the 'middle class' is working class.

[Pogue]

It would be great if the resistance was not being led by the Taleban. The revolutionary left lacks a mass base in Afghanistan partly because local communists supported the Stalinist regime in the 1970/80s, as well as the subsequent Soviet invasion, which, consistent with Stalinist practice, attempted to impose socialism from above - or, to be more precise, what many communists thought was socialism - without the active participation or leadership of the Afghan working class, and at the cost of one million lives by the time the Soviets were forced to withdraw in 1989, not to mention the detestation of Afghan society and the economy. The SWP (my own organization) was the only party in the UK to support the resistance against the Soviets, even when the resistance was being led by the Mujahideen, which received financial and material support from the United States, and committed many acts of terrible cruelty, but unfortunately we didn't have any comrades in Afghanistan at that time so we weren't able to build a socialist resistance.

So basically in supporting the Taleban you supported home grown nationalistic oppresors over foreign ones because they were homegrown. There goes your consistency! You just supported one bourgeoisie over another! Typical hypocritical rubbish.

[AvanteRedGarde]

It depends. If you are trying to take a moralistic stand or show individual solidarity with the Iraqi and Afghani masses, then yes it is worth opposing.

If you are try to agitate and organize the 'American masses' into some sort of revolutionary internationalist consciousness, then it always has been a waste of time. American only care about the war insofar as they feel it is hurting them. This is nationalism, not solidarity with Iraq and Afghanistan. By in large, they don't feel it is hurting them, and insofar as they do, they see Obama as the solution. The american anti-war movement has went the reformist full circle.

[AvanteRedGarde]

HVLS, which bourgeoisie is bigger? Is it best not to split the ruling class and fight them one by one? What's the alternative? advocating for 'one big revolution' that has never happened?

[Bitter Ashes]

So basically in supporting the Taleban you supported home grown nationalistic oppresors over foreign ones because they were homegrown. There goes your consistency! You just supported one bourgeoisie over another! Typical hypocritical rubbish.
I dont think that was what Bobkindles was saying actualy. It looks to me more like he's agreeing that both sides are as bad as each other and that the people of Afghanistan need to learn how to defend themselves from both America and the Taliban.
Maybe I read it wrong though:blushing:

[Poison]

Middle and working class America?
Um, a large amount of the 'middle class' is working class.

Okay then?

[Bitter Ashes]

Okay then?
Yeah. Middle class is pretty articificaly constructed. It's just another one of those silly divisions that the bourgeois benefit from.
You either own the means to your own production, or you dont. Bourgeois or worker.
Hope that helps :)

[mykittyhasaboner]

Okay then?
I think he meant that you should just refrain from using the term "middle class", because being "middle class" simply refers to a standard of wealth. A class is based on said class's relations to the means of production, not what kind of standard of wealth one accumulates; "middle class" is just a term parroted by American politicians in order to refer to those who live in suburban homes, with a lawn, 1-3 cars in the driveway, kids in school, dad at work, dog in the backyard kind of American lifestyle. Its rubbish basically. The only class that exists between the proletariat and bourgeois is the petit-bourgeoisie; who's wealth is derived from owning a small business of shop, thus possibly employing others to work for them, or simply being self-employed.

[Poison]

Yeah. Middle class is pretty articificaly constructed. It's just another one of those silly divisions that the bourgeois benefit from.
You either own the means to your own production, or you dont. Bourgeois or worker.
Hope that helps :)
That's a false dilemma. You may be right purely by Marxist theory but in reality I see no reason why class is restricted to either you own production or you don't. Most people don't use Marxist terms or think as Marxists, and I generally try to argue in ways they can understand instead of in the context of Marxist theory.

[Bitter Ashes]

That's a false dilemma. You may be right purely by Marxist theory but in reality I see no reason why class is restricted to either you own production or you don't. Most people don't use Marxist terms or think as Marxists, and I generally try to argue in ways they can understand instead of in the context of Marxist theory.
Anyone who's employed though can be thrown into poverty by the bourgeois. That's the signficant factor is that even if somebody is earning a better wage, they do not have the power to ensure it's stable. :) Those who have the means of production themselves such as the bourgeois or petty bourgeois, have thier wages accountable only to themselves under capitalism.
I dont even know what flavour of leftist I really am. Maybe I am a closet Marxist :lol:

[BobKKKindle$]

