Log in

View Full Version : North Korea



Loknar
22nd August 2003, 22:25
I am curious as to everyone else’s opinion of North Korea. Unlike Cuba in my opinion they seem to be doing terribly and Kim Jong Il may be a crazy man (I read that MI5 has determined he is unstable, also he has the largest collection of Daffy Duck and one of the largest collection of porn in the world).

elijahcraig
22nd August 2003, 22:27
I support the DPRK 100%. Western nonsense against it is pathetic.

There are like 5-10 threads on this throughout this board.

Jesus Christ
22nd August 2003, 22:54
wasnt there just a topic on this?
anyway, i think that North Korea is a mess, as ive said before
Kim Jong Il is a crazy bastard and there is no way that North Korea is communist
its just a hereditary dictatorship
and the people are starving

Deniz Gezmis
22nd August 2003, 22:57
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 10:27 PM
I support the DPRK 100%. Western nonsense against it is pathetic.

There are like 5-10 threads on this throughout this board.
You therefore support,

1. The elite living in fenced off areas.

2. "These quarters are North Korea's Forbidden City, a place where the governing elite of North Korea lived. The impressive high-rise apartment complexes were built for these privileged few, luxurious Mercedes awaited them in the mornings, their children attended the exemplary 1st Secondary school, as well as the attendant exemplary kindergarten and nursery. In this closed quarter there were special shops and other establishments needed to provide the cadres with a comfortable life. As a foreigner, I was not allowed inside this quarter, and ordinary Koreans were never let in"

3. Tourists only being able to speak to people who are "Specially trained" To deal with foreiegers.

4 .People are given a notice, That the must put up a revolutionary slogan on their house, Every so often. <-- God knows what happens if you refuse.

5. Cults of personality.

6. Tourists who photography certain things having their cameras smashed.

7. Tall buildings been built in groups of squares, So that the slums are not seen from the outside.

8. The elite having their own shops, With blacked out windows and no revolutionary slogans covering the outside walls.

Jesus Christ
22nd August 2003, 23:02
you shouldnt have posted that, because no matter how true it may be, people on this board are just gonna dismiss it as Western Propaganda and make a stupid statement like "It&#39;s not the DPRKs fault, it isn&#39;t direct."
i mean, im a socialist democrat, and Kim Jong Il just makes me sick

Deniz Gezmis
22nd August 2003, 23:13
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 11:02 PM
you shouldnt have posted that, because no matter how true it may be, people on this board are just gonna dismiss it as Western Propaganda and make a stupid statement like "It&#39;s not the DPRKs fault, it isn&#39;t direct."
i mean, im a socialist democrat, and Kim Jong Il just makes me sick
Thanks for the warning, But if people want to avoid the truth, That is their problem..

elijahcraig
22nd August 2003, 23:24
Does Chairman Mao have to come to every one of these threads and put these "arguments" down like rabid horses? Really.

Loknar
22nd August 2003, 23:28
It is true that North Korea has a division between people. There are also concentration camps for Christians and perceived enemies of the state. Also Kim Jong Il succeeded his father, it is indeed a monarchy if anything. The CIA world fact book classifies North Korea as "Authoritarian Socialist".

elijahcraig
22nd August 2003, 23:32
blah blah blah. Do you think these things have not already been said? Yes, they have.

Deniz Gezmis
22nd August 2003, 23:34
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 11:24 PM
Does Chairman Mao have to come to every one of these threads and put these "arguments" down like rabid horses? Really.
You&#39;re the one with supports the bastards so much, Why don&#39;t you save him the trouble?

elijahcraig
22nd August 2003, 23:35
Have you not read his 100s of pages of debate with anti-DPRK people?

Deniz Gezmis
22nd August 2003, 23:38
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 11:35 PM
Have you not read his 100s of pages of debate with anti-DPRK people?
Yeah, I have.

elijahcraig
22nd August 2003, 23:41
Then let&#39;s use the information previously provided, instead of dragging this out another 10 pages.

Deniz Gezmis
22nd August 2003, 23:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 11:41 PM
Then let&#39;s use the information previously provided, instead of dragging this out another 10 pages.
All of my points were form memiors of a Soviet student. I think he lives in Korea now.. Not sure though.

