Was Saddam Hussein a Socialist...

[benhur]

...or at least a progressive in some matters?

Here's a list of his accomplishments:

# Fought against imperialism

# Education and Healthcare were free, literally no poverty at all

# Nationalized many industries

# Women participated in govt. (unlike many other fundamentalist nations)

# Children went to school (unlike theocracies like Afghanistan)

# Minorities, including Jews, were protected

# Iraq was the only Secular, modern nation in ME



Your thoughts?

[Devrim]

# Minorities, including Jews, were protected

Like this? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack)

Devrim

[Sasha]

socialist? since for some here murdurous dictatorship = socialism, yeah why not.
progresive? not realy....

[scarletghoul]

The Baath Party is officially a socialist party, so you could say he was a socialist yeah and he done some socialist reforms, but he still sucks.

[Pawn Power]

...or at least a progressive in some matters?

# Education and Healthcare were free, literally no poverty at all



Literally no poverty? Are you sure you know what 'literally' and 'poverty' mean?

***

Well, the answer is no. He was not a socialist and did not act like a socialist. The government which he run was not based on socialist principles. In fact, communists weren't really appreciated at all- members of the Iraqi Communist Party were killed in large number by his regime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Communist_Party#The_party_under_Baathist_rul e).

[Dimentio]

...or at least a progressive in some matters?

Here's a list of his accomplishments:

# Fought against imperialism

# Education and Healthcare were free, literally no poverty at all

# Nationalized many industries

# Women participated in govt. (unlike many other fundamentalist nations)

# Children went to school (unlike theocracies like Afghanistan)

# Minorities, including Jews, were protected

# Iraq was the only Secular, modern nation in ME



Your thoughts?

If Saddam Hussein stands close to any kind of socialism, I think it would be called "national socialism". Actually, Ba'athism was originally started in 1935 by a Syrian emigre who had been inspired by Mussolini and Hitler.

[h0m0revolutionary]

The Baath Party is officially a socialist party, so you could say he was a socialist yeah and he done some socialist reforms, but he still sucks.

That isn't true, Baathism, like that in Syria, is Pan-Arab in ideology.

Saddam Husseins Iraq wasn't socialist by any deffinition. Saddam proved time and time again to have his own imperialist designs on the region and like his predecessors murdered thousands of leftists, trade unionists and democrats.

Pan-Arabism, as shown by Nasser in Egypt is an effective tool at uniting the masses of the Middle East around their rulers. This is the worst form of class-collaberation ebcause it is effective; namely because the enemy they can unite around (western imperialism) is a very valid one.

[ComradeOm]

# Nationalized many industriesDirigisme does not equal socialism

As for the other points, I fail to see how they, in themselves, constitute a socialist platform. The best that can be said about Iraq is that it was more progressive than Saudi Arabia or Iran... hardly towering benchmarks by which to be judged against

[Patchd]

# Fought against imperialism

Doesn't make you a Socialist, or even left wing. Chiang Kai Shek comes to mind, fought Japanese imperialism, yet was a right wing Nationalist.


# Minorities, including Jews, were protected

Other people have already dealt with this. On the issue of LGBT rights in Iraq, homosexuality was permitted until recently under Saddam Hussein (before he got rammed by the USA), still even beforehand, homosexuals weren't given fair treatment by both the state and society.


# Iraq was the only Secular, modern nation in ME

There was a move away from secularism in his later years.

[turquino]

Saddam Husseins Iraq wasn't socialist by any deffinition. Saddam proved time and time again to have his own imperialist designs on the region and like his predecessors murdered thousands of leftists, trade unionists and democrats.

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was progressive. In 1990 Kuwait was an absolute monarchy that denied political rights to women and the foreign workers who make up a majority of the population. The story about Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators and leaving them to die never happened, it was fabricated by a Kuwaiti royal. After the Gulf War Kuwait carried out an ethnic cleansing of almost 400,000 Palestinian workers and professionals.