That's a false dilemma. You may be right purely by Marxist theory but in reality I see no reason why class is restricted to either you own production or you don't.The main reason why the Marxist definition of class is superior to a consumption-based definition, as commonly accepted in bourgeois sociology, is in its political implications. If we view class solely in terms of how much income people have to spend, given that consumption always occurs through spending in an economy based on commodity production, then the logical solution to any unfair inequalities of wealth and income is to adopt redistributive measures within the framework of the capitalist system, such as a progressive taxation system, without seeking to understand what actually lead to disparity and the need to redistribute in the first place. Marxism draws our attention to the fact that the distribution of consumption in any society is simply a function of the distribution of productive assets, especially in the form of the means of production, and so if we want to establish justice and equality in the sphere of consumption we need to look towards ways in which we can change the nature of ownership - in particular, how we can abolish private property in favour of collective management.


I dont think that was what Bobkindles was saying actualy. It looks to me more like he's agreeing that both sides are as bad as each other and that the people of Afghanistan need to learn how to defend themselves from both America and the Taliban.

More or less, although I think the situation is a bit more complex than this. I would be very happy if the Taleban were spontaneously replaced by a feminist and socialist resistance movement, but the historical legacy of Stalinism in Afghanistan, as well as the nature of life under occupation itself, means that this is not a likely prospect. Faced with this situation, we need to be asking ourselves, do we still support resistance to imperialism, and recognize the right of the Afghan people to self-determination, even when their resistance is being conducted through a movement that we despise on a whole range of political and economic questions - the Taleban? Or do we, as inhabitants of a country that was complicit in the original invasion, and remains an integral part of the occupying force, say that the Afghan people shouldn't be allowed to resist, or that their resistance is illegitimate, because they haven't been able to challenge the reactionary politics of the Taleban? I'll let you answer these questions.



So basically in supporting the Taleban you supported home grown nationalistic oppresors over foreign ones because they were homegrown. There goes your consistency! You just supported one bourgeoisie over another! Typical hypocritical rubbish.

You just keep making up these assertions without engaging with the issues that lie at the centre of the debate. I don't support the Taleban. When Marxists talk about giving "military support" to a particular resistance movement or organization, in a situation of national oppression, we simply mean that we would prefer the resistance to win in a military confrontation against the imperialist forces, because we think that the prospects for class struggle are better once the occupation has been removed - even if the initial result if a domestic ruling class being able to establish its rule. It does not mean that we identify with the politics or methods of the resistance. This has nothing to do with whether the resistance is "homegrown" as such, in that, as I've stated many times in this thread, our positions are informed solely by what is in the best interests of the working class, and so if you could show that the working class actually prefers living under NATO (or the IDF, or the British state in Northern Ireland - insert as appropriate) then we would have no reason to give any kind of support to the resistance whatsoever, and would actually celebrate military defeats inflicted by NATO. My position on this has always been consistent - unlike you, who are happy to throw your hat in with the "democratic" imperialist bloc when it suits you, as we saw recently in the thread on Left Communists in WW2.

[Poison]

Anyone who's employed though can be thrown into poverty by the bourgeois. That's the signficant factor is that even if somebody is earning a better wage, they do not have the power to ensure it's stable. :) Those who have the means of production themselves such as the bourgeois or petty bourgeois, have thier wages accountable only to themselves under capitalism.
I dont even know what flavour of leftist I really am. Maybe I am a closet Marxist :lol:
Of course. I'm not endorsing the mainstream definition/division, but I just prefer to not isolate myself from the average person through differing definitions and obscure, heavy theory like many Marxists & other leftists enjoy doing. The middle class is as you said in the same boat as the working class, but there are differences and they are felt by most workers. There is a different culture as well. The middle class closer to being bourgeois and more likely, imo, to stand by them, while the opposite holds true for the working class. So there are reasons to divide them despite them being in the same boat.

[Bitter Ashes]

Ah. I see what you're saying now.
I suppose you could define them as workers who are profiting from the bourgeois control, so like the bourgeois they'd probably feel they're losing something from the fall of capitalism. Thankfully there's not many of them :P

[ZeroNowhere]

The middle class is as you said in the same boat as the working class, but there are differences and they are felt by most workers. There is a different culture as well. The middle class closer to being bourgeois and more likely, imo, to stand by them, while the opposite holds true for the working class. So there are reasons to divide them despite them being in the same boat.
Um, so how the hell would you define 'middle class' and 'working class'? And how would you separate the 'middle class' and petit-bourgeoisie? I mean, really, there are different cultures between the working class in India and the working class in the US. So what?
Or are you just going to define class by income, in which case your analysis becomes pretty much useless? If not, then why the hell would you define two classes by that, but then suddenly define the other by relationship to the means of production?