Jesus Christ
23rd August 2003, 00:20
LOOK AT ME I SUPPORT THE DPRK&#33;
MY NAME IS ELIJAH&#33;
:lol:

elijahcraig
23rd August 2003, 00:25
Primus, the goon who posts pictures of dead bodies and, without proof, asserts that they are the result of Comrade Stalin&#39;s actions in some way. :lol:

CompadreGuerrillera
23rd August 2003, 00:26
lol&#33; the DPRK is PATHETIC, it is NOT communist NO way, its a monarchy is what it is. Sorry, i dont see anything good on North Korea, Elijah, maybe you should edcuate me on how great that dictatorship is.

Dictatorship IS BAD, it takes power away from the people&#33; Thats not communist&#33;&#33;
Dictatorship is cruel, wether you like it or not, North Korea is a dictatorship&#33;

elijahcraig
23rd August 2003, 00:28
Go to "Politics" and read the North Korea thread. Chairman Mao is an expert on the DPRK.

Not communist? Of course not, it is socialist. Communism is not applicable when you have an isolated revolution. Communism applies once the whole world is socialist.

Jesus Christ
23rd August 2003, 00:31
chairman mao is worse than you are
he posts info that is biased to suit his need and calls them facts
i respect him and all, but i dont agree with a damn word he says, go figure
so get his dick out of your mouth and face the facts

187
23rd August 2003, 01:35
"I support the DPRK 100%. Western nonsense against it is pathetic."

So you&#39;ve never actually been there, you&#39;ve never spoken to anyone who has lived there, you don&#39;t know all the facts, you trust random people who most likely are lying to you(you say the west does it, why not anyone else?), and yet you support the DPRK 100%. Intereseting.

Invader Zim
23rd August 2003, 01:46
I am going to say this from the start, I respect Chairman Mao the most out of all the Marxist Leninists (with the possible exception of CC), however in this subject I believe he is grossly mistaken.

Elijah, one of your main critisisms of Owen is that he failed to take the class war seriously unlike Marx who advocated the elimination of class barriers, fair enough, yet you support a Dynasty/Monarchy. That is feudalism and is most class reliant system of government in existance. It goes completely against all Marxist principal to create a dynasty in a socialist nation. There for the DPRK cannot be socialist, it is a fundermental contradiction of all socialist principals. How can the people be in power if the nation has a monarchy?

Go back and actually try reading those books/works by Marx that you boast of having, as you have evidently missed a fundermental part of the ideology.

Saint-Just
23rd August 2003, 14:49
I&#39;ll give my response to this soon. I have to go to work now. I have read all that has been written here and the source Death gave, in its entirety. I have had 100s of posts discussing the DPRK, and this is no different to any other. Often people don&#39;t bother to read much of what I write. I hope it is read here.

Cassius Clay
23rd August 2003, 15:57
While I&#39;m far from a fan of the DPRK (see articles &#39;Long Live Korean Reunification. Down with Korean Revisionism&#39; , &#39;The Juche Idea in light of Marxism-Leninism&#39;, &#39;Our standpoint towards the DPRK&#39; and something from the PLP with a title a bit to harsh which I&#39;m sure is availalabe at your local Blockbusters so hurry on down) I do feel compelled to point out some common misconceptions towards the DPRK.

The most obvious being that it is a &#39;Monarchy&#39;. Never mind that Kim Jong II has been a leading member of the WPK since the 60&#39;s and never mind that he was elected by the CC of the WPK. But I dont here similar criticisms of Bush, that&#39;s because it is just stupid to call America a &#39;Monarchy&#39;. The same with the DPRK. There is plenty to criticse them both for, your just not looking in the right places. People complain about the living conditions in the DPRK that there is a cult, that people are brainwashed. Never mind that the DPRK has (although it may not in the near future since the introductions of China like &#39;Special economic zones&#39; read Capitalism) provided free healthcare, education and housing for it&#39;s people. Want to see poverty and real famine, go to India or Cambodia (where their hasn&#39;t been a embargo) and do something about it. If there is a cult in the DPRK then it&#39;s wrong, but the only cult in the DPRK which can be proven is one for Elvis (all his stuff is in Pyongang) for crying out loud, which kinda ruins the image of the DPRK as &#39;Isolated&#39;.