It's questionable whether Iraq was to blame for Halabja. Halabja was on the front lines during the Iran-Iraq War and chemical weapons were used by both sides. The Iraqis primarily used mustard gas, while the Iranians were known to use cyanide gas. Iran had captured Halabja when Iraq allegedly attacked, and then the Iranians responded with their own gas attack.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I wouldn't call Saddam a Socialist. For one he invaded Kuwait(imperialism) and he gassed the Kurdish Minority in his country. I'm pretty sure he did admire Stalin in some ways though. Saddam had a bit of a personality cult which could have been based off Stalin. Also, if you look at him he looks quite similar to Stalin in some ways.

[FreeFocus]

How did Hussein fight imperialism? By turning Iraq into an American proxy in the 1980s in the war against Iran?

[LeninBalls]

Like this? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack)

Devrim

You think he intentionally targetted the Kurds? Iraq was the first and only country to have an internationally recognized autonomous area for Kurds.

Gays on the other hand I agree.

I think Saddam was alright, he did good and bad for Iraq, and was a lot more progressive than the rest of the ME.

And also whoever criticized Kuwait earlier, Kuwait was always a part of Iraq and was only created via British imperialism, Kuwait was also fucking up Iraq's oil big time, Saddam's reason for invasion.

6 stars out of 10.

[Patchd]

No! One piece of land is never "always a part of" another piece of land.

[LeninBalls]

So Northern Ireland was never a part of Ireland? Great!

[Dimentio]

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was progressive. In 1990 Kuwait was an absolute monarchy that denied political rights to women and the foreign workers who make up a majority of the population. The story about Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators and leaving them to die never happened, it was fabricated by a Kuwaiti royal. After the Gulf War Kuwait carried out an ethnic cleansing of almost 400,000 Palestinian workers and professionals.

It's questionable whether Iraq was to blame for Halabja. Halabja was on the front lines during the Iran-Iraq War and chemical weapons were used by both sides. The Iraqis primarily used mustard gas, while the Iranians were known to use cyanide gas. Iran had captured Halabja when Iraq allegedly attacked, and then the Iranians responded with their own gas attack.

Saddam did not admire Stalin. His political idol was Charles de Gaulle.

Saddam hated communists. His Ba'athist party was basically a CIA scam to crush a pro-soviet nationalist government.

[Wanted Man]

He was "a socialist" like many other nationalist governments in history. But being "a socialist" is not the same as actually having a socialist society, as so many "socialist" governments have shown.

[Dimentio]

He was "a socialist" like many other nationalist governments in history. But being "a socialist" is not the same as actually having a socialist society, as so many "socialist" governments have shown.

Socialism have or have had a very high status in some regions. That includes parts of Europe, the Middle East, India and Sub-saharan Africa. Sadly, when the bourgeoisie starts to call themselves socialists in order to win popularity, that complicates things for general socialist movements.

Ba'athism, which was a current which Saddam adhered to, was based around the following ideological bases.

1. All Arabs should be unified in one nation-state, from Morocco to the Euphrates.

2. The state should be a welfare state.

3. Communism is evil.

4. Israel should be smashed.

Rather than discussing these points in themselves, we could conclude that Ba'athism in itself rather could be defined as some form of nationalism than socialism.

[Yehuda Stern]

# Fought against imperialism

Strike one. Saddam was actually the one who made more moves than any other Iraqi ruler towards accommodation with western imperialism.


# Minorities, including Jews, were protected

Strike two. Saddam, as you can see from Devrim's link, was notoriously oppressive towards Kurds. One could argue that the reason why he didn't use anti-Semitism is the same as why European right wingers don't use anti-Semitism as much as in the past: there just aren't that many Jews around anymore.


# Iraq was the only Secular, modern nation in ME

If you take your miserable criteria, one could easily argue that both Egypt and Syria are "secular, modern" nations.