That's a false dilemma. You may be right purely by Marxist theory but in reality I see no reason why class is restricted to either you own production or you don't. Most people don't use Marxist terms or think as Marxists, and I generally try to argue in ways they can understand instead of in the context of Marxist theory.
Except that the existence of the two major classes is an argument in itself, whereas just appeasing this income-class bollocks doesn't really change shit, seeing as it basically serves the bourgeoisie. Especially when you're claiming that the 'middle class' and 'working class' are separate... No members of the 'middle class' have to sell off their labour power? What? I really don't see how the hell our definition of 'working class' alienates us from the masses, either, and at least we don't have to go around with something random about how 'the working class... And some members of the middle class, too... Are exploited'. As it is, our definition of 'working class' backs up our analysis, and most people never use the terms 'means of production' either, which is pretty much interconnected with the definitions of working and capitalist class. If you're going to explain that term, which is easy, I don't see why you would then talk about some 'middle class', whatever that means. If not, I wish you luck explaining exploitation in any meaningful way, or hell, any other critiques of capitalism except for the profit motive (except that there is no bourgeoisie, there is an 'upper class', if we are to be consistent, as mentioning capitalists would be drowning the 'ordinary people' in obscure theory). Well, without arguments about how much better humans will be under socialism, which is just speculation. And hell, you're not talking to 'average' non-socialist people, you're on Revleft, so there's no need to be patronizing towards us.
At least if you're going with that, use the term 'lower class'.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Your nationalism gets more banal by the post, the US imperialist war machine, as you described is what it is. If your going to deny that, then you need to go research some US history.
I'm not a nationalist but I have a love for my country. It has problems but to call it a monster is naive; I hold the leadership responsible, not the country.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Here's a question then.
Is it possible to bend the strategy in Afghanistan so that the coalition troops actualy benefit the Afghan people?

Thats what I want to know.

[ZeroNowhere]

I'm not a nationalist but I have a love for my country. It has problems but to call it a monster is naive; I hold the leadership responsible, not the country.
How the hell does one hold a 'country' responsible anyways? Even if that is used to refer to the population, surely the people who make up the leadership are part of the population?
And surely in that case you couldn't 'love your country' either?
And hell, do you know, let alone love, everybody in the country? In which case why, just for being born or living in your country?
Now, if it's the landscapes, then do you love every view in your country? I mean, I doubt you've even seen every single one, let along love every boring and repetitive street, etc. Perhaps the culture? In which case, what is the relationship between a culture and a piece of land divided out arbitrarily? It's like saying that you love the colour blue, and therefore love the primary colours, or actually, that you love the colour yellow, and therefore love sensationalist journalism. Or taxis.

[Poison]

I'm not a nationalist but I have a love for my country.
...That's nationalism.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I'm not a nationalist but I have a love for my country.
OK, then. Although I find this sentiment quite contradictory. If you have "love for your country", what exactly does that mean? If you have love for the working people in the US, then why not simply proclaim "your love" for the people who make the country work? Rather than parroting the "I love my country" nonsense, which quite evidently shows your banal sense of nationalism.


It has problems but to call it a monster is naive; I hold the leadership responsible, not the country.I'm sorry to say this, but I think your the one who is being naive here. The US was built upon the millions of graves, and tyrannical oppression of Native Americans, and Africans. Since then, there has been no shortage of blood on the hands of those who run, or even support, the US. From colonies in the Caribbean, to imperialist wars in the Middle East-to people who live in the America; the US has killed, exploited, and oppressed so many people its almost impossible to fathom. You fail to recognize that there is no national unity among Americans, that is simply a lie; because the US is a class-divided society. Here, in the good ole' US of A, its painfully obvious that all of those vague ideals of freedom, and liberty we are forced to learn about is nothing but bullshit, when there are millions upon millions of exploited workers, who have no democratic input in governing their own lives; as well as millions of people living in the streets, or in ghettoes, or are being racially discriminated on a daily basis. Where are the ideals of freedom, liberty, and democracy for those people? I thought that "all men are created equal"? This horrible oppression and exploitation is not limited to people living in the US either. Americans continue to literally live off the developing world like parasites (shit, I sound like a third-worldist:rolleyes:), whether they like it or not. So I think calling the US a "monster" is quite accurate.