Like I said criticise the DPRK and Kim/s for plenty of things but dont buy western propaganda. Anyway on September 2nd I;m going to a talk being given by a comrade whose been to the DPRK so I&#39;ll let you know what he says.

the SovieT
23rd August 2003, 17:20
well i must say that even I am somewhat interessed in this DPRK subject..


i heard DPRK is going t have its own space in Avante Party so i am going to check there and get some info..
luckly there will be some debates about it and i can have some more information...

sliverchrist
23rd August 2003, 18:40
Sorry for the inconvienience, but I am more or less a new member and have not read all these past posts on the DPRK, if some one could pt. me in the right direction <if at all possible>, it would be most appreciated. :lol:

Saint-Just
23rd August 2003, 20:22
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 10:57 PM
1. The elite living in fenced off areas.

2. "These quarters are North Korea&#39;s Forbidden City, a place where the governing elite of North Korea lived. The impressive high-rise apartment complexes were built for these privileged few, luxurious Mercedes awaited them in the mornings, their children attended the exemplary 1st Secondary school, as well as the attendant exemplary kindergarten and nursery. In this closed quarter there were special shops and other establishments needed to provide the cadres with a comfortable life. As a foreigner, I was not allowed inside this quarter, and ordinary Koreans were never let in"

3. Tourists only being able to speak to people who are "Specially trained" To deal with foreiegers.

4 .People are given a notice, That the must put up a revolutionary slogan on their house, Every so often. <-- God knows what happens if you refuse.

5. Cults of personality.

6. Tourists who photography certain things having their cameras smashed.

7. Tall buildings been built in groups of squares, So that the slums are not seen from the outside.

8. The elite having their own shops, With blacked out windows and no revolutionary slogans covering the outside walls.
These are some positive observations made by the author in the article.:

Diplomats appraised of constant and quite inexplicable re-building going on in Pyongyang. This the author soon saw for himself: opposite the Soviet embassy, there was a newly-constructed apartment block, completed just a few months earlier. Suddenly, builders appeared again on the site. They first demolished the upper floor of the structure and then built two or three more floors. Some time later, another house in the neighbourhood was first almost demolished and then rebuilt with one additional floor. Such strange cases were then typical in the centre of Pyongyang.

The stations were decorated with the pompous luxury reminiscent of the Moscow subway during Stalin&#39;s times, including marble, mosaics, stained-glass windows, frescoes, huge bronze chandeliers and other extravaganza.

I have seen a statement from a citizen of the DPRK where he described that the collective spirit in the DPRK was such that if he saw his daughter and another child drowning, and could only save one, he would not know which one to save as every child is seen as ones own in the DPRK:

even in the slums, kindergartens looked comparatively well-cared for and well-equipped. If a woman with a child entered a subway carriage, there would always be a small fuss: people would vacate their places for her, while the child would become the centre of attention being caressed and entertained

The author also details the ‘collectivist spirit’ that exists in opposition to the individualist stance of capitalism, of course the author is not endeared to this spirit that exists in the DPRK.

The DPRK has obviously made great achievements in the field of sexual equality:

Among the military, there were many women, comprising perhaps up to one fifth of the entire personnel

And some relative affluence and good living conditions:

By the mid-1980s, most families in Pyongyang had TV sets

Picnicking appeared to be one of the most popular pastimes. On their free days, usually on Sundays, large groups of people, numbering a dozen or even more, would go to the city parks or large suburban Taesôngsan park. There they would lay some makeshift tables or just place a cloth on the grass, eat, drank and have their fun.


It seems people were happy to sing about their leadership…

People often sang in public. In the evenings on weekends, one could often see groups squatting around a guitar player. In general, the guitar appeared to be the most popular musical instrument… there remained the customary reference to the Great Leader or Dear Ruler even in these songs. There was no such a thing as apolitical lyrics in North Korea.