So that's strike three! Unfortunately, you're still here!

[ComradeOm]

Kuwait was always a part of Iraq and was only created via British imperialismFalse. Kuwait, as a distinct political and territorial entity, had largely enjoyed semi-autonomy under the Ottomans and its orientation was always more to the Gulf states than Baghdad. Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire Kuwait's relationship with Britain was formalised* while Iraq was created out of nothing. To reiterate, Kuwait has a semi-independent history that dates back centuries but the state of Iraq was a fabrication of Anglo-French diplomats and its borders were drawn arbitrarily. There was no Ottoman province of Iraq and no province that corresponds to the borders of modern Iraq (with or without Kuwait). What Kuwait was part of was the now defunct Ottoman province of Basra which was obviously divided between two nations - much like Diyarbekir (Iraq & Turkey), Ar-Raqqah (Syria, Turkey, & Iraq), Shehrizor (Iran & Iraq), and Syria (Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Turkey, & Iraq)

*An informal understanding between Britain and the emirate dates back to the 19th C. Trade links independent of Baghdad or the Porte go back even further

[Andy Bowden]

Saddam did use anti-semitism though - his regime authored a pamphlet entitled "Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies" during the Iran-Iraq war.

So another nail in the coffin of progressive Baathism.

[OneNamedNameLess]

...or at least a progressive in some matters?

Here's a list of his accomplishments:

# Fought against imperialism

# Education and Healthcare were free, literally no poverty at all

# Nationalized many industries

# Women participated in govt. (unlike many other fundamentalist nations)

# Children went to school (unlike theocracies like Afghanistan)

# Minorities, including Jews, were protected

# Iraq was the only Secular, modern nation in ME



Your thoughts?

:laugh:

[Unclebananahead]

Yeah, my understanding was that the CIA was actually providing Saddam with information on Iraqi communists, as the CIA knew that he would butcher them, and which he happily did. If true, the left has no friend in Saddam's legacy.

[Devrim]

Yeah, my understanding was that the CIA was actually providing Saddam with information on Iraqi communists, as the CIA knew that he would butcher them, and which he happily did. If true, the left has no friend in Saddam's legacy.

So did English Trotskyists taking photos of Iraqi militants on demonstrations and giving them to the Iraqi state. They too were murdered.

Devrim

[Devrim]

It's questionable whether Iraq was to blame for Halabja. Halabja was on the front lines during the Iran-Iraq War and chemical weapons were used by both sides. The Iraqis primarily used mustard gas, while the Iranians were known to use cyanide gas. Iran had captured Halabja when Iraq allegedly attacked, and then the Iranians responded with their own gas attack.

As I remember the only people who ever questioned it were the US state department, which was at the time backing Iraq's war against Iran.


You think he intentionally targetted the Kurds? Iraq was the first and only country to have an internationally recognized autonomous area for Kurds.


According to the HRW during the Anfal campaign, the Iraqi government:


massacred 50,000 to 100,000 non-combatant civilians including women and children;[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign#cite_note-8)
destroyed about 4,000 villages (out of 4,655) in Iraqi Kurdistan. Between April 1987 and August 1988, 250 towns and villages were exposed to chemical weapons;[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign#cite_note-9)
destroyed 1,754 schools, 270 hospitals, 2,450 mosques (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosque), 27 churches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_%28building%29);[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign#cite_note-10)
wiped out around 90% of Kurdish villages in targeted areas.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign#cite_note-11)



Do you think that all these things happened by accident?