The very fact that you pose the question of whether or not the Iraq war is worth opposing, and that you actually support the US invasion of Afghanistan is fucking disgusting, and shows you have absolutely no understanding of the nature of the existence of the US.

[AvanteRedGarde]

OK, then. Although I find this sentiment quite contradictory. If you have "love for your country", what exactly does that mean? If you have love for the working people in the US, then why not simply proclaim "your love" for the people who make the country work? Rather than parroting the "I love my country" nonsense, which quite evidently shows your banal sense of nationalism.

I'm sorry to say this, but I think your the one who is being naive here. The US was built upon the millions of graves, and tyrannical oppression of Native Americans, and Africans. Since then, there has been no shortage of blood on the hands of those who run, or even support, the US. From colonies in the Caribbean, to imperialist wars in the Middle East-to people who live in the America; the US has killed, exploited, and oppressed so many people its almost impossible to fathom. You fail to recognize that there is no national unity among Americans, that is simply a lie; because the US is a class-divided society. Here, in the good ole' US of A, its painfully obvious that all of those vague ideals of freedom, and liberty we are forced to learn about is nothing but bullshit, when there are millions upon millions of exploited workers, who have no democratic input in governing their own lives; as well as millions of people living in the streets, or in ghettoes, or are being racially discriminated on a daily basis. Where are the ideals of freedom, liberty, and democracy for those people? I thought that "all men are created equal"? This horrible oppression and exploitation is not limited to people living in the US either. Americans continue to literally live off the developing world like parasites (shit, I sound like a third-worldist:rolleyes:), whether they like it or not. So I think calling the US a "monster" is quite accurate.

The very fact that you pose the question of whether or not the Iraq war is worth opposing, and that you actually support the US invasion of Afghanistan is fucking disgusting, and shows you have absolutely no understanding of the nature of the existence of the US.

I agree with a lot of this but I have to ask just how class divided American society is. Sure, not everyone is in the same class, but it seems that mainstream America (the workers, petty bourgeosie) line up a lot with the American bourgeoisie imperialists. This seems to be a trend in the making for a long time. For instance, America largely united around the conquest of the North American continent. Instances such as Shay's Rebellion and the Revolutionary War were unanimously pro expansion. In the South, both before and after the civil war, the whole of white society united around the oppression and repression of Blacks. Everyday Americans, the silent majority as Nixon once called them, support the aggressive whim of American imperialism. This is certainly evidenced by the fact that Bush was elected twice, albeit by a close margin. And here we have a member of the Revolutionary Left Forum whom supports the imperialist's designs in Afghanistan. This fact is quite telling. So how class divided is American society really?

Otherwise, yes you are absolutely correct. America is a monster.

[AvanteRedGarde]

I'm not a nationalist but I have a love for my country. It has problems but to call it a monster is naive; I hold the leadership responsible, not the country.

"Your" country is built on stolen land and the graves of Native Americans.

[StalinFanboy]

I'm not sure why you find it reactionary. I feel that I and much of America needs to share some responsibility for this war. We haven't fought hard enough against it, and have been too concerned with things like American Idol to care about rape, torture, murder, etc. Of course it's not our fault but we can't go blameless.

Many Americans, including myself I am ashamed to say (though I was only 11 so maybe I'm being a bit hard on myself), allowed ourselves to call for the invasion of a country. Yes, our government lied to us but we were more than willing to let it go unquestioned why we should invade a country when it was a few extremists that attacked us. Too many of us didn't even blink at human rights abuses and at the reports that continued to come out about soldiers raping Iraqis and worse.

We do share a little responsibility. Not all of us, but most of us didn't care enough to oppose it actively. That's why I say "we".
Wtf. No. I don't hold any responsibility for the war in the Middle East. To think that we have that much decision making power is naive in my opinion. The rich and the politicians are going to continue to further their agenda whether or not we like it.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Sure, not everyone is in the same class, but it seems that mainstream America (the workers, petty bourgeosie) line up a lot with the American bourgeoisie imperialists.Just because bourgeois ideology prevails amongst all others, does not mean that American society isn't class divided. The ideology of the ruling class (in the US's case, the bourgeois) is the most prevalent because it is the ruling class who has control over the majority of media, and education outlets and institutions. Their beliefs and perspectives are preached everywhere, all the time, which is why this method of ideological conditioning has a tremendous effect on the US population.