In addition the author praises other aspects of the DPRK:

they managed to perform complicated operations, produce equipment and instruments sometimes virtually without any machines. The order and cleanliness in Pyongyang were exemplary. Streets and pavements were cleaned, the pavement edges were painted white

You assert that there is a great difference in living conditions in the DPRK. I agree, but this is a product of a harsh economic environment, however it is allieviated by socialism, if North Korea were capitalist there would be far larger gaps in living conditions. Here is an explanation of part of the economic situation in the DPRK, something I have wrote previously:

Kim Jong Il said: "After upholding a socialist system for about 30 years, we have to reach out to the West to help feed the people. It&#39;s a grim reality that we are behind the West." -Kim Jong Il critises scyophancy without a second thought and has been doing so for the last 30 years. That is, he never tries to deny the truth, because ultimately realising and analysing the truth of their situation is what will best help Koreans, or indeed any nation on Earth.
The DPRK as I will not explain cannot create a socialist paradise in the present circumstances; far from it they struggle to maintain development and the very existence of the nation. All of their policies are orientated to maintain the socialist system of the country and protect the Korean people. If this was not the case the country would no longer be DPRK. Most western liberal democracies can enjoy the luxury of not being under this threat. The WPK tries to maintain a good standard of living for its people, and in many instances does. However it has to make sacrifices to uphold the socialist society so in the long-term they may be free of imperialist and capitalist interventions and develop socialism further.
The DPRK economic situation the DPRK is under masses of pressure, economic and political, trying to force it to cave in, this has been the case for over 50 years. At times the pressure increases, as it did in the 60’s and now has again since 1993. Any capitalist country would have been obliterated under this pressure and collapsed irretrievably to imperialist poisoning. The DPRK has created a society that’s absolute focus is to maintain its independence and thus its socialist system. It has done this through creating an indomitable sense of single-hearted unity between workers, leader and party. In addition its army-orientated society and army-centred politics have created a nation as powerful to hold off U.S. imperialists aggression.
The reactivation of the nuclear program is reactivation of a program concerned with energy production and is a program the U.S. forced the country in 1994 to shut down. In the long-term energy production can rebuild the economy as to let all people enjoy good standards of living. Currently there is a lack of raw materials for energy production. Nuclear production is the only opportunity they currently have for energy production besides the many hydroelectric plants they have. Fossil fuel energy production is extremely difficult since there is a lack of access to fossil fuels because of the U.S. restrictions and its attempts to destroy the economy in the DPRK.
The DPRK has resolutely and successfully defended socialism however at great cost. Yet as of the arduous march of the 90’s and the forced march, which aimed to keep the economy alive by increasing production, they have kept socialism alive.

In rural areas particularly maintaining discipline and providing everyone with motivation and an occupation is essential in keeping society functioning. They have had to leave by the way-side equality to let the majority of the population subsist and those who are at the top level of the political structure live in conditions that allow them to keep a healthy enthusiasm behind the regime and its socialist principles. Perhaps the DPRK will never recover and keep on its path of decline, however this is not a failure of socialism but the victory of imperialism.

There are statements which pertain to the desperate economic situation in the DPRK in the article you provided, Death:

Already in 1985, there were some problems with lighting the city. The economic crisis had not begun to really bite, and cheap Soviet or Chinese raw materials still were flowing into Korea, but shortages of electricity were becoming common, so only some central streets were lit

petrol was imported and scarce

the constant shortage of petrol

The author says that Pyongyang affords a far better lifestyle for Korean citizens. However, he later reveals the truth that: ’ working adults -- 700 g, while the workers in more difficult trades (miners, metallurgists, and railway drivers among them) -- up to 900 g
He also mentions that these industries would be located outside of Pyongyang, this practice seems to treat people outside of Pyongyang very fairly.


The author doesn&#39;t sound like much of a socialist, in fact he seems to point fun at socialism:
&#39;as usual, the "masses" were not far behind.&#39;

My main criticism of this text is that it has vitually nothing on the working lives of people in the DPRK; rather an important part of a socialist society.

He seems to point absurdity and ignorance at Koreans saying: ’ One of them even asked, after he had tea for first time, whether he was supposed to eat the small tea leaves left in the bottom of his cup&#33;’

Well as far as I know in some eastern varieties of tea the tea leaves are eaten as a rich source of iron.