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

So did English Trotskyists taking photos of Iraqi militants on demonstrations and giving them to the Iraqi state

I don't see how that allegation is relevant other than to try and smear Trotskyists as a whole by pointing out to the alleged rotten conduct of one depraved group, i.e., the Healyite WRP. However, even that allegation is heavily disputed. Quoting Chapter 11 of Bob Pitt's "Rise and Fall of Gerry Healy":


Slaughter’s speech also contained the shocking allegation that the WRP had provided the Iraqi embassy with photographs of anti-Ba’athist protestors, enabling it to identify opponents of the regime, although even this was unproven – one News Line photographer, strongly backed by Alex Mitchell, claimed that the demonstrators’ faces had all been blacked out before the photographs were handed over.

[BogdanV]

From my point of view, Saddam's regime was as socialist as any other "communist" regime from the Cold War era, which means nothing more than "degenerated workers state" (or maybe even worse).
Anyway, since Uncle Joe's time up until today, there has never been (as far as I know) any true socialist state leader.

[robbo203]

...or at least a progressive in some matters?

Here's a list of his accomplishments:

# Fought against imperialism

# Education and Healthcare were free, literally no poverty at all

# Nationalized many industries

# Women participated in govt. (unlike many other fundamentalist nations)

# Children went to school (unlike theocracies like Afghanistan)

# Minorities, including Jews, were protected

# Iraq was the only Secular, modern nation in ME



Your thoughts?

How on earth do you possibly imagine that the above things make you a socialist? A socialist is someone who wants a genuine non-market non-statist alternative to capitalism - not a nationalist who advocates state capitalism (nationalism) and a bunch of reformist measures

[benhur]

Saddam did use anti-semitism though - his regime authored a pamphlet entitled "Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies" during the Iran-Iraq war.

So another nail in the coffin of progressive Baathism.

Oh please! Israel bombed and butchered their people, and like any other human being, they've reacted rather amateurishly. Who wouldn't?

[benhur]

As I remember the only people who ever questioned it were the US state department, which was at the time backing Iraq's war against Iran.





Do you think that all these things happened by accident?

Devrim

All this is western propaganda.

Anyway, to those who define socialism too narrowly and therefore conclude Saddam wasn't socialist: Please understand the context such as:

# Iraq was an isolated nation, and lacked the resources necessary

# Always been at the receiving end of imperialists

# No socialist nation helped Iraq

# Islamic society, so an abrupt transition to the brand of pure socialism you guys envision isn't going to be all that easy

# Too much western propaganda has blinded many people:rolleyes:

Considering all these disadvantages that Iraq faced, Saddam has done a good job. How many self-proclaimed socialists have even come this close, despite NOT having to face such dire situations as the Iraqis?

[robbo203]

All this is western propaganda.

Anyway, to those who define socialism too narrowly and therefore conclude Saddam wasn't socialist: Please understand the context such as:

# Iraq was an isolated nation, and lacked the resources necessary

# Always been at the receiving end of imperialists

# No socialist nation helped Iraq

# Islamic society, so an abrupt transition to the brand of pure socialism you guys envision isn't going to be all that easy

# Too much western propaganda has blinded many people:rolleyes:

Considering all these disadvantages that Iraq faced, Saddam has done a good job. How many self-proclaimed socialists have even come this close, despite NOT having to face such dire situations as the Iraqis?


Those who prattle on about western propaganda seem oblivious to the propaganda they have subconsciously imbibed! Look, its not a case of defining socialism too narrowly. The definition of socialism as a non-market non-statist alternative to capitalism cannot possibly be extended to encompass the brutal capitalist regime of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The one thing totally contradicts the other. You may argue that in capitalist terms this regime had certain pluses relative to other regimes in the region (but also a good many minuses that made it such a horrendous regime) but none of these advantages entitle it to be called "socialist" in any way shape or form.

As socialist I seriously object the world socialism being dragged through the mud by ignorant missassociation with each and every tinpot dictatorship that for transperantly opportunist reasons chooses to call itself "socialist". It is pathetic that some people who call themselves socialists should go along with this fraud and then airily accuse those who criticise this as being the victims of western propaganda! As if socialists cant figure that the enemy of an enemy is not necessarily a friend. We dont have to be beholden to western propaganda to understand that Iraq was nothing but a brutal capitalist hellhole and this is not what western propganda would have portayed it as being anyway. Ironically, western propaganda woiuld have potrayed it as being a "socialist" regime. So who exactly is falling for western propaganda in this case.