This seems to be a trend in the making for a long time. For instance, America largely united around the conquest of the North American continent. Instances such as Shay's Rebellion and the Revolutionary War were unanimously pro expansion. Shay's rebellion was aimed against the new american government over taxes and debt's which the poor farmers and workers who participated in the rebellion could not pay. This is a classic example of class-struggle in the US, and I don't see how it in any way shows that the US isn't class divided, I'm not sure why you used it as an example. Besides where is your proof that Shay's rebellion was pro-expansion? That had nothing to do with the rebellion itself. The American revolution is another example of class struggle, where the industrialist/colonial leaders overthrew the British. Again this example you point to simply illustrates just how divided America is, and has always been.


In the South, both before and after the civil war, the whole of white society united around the oppression and repression of Blacks.The Civil War was just a large class war in itself. The US had been divided between industrial capitalism in the north, and agrarian slavery in the south. The two systems were quite evidently at odds with eachother, so much so that the south sceded and formed their own federal state. Again, why are you using the most evident examples of class-struggle in the US to convey your belief of the US not being that divided. Im confused.


Everyday Americans, the silent majority as Nixon once called them, support the aggressive whim of American imperialism. This is certainly evidenced by the fact that Bush was elected twice, albeit by a close margin. And here we have a member of the Revolutionary Left Forum whom supports the imperialist's designs in Afghanistan. This fact is quite telling. So how class divided is American society really?It is very divided. Lets just note that because Bush was "elected", doesn't mean the US population had any say at all regarding the invasion of Iraq, or Afghanistan, and its not like if Kerry or Gore was elected that imperialism would have stopped; because in reality the "democratic" choice between two corporate imperialists doesn't really offer much chance for a change in policy. Maybe you don't understand that the bourgeois ruling class has an influential grip on the thoughts and perspectives of the general population. Through the one-sided reporting, fabricating of information and threats, the government has been able to sway the minds of the masses into believing that were all Americans who are all equal, and we live in a 'democracy' that's being threatened by evil Islamic terrorists who hate freedom and eat babies.

While a lot of americans support "their" government, a hell of a lot of people in the US surely hate it, and actively oppose it. Just look at Bush's approval ratings, or the surge of opposition to the government following the unfolding economic crisis. American society is so caught up in the petty affairs of the capitalist ruling class that many millions of people in this country have either been fooled by an almost messianic new leader, or are convinced that the communists have taken over. The fact of the matter is, most americans haven't a clue about the underlying forces of economic and political organization; this is because the corporate-owned media spreads as much misinformation and falsifications to keep people in america from actually thinking for themselves and their own interests as a class.

You have a good point in pointing out that a lot of people living in america are naive or shallow enough to follow their government's wishes and beliefs. We even have a so called leftist here supporting the US invasion of Afghanistan, and questioning whether or not they should support the military occupation of Iraq. But this is all just more evidence of the ruthless ever developing class struggle in the US, and how the bourgeois ideology and goals effect and manipulate every aspect of society.

[ZeroNowhere]

We do share a little responsibility. Not all of us, but most of us didn't care enough to oppose it actively.
Lots of USians did. The people united were ignored, unsurprisingly.


Everyday Americans, the silent majority as Nixon once called them, support the aggressive whim of American imperialism. This is certainly evidenced by the fact that Bush was elected twice, albeit by a close margin.
Um, I doubt that the majority of the US population even voted in those elections, let alone for Bush. Though that's not to imply that mules are anti-war (they're the opposite), just that you're blaming people for 'electing Bush twice'.


The fact of the matter is, most americans haven't a clue about the underlying forces of economic and political organization; this is because the corporate-owned media spreads as much misinformation and falsifications to keep people in america from actually thinking for themselves and their own interests as a class.
You're giving the media too much credit.
'Give me a child until he is sixteen and I will give you the man.'


The Civil War was just a large class war in itself.
Well, to be more specific, a war between two elements of the capitalist class.

[mykittyhasaboner]

You're giving the media too much credit.
'Give me a child until he is sixteen and I will give you the man.'
Perhaps I am, but the news and information people hear on a daily basis contributes to their consciousness greatly. There are obviously other factors contributing to the lack of class-consciousness, that is a given; shit some people are just simply apathetic and alienated for their own stupid reasons. But I would put a great deal of blame on media outlets like FOX news, or just crazies like Alex Jones or Glenn Beck, when it comes to the false and distorted information that people receive.