[Leo]

All this is western propaganda.

This is genocide denial.

[Djehuti]

...or at least a progressive in some matters?

Here's a list of his accomplishments:

# Fought against imperialism

# Education and Healthcare were free, literally no poverty at all

# Nationalized many industries

# Women participated in govt. (unlike many other fundamentalist nations)

# Children went to school (unlike theocracies like Afghanistan)

# Minorities, including Jews, were protected

# Iraq was the only Secular, modern nation in ME



Your thoughts?

The USA supported Saddam Hussein and his gangster-wing of the Baath Party because they were the least progressive alternative in Iraq (as a bulwark against communism). Unlike many other countries Iraq did not have any strong reactionaries, like a hardline conservative right or fundamentalist islamists.

But sure, Iraq was the richest country in the region and had a decent wellfare before the imperialists bombed the country into the poorest country in the region.

[Yehuda Stern]

All this is western propaganda.This is genocide denial.

Don't be silly, Leo - well, sure, it is genocide denial, but it's a denial of the genocide of people who are obviously not European, which is completely acceptable here. If benhur dared to so much insinuate that white workers are a labor aristocracy, he would be long since restricted and maybe even banned.

If it's non-Europeans we're talking about, though, you can deny that they have been victims of any sort of genocide, and you could even justify supporting their murderers in an imperialist war, and that would even propel you straight into the CC. If you don't see that that's logical you're just a racist against white people and British people.


Oh please! Israel bombed and butchered their people, and like any other human being, they've reacted rather amateurishly. Who wouldn't?

Who wouldn't use anti-Semitism to justify anti-Israeli propaganda, really? Left wingers. Marxists. Socialists. Anarchists. Radical liberals, even. In general, people who should be allowed to post on RevLeft. Since you don't really belong into any of these categories, though, I can see why you have no problem with that.

[LeninBalls]

Do you think that all these things happened by accident?

Devrim

The first link you posted, yes. Those not so much (although I think they're exaggerated, not that it matters, either way it sucks).

I'm only half-assed sticking up for Saddam, like I said I think he did some cool things and lots of bad things.

I just think that most people's view of Saddam is butchered beyond belief as some theocratic dictator that led the poorest country in the world into utter defeat and humiliation as his intended goals.

[PRC-UTE]

considering not only his racial politics, but also his role in smashing the working class, Saddam was basically a fascist.

[Andy Bowden]

Benhur, is this a wind up? Last time I read your posts you were slating Hamas and now your backing Saddam?

And PRC is basically correct, Baathism in Iraq has more than a passing similarity to fascism - the atomisation of the working class, territorial expansion, rooted support in the middle-class of Iraq (mainly sunnis) topped off with a personality cult.

[Brother No. 1]

Here's a list of his accomplishments:

# Fought against imperialism

# Education and Healthcare were free, literally no poverty at all

# Nationalized many industries

# Women participated in govt. (unlike many other fundamentalist nations)

# Children went to school (unlike theocracies like Afghanistan)

# Minorities, including Jews, were protected

# Iraq was the only Secular, modern nation in ME


Suddam was just as much a Socialist as hitler was.

How did he fight imperialism when he implanted is own?

Do you mean there was no real poverty or just not the majority?


So apperently when you Nationalize a industy its considered Socialism.


Yes Children went to school and praised Suddam.


Sure..and the Kurds were protected really well with those bombs.:rolleyes:

A modern imperialist/ Capitalist nation with a major Elite Dictatorship.



Suddam hasnt done any Socialism or would even be considered a Socialist. He was a Capitalist dictator like any other leader today in our world.

[Hoxhaist]

He was nationalist and socialist, so he was national socialist just not Nazi. The Baath Party was founded by people sympathetic to fascism in the Middle East so it is closer to fascism than socialism

[Hoxhaist]

Saddam did use anti-semitism though - his regime authored a pamphlet entitled "Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies" during the Iran-Iraq war.

So another nail in the coffin of progressive Baathism.
That was written by his uncle before saddam took power in 1940
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Whom_God_Should_Not_Have_Created

[Devrim]

The first link you posted, yes. Those not so much (although I think they're exaggerated, not that it matters, either way it sucks).

I don't think that they are at all exaggerated. You don't murder tens of thousands of people by accident.


I just think that most people's view of Saddam is butchered beyond belief as some theocratic dictator that led the poorest country in the world into utter defeat and humiliation as his intended goals.

Maybe it says more about your views. Iraq was far from a poor country at the time, and Saddam was not of any sort of theocratic bent.


All this is western propaganda.

It did later become propaganda (which didn't make it less true), but at the time the US tried to blame the Iranians.

Devrim

[Devrim]

So did English Trotskyists taking photos of Iraqi militants on demonstrations and giving them to the Iraqi state I don't see how that allegation is relevant other than to try and smear Trotskyists as a whole by pointing out to the alleged rotten conduct of one depraved group, i.e., the Healyite WRP. However, even that allegation is heavily disputed. Quoting Chapter 11 of Bob Pitt's "Rise and Fall of Gerry Healy":
Slaughter’s speech also contained the shocking allegation that the WRP had provided the Iraqi embassy with photographs of anti-Ba’athist protestors, enabling it to identify opponents of the regime, although even this was unproven – one News Line photographer, strongly backed by Alex Mitchell, claimed that the demonstrators’ faces had all been blacked out before the photographs were handed over.

I think that this is relevant in that it shows how people on the 'left' who end up with positions as reactionary as Ben Hur's end up behaving.

Also it is not an allegation. It is widely accepted as a fact. There was evidence suggesting it, and as your quote makes clear, Slaughter admitted it. The idea that they blacked out faces before handing them over to the Iraqi Embassy is absurd.

As for the WRP being a 'depraved group', this is almost certainly true, but they did also happen to be the biggest Trotskyist group in the UK at the time. It wasn't the actions of a tiny marginal group.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

Also it is not an allegation. It is widely accepted as a fact.

Accepted, yes, but then it is even more widely accepted that Marxism is false and totalitarian. Some people are willing to believe anything they are told, especially when it is one of those classic 'left rumors,' especially about a monster like Healy. However, I've yet to see any real evidence to it other than Cliff's speech, which is made not so credible by the raging faction fight in the WRP at the time.


they did also happen to be the biggest Trotskyist group in the UK at the time. It wasn't the actions of a tiny marginal group.

Marginal, certainly not. Biggest? I have my doubts. I think that both Militant and the SWP were bigger. Still, it's not enough to make any sort of case against Trotskyism - after all, I could easily say that "the biggest Marxist party in history stood at the head of a bloody totalitarian dictatorship," and that would almost be true.

[gorillafuck]

That was written by his uncle before saddam took power in 1940
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Whom_God_Should_Not_Have_Created
In 1981, following the start of the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi government publishing house Dar al-Hurriyya (House of Liberty) republished it, and the Iraqi Ministry of Education distributed the propaganda as part of a textbook for school-children.

Saddam's government distributed it. I don't give a shit who wrote it.

[Devrim]

Some people are willing to believe anything they are told, especially when it is one of those classic 'left rumors,' especially about a monster like Healy. However, I've yet to see any real evidence to it other than Cliff's speech, which is made not so credible by the raging faction fight in the WRP at the time.

Also the ICFI's report made the allegations before the faction fights began. It is something that has many sources. It is not my fault that you haven't seen them.