Well, to be more specific, a war between two elements of the capitalist class.
Right, but they represented two distinct and opposed interests of said capitalist class. I would say the American Civil War was driven particularly by class conflict.

[OriginalGumby]

From Socialist Worker Newspaper
Elizabeth Schulte analyzes Barack Obama's decision to deploy 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

MILLIONS OF people voted for Barack Obama last November because they saw him as the antiwar candidate. But at the end of February, President Obama increased the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan with orders to deploy an additional 17,000 U.S. troops.
This will increase the number of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan by nearly 50 percent when the deployment begins in May. By midsummer, there will be some 55,000 U.S. troops there, alongside 32,000 non-U.S. NATO troops from Germany, Canada, Britain and the Netherlands.
The number of U.S. soldiers being sent to Afghanistan is just over half of the 30,000 that was requested by Gen. David McKiernan, the top commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM).
McKiernan said that the 17,000 extra soldiers and Marines "will get us what we need" through the summer months and the Afghan elections now scheduled for August 20. But, as Gareth Porter of Inter Press Services points out, Obama will likely approve the additional 13,000 after the completion of an Afghanistan-Pakistan policy review in March.
"Obama's decision to approve just over half the full troop request for Afghanistan recalls a similar decision by President Lyndon B. Johnson to approve only part of the request for U.S. troop deployments in a parallel situation in the Vietnam War in April 1965 at a comparable stage of that war," Porter wrote. "Johnson reluctantly went along with the request for additional troops within weeks under pressure from both the field commander and the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OBAMA'S ESCALATION in Afghanistan comes as little surprise. Fighting the "global war on terror" on its "central front"--Afghanistan--was a featured plank of Obama's foreign policy during the presidential campaign.
Then, Obama criticized the Iraq occupation for diverting "resources from the war in Afghanistan, making it harder for us to kill or capture Osama bin Laden and others involved in the 9/11 attacks," according to the Obama campaign Web site.
In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, he tried to outdo the Republicans with this tough-on terror rhetoric. "McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the gates of hell--but he won't even go to the cave where he lives," Obama said.
Afghanistan is presented as the "good" war--one that has to be fought and won at all costs. But the American public isn't so enthusiastic, despite the corporate media's support for the "global war on terror" declared by George W. Bush. According to a BBC World News America/Harris poll released in January, only one-third of Americans support sending more troops to Afghanistan.
In Afghanistan, sentiment is more decisively against the occupation. An ABC News/BBC/ARD German TV poll of Afghan public opinion released in early February reported that only one in six people said the U.S. and NATO should increase their troop levels. More than twice that number--44 percent--wanted fewer outside forces. This is a big swing in opinion since 2005, when the U.S. got an 83 percent favorable rating. Today, a majority of Afghans view the U.S. unfavorably.
The poll in Afghanistan also found that there was little confidence the new U.S. administration would bring positive change. One in five Afghans said they thought Obama would make things better for their country, but nearly as many said he'd make things worse.
The reason for these opinion poll numbers is that the presence of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan has only made the lives of ordinary Afghans more dangerous--and every day those troops stay, the situation gets worse.
The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan reported on February 17 that there were 2,118 civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2008--an increase of almost 40 percent over the year before. Of these casualties, 55 percent was attributed to anti-government forces, including the Taliban, and 39 percent to Afghan security and international military forces.
Drug production is flourishing. Afghanistan is the source of 90 percent of the world's illicit opium, according to the International Narcotics Control Board. Much of the drug trade is controlled by warlords allied with Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai, who was installed in office by the U.S. As a result, drug abuse inside the country has reached epidemic proportions, with at least 1 million people there currently addicted to heroin.
The scale of addiction is unsurprising, considering the grinding poverty of the country. According to the ABC News/BBC/ARD poll, 55 percent of Afghans have no electricity in their homes; 63 percent say they can't afford all, or even "some but not all," of the food they need; and 68 percent say they can't afford the fuel they need for cooking or heat.
"Day by day, we see the Karzai government failing. The Americans are also failing," one Kabul resident, Dastagir Arizad, told the McClatchy Newspapers. "People are not feeling safe. Their lives are not secure. Their daughters are not safe. Their land is not secure. The Karzai government is corrupt."
"The problems we are having are made by the Americans," Arizad said. "The Americans should review their policies."
And while the new Obama administration received praise for planning to close down the detainee prison camps at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, they have yet to announce any such plans for "the other Gitmo"--the U.S.-controlled military prison at Bagram Air Base near Kabul.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THERE APPEARS to be no end in sight, as Obama advisers themselves admit. "It's going to be a long, difficult struggle," Richard Holbrooke, the State Department's special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said earlier this month at an international security conference in Munich. "In my view, it's going to be much tougher than Iraq."
While the Obama administration will likely try to include a humanitarian component to the Afghanistan war, in many ways, it's prepared to maintain the aggressive military stance of the Bush administration. The new administration made that clear the first week in office when it ordered an Air Force drone to bomb two Pakistani villages, targeting what it said were foreign fighters.
As Middle East expert Juan Cole pointed out:

Many of Obama's initiatives in his first few days in office--preparing to depart Iraq, ending torture and closing Guantánamo--were aimed at signaling a sharp turn away from Bush administration policies. In contrast, the headline about the strike in Waziristan could as easily have appeared in December with 'President Bush' substituted for "President Obama."
For now, the Obama administration appears to be keeping its options open in Afghanistan and setting its sights very low. There is little high-minded talk about "liberation," "democracy" or even "nation-building."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned, "f we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of Central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose, because nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience and money, to be honest...[I]t seems to me that we need to keep our objectives realistic and limited in Afghanistan; otherwise, we will set ourselves up for failure." (Gates probably didn't know that Valhalla is a "hall of the slain" in Norse mythology--in which case this may be what he gets after all.)
Gen. McKiernan even told reporters that it was likely violence would increase. "There are areas where we're not at today that, when we do put additional security forces, I would expect to see a temporary time where the level of violence might go up until we transition into holding and setting conditions to build," he said.
The U.S. military buildup begs the question of what the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was really about. What was presented as an effort to go after Osama bin Laden and his allies as retaliation for the September 11 attacks and to "liberate" Afghanistan has turned into a permanent occupation of a strategic Central Asian crossroads.
If the U.S. hoped to win support from the people of Afghanistan by ousting the unpopular Taliban, it has achieved precisely the opposite. The area has become more unstable, and the occupation has given people in the region [I]more reasons to hate the U.S. government.
As an Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission report concerning foreign troop activities in Kandahar Province pointed out, "The combination of abusive behavior and violent breaking and entry into civilians' homes in the middle of the night stokes almost as much anger and resentment toward pro-government forces as the more lethal air strikes."
Author Ann Jones made a similar point on the Asia Times Web site:

Going into Afghanistan, the Bush administration called for a political campaign to reconstruct the country and thereby establish the authority of a stable, democratic Afghan central government...But the vision of a reconstructed, peaceful, stable, democratically governed Afghanistan faded fast. Most Afghans now believe that it was nothing but a cover story for the Bush administration's real goal--to set up permanent bases in Afghanistan and occupy the country forever...
What's worse, there's no reason to expect that things will change significantly on President-elect Barack Obama's watch. During the election campaign, he called repeatedly for more troops for "the right war" in Afghanistan (while pledging to draw-down U.S. forces in Iraq), but he has yet to say a significant word about the reconstruction mission.
The "war on terror" is nothing more than a cover for spreading U.S. imperial power around the globe--a never-ending war that can go anywhere the U.S. chooses. It should be opposed, no matter what political party props it up.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Where were all those vanguard revolutionary parties to dissuade Americans from voting for Obama, the anti war candidate?

Furthermore, how could Americans be so dumb. It's not like the guys speaks in two languages, one for the bourgeoisie and one for the people. Americans don't want wars to end, they want wars that don't morally or financially inconvenience them. That's what Obama offered.

[brigadista]

getting back to Iraq- here is a very good article about obama and the "troop withdrawal"
http://www.countercurrents.org/hassan130309.htm

Iraq is now in a state of internal armed conflict throughout the country,

In the Kurdish Regional Governance FGM is now at 67% and honor killings are on the rise - not a good place for women to live.

the country is actually in a state of lawlessness and it has a puppet government.

I forgot to add that mnay Iraqis fled to Syria where they are living in a dire situation- they whole thing is a huge crime all for the vanity and greed of the US and its allies

[brigadista]

'Give me a child until he is sixteen and I will give you the man.'


actually its 7 and that saying comes from the Jesuits

[Vendetta]

The war is always worth opposing.