Marginal, certainly not. Biggest? I have my doubts. I think that both Militant and the SWP were bigger.

SWP at the time certainly not. The militant possibly but I don't think so.


Still, it's not enough to make any sort of case against Trotskyism

I am not doing that here. I am merely providing an example of one Trotskyist party.

Devrim

[punisa]

He made flaws indeed, but I believe the people were better off under his rule then the imperialist army

[Yehuda Stern]

Also the ICFI's report made the allegations before the faction fights began. It is something that has many sources. It is not my fault that you haven't seen them.

But then you're confusing claims - i.e. things being "widely accepted" - with evidence. I have never seen or read anything that makes me believe that something like that happened. If you want to educate, go right ahead. Failing that, it seems that your argument can be summed up in "everyone knows I'm right."

[Devrim]

But then you're confusing claims - i.e. things being "widely accepted" - with evidence. I have never seen or read anything that makes me believe that something like that happened. If you want to educate, go right ahead. Failing that, it seems that your argument can be summed up in "everyone knows I'm right."

There is an admission from one of the guilty parties. What more do you want. If you want to find the rest of the evidence look it up yourself. It is there.

Devrim

[Unclebananahead]

Whatever Hussein's flaws, I would never suggest or have suggested that US imperialist invasion was a preferable scenario.

[Yehuda Stern]

There is an admission from one of the guilty parties.Yes, when it was there interest to 'admit' to such a thing. What more do I want? Something credible, that I haven't already explained its irrelevance.


If you want to find the rest of the evidence look it up yourself.

I've tried, and I haven't found any. My guess is that you haven't either, otherwise it would've been posted here long ago.

[nightazday]

# Fought against imperialism

like when he tried to invade Kuwait?

[Brother No. 1]

# Fought against imperialism

Or when he used Imperialism on his own people?

He fought Imperialism with his own Impeiralism. That doesnt make him Socialist just a Impeiralist dictator.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

The lunatic who thinks he was related to Mohamad and that gave him the right to rule.SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS A FASCIST!!!!

[Hoxhaist]

Saddam Hussein was without a doubt a fascist, he used intense Sunni/Iraqi nationalism and xenophobia to create a society where his religion and his tribe were dominant and distracted his people by casting Shia and Kurds as scapegoats

[benhur]

Don't be silly, Leo - well, sure, it is genocide denial, but it's a denial of the genocide of people who are obviously not European, which is completely acceptable here. If benhur dared to so much insinuate that white workers are a labor aristocracy, he would be long since restricted and maybe even banned.

If it's non-Europeans we're talking about, though, you can deny that they have been victims of any sort of genocide, and you could even justify supporting their murderers in an imperialist war, and that would even propel you straight into the CC. If you don't see that that's logical you're just a racist against white people and British people.

There's only one reason why even small mistakes of the likes of Saddam, Ahmedjined, are blown out of proportion: they aren't white. Else, why would you find 'western' leftists here praising Stalin, Churchill, and other rotten imperialists as defenders of freedom, even as they attack Saddam and others for mistakes which pale in comparison?

[benhur]

Or when he used Imperialism on his own people?

He fought Imperialism with his own Impeiralism. That doesnt make him Socialist just a Impeiralist dictator.

That's rich, coming from a guy who has the signature of the greatest mass murderer in history, Joe Stalin.:rolleyes:

[Devrim]

I've tried, and I haven't found any. My guess is that you haven't either, otherwise it would've been posted here long ago.

I read the ICFI's report when it was published over twenty years ago. I don't keep copies of publications from the eighties lying about the house, and I can't find it on line. I also remember it being in the mainstream bourgeois press and on TV.

There isn't much point going on with this as I can't find the evidence. However, it does make me wonder why you are defending people like this, and why you choose to disbelieve an admission when the arguments against it are paper thin, the comments from the Newsline photographer being absurd in the extreme.

Devrim

[Os Cangaceiros]

I didn't know that we had genocide excusers on this board. :rolleyes: How one can downplay the horrible crimes visited on the Iraqi people by the Hussein regime simply because of American imperialism's similarly ruthless past is beyond me. This thread is offensive.

[Invader Zim]

"I didn't know that we had genocide excusers on this board."

We always have done, be they apologists for Saddam Hussein's regime or Stalin's. We used to have a far harder line on this kind of crap and frequently restricted such individuals, reading some of the comments in this thread I begin to miss elements of that policy.

[Small Geezer]

But if you started doing that you'd have to restrict apologists of Anarchist war crimes during the Spanish Civil War.

...and Stalinists, Trotskyists and... everyone.

[Invader Zim]

But if you started doing that you'd have to restrict apologists of Anarchist war crimes during the Spanish Civil War.

...and Stalinists, Trotskyists and... everyone.

I doubt there are many here who would deny that attrocities were committed by all sides of the Spanish civil war, in the same manner that benhur here is dismissing the genocidal gassing of the Kurds as 'western propaganda'.

But you are right.

[ZeroNowhere]

...or at least a progressive in some matters?

Here's a list of his accomplishments:

# Fought against imperialism

# Education and Healthcare were free, literally no poverty at all

# Nationalized many industries

# Women participated in govt. (unlike many other fundamentalist nations)

# Children went to school (unlike theocracies like Afghanistan)

# Minorities, including Jews, were protected

# Iraq was the only Secular, modern nation in ME



Your thoughts?
"No! No! No! Seven times, No!"
In other news, none of that is socialist, ignoring whether it's true or not.

[Yehuda Stern]

There's only one reason why even small mistakes of the likes of Saddam, Ahmedjined, are blown out of proportion: they aren't white. Else, why would you find 'western' leftists here praising Stalin, Churchill, and other rotten imperialists as defenders of freedom, even as they attack Saddam and others for mistakes which pale in comparison?

1. In what way does that apply to me, seeing as I praise neither Stalin nor Churchill, nor any other imperialist head of state?

2. A genocide is not a mistake - it is a crime against the world working class. It is monstrous of you to call it that, and it makes your sentimentality in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/its-hitlers-birthday-t106948/index.html) all the more ridiculous.

3. It is of course true that Saddam and Ahmadinejad are targeted by western propaganda because their actions bring them into conflict with certain imperialist powers; however, that in no way makes them revolutionaries. It just makes imperialist rulers hypocrites, which is old news really.


However, it does make me wonder why you are defending people like this, and why you choose to disbelieve an admission when the arguments against it are paper thin

Here you go twisting my words again. I never defended the Healyites - I called Healy a monster and his party depraved. However, just because Healy and the WRP were what they were doesn't mean I have to believe anything told to me about them, for two reasons:

1) I'm a thinking person and I don't believe everything I read;

2) I see information on left groups not as gossip that I can use against tendencies I dislike, but as material important to understanding these tendencies and the inner logic of their politics.

Having said that, the burden of proof is on those who make the claim; I've yet to see anything resembling proof by you in this thread. It's just avoiding and trying to shake off the responsibility to back up what you said. If you can't really find info to show that what you say is true, just don't say it. Or at least, don't expect anyone to take what you say seriously.

[Devrim]

Having said that, the burden of proof is on those who make the claim; I've yet to see anything resembling proof by you in this thread. It's just avoiding and trying to shake off the responsibility to back up what you said. If you can't really find info to show that what you say is true, just don't say it.


The Commission has not yet been able to establish all the facts relating in the case of the photographs that were handed over to the Iraqi embassy. We do know the two WRP members were instructed to take photos of demonstrations of opponents of Saddam Hussein. One of the members, Cde. [name suppressed], refused the order. A receipt for £1600 for 16 minutes of documentary footage of a demonstration is in the possession of the Commission.

Devrim

[Black Dagger]

Moved to Learning.