You say that they built skyscrapers in to hide slums from visitors, I very much doubt it since there are so few visitors:
there were so few foreigners in Pyongyang… a foreigner walking a Pyongyang street was a very unusual sight indeed.

And, since it is so plainly obvious to the author that they are a simple mask it seems they didn’t do a particularly good job. I would suggest that developed housing estates co-exist with slum areas because the North Koreans cannot afford to house every member of society in an apartment block. Yet the author does specify that many ordinary North Koreans are lucky to live in these apartments.


You suggest that the DPRK monitors visitors and that this is sinister. However, it is a socialist country in an imperialist dominated world and the author says that the practice in the DPRK derives from its socialist counterparts at that time:

much of official Pyongyang paranoia once came from the Soviet Union and China

Obviously calling it paranoia is putting a rather negative spin on it.

The whole tone of this author’s view is exemplified in the last line:
amplifiers transmit the dulcet tones of endless military marches...

The author did not have much good to say about socialism in the USSR either.

Urban Rubble
23rd August 2003, 21:09
I have a question.

Have you heard about the abductions of Japanese citizens carried out by the DPRK ? The government in Pyongang has admitted that it abducted these people to learn Japanese language and customs.

Kind of fucked up if you ask me.

Not to say that is the sole reason I am against the DPRK, but I just think it&#39;s odd.

Saint-Just
23rd August 2003, 21:53
I answered this precise question yesterday. In this exact wording crom you. Either on Che-Lives or ISF. I cannot remember which thread though, particularly since ISF seems to be so popular now its impossible to remember where you posted and if you do remember there always about 10 posts following it after a short period of time. Maybe the post never actually posted.

I have also answered this om ISF and Che-Lives previous to that. I gave a more detailed answer with sources before, but I no longer have them.

The official Japanese story is that DPRK agents hiding under infltables walked out of the sea onto a Japanese beach and kidnapped an often disputed number of women to enable the creation of a sexual pleasure haven for Kim Jong Il.

Another story is that the Japanese were kidnapped so that Korean spies could learn to speak Japanese proficiently to better infiltrate Japan. Unlikely since there are already many perfect Japanese speakers willing to help the North Koreans out.

The North Korean story is that they were spies and that the North Korean authorities were unable to find any evidence of it whilst the Japanese were demanding their return.

Deniz Gezmis
23rd August 2003, 22:32
I appreciate that you took the time to post in this thread, Chairman Mao. I&#39;m disappointed that you didn&#39;t address some of my points..

Urban Rubble
23rd August 2003, 23:16
No matter which explanation is true, North Korea was wrong to abduct them.

And I don&#39;t buy the story about them being spies for one second. We all know that if any other country did that and used that excuse it would be immiediately called out as a lie.

Saint-Just
24th August 2003, 13:35
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 10:32 PM
I appreciate that you took the time to post in this thread, Chairman Mao. I&#39;m disappointed that you didn&#39;t address some of my points..
Tell me which other point you want addressing. I didn&#39;t have time to address them all. Also, I may have addressed some in a very subtle manner.

Deniz Gezmis
24th August 2003, 13:48
Originally posted by Chairman Mao+Aug 24 2003, 01:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chairman Mao @ Aug 24 2003, 01:35 PM)
[email protected] 23 2003, 10:32 PM
I appreciate that you took the time to post in this thread, Chairman Mao. I&#39;m disappointed that you didn&#39;t address some of my points..
Tell me which other point you want addressing. I didn&#39;t have time to address them all. Also, I may have addressed some in a very subtle manner. [/b]
The fact that the elite live luxurious lifestyles. Please try and justify that.

Saint-Just
24th August 2003, 14:11
Originally posted by Death+Aug 24 2003, 01:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Death @ Aug 24 2003, 01:48 PM)
Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 24 2003, 01:35 PM

[email protected] 23 2003, 10:32 PM
I appreciate that you took the time to post in this thread, Chairman Mao. I&#39;m disappointed that you didn&#39;t address some of my points..
Tell me which other point you want addressing. I didn&#39;t have time to address them all. Also, I may have addressed some in a very subtle manner.
The fact that the elite live luxurious lifestyles. Please try and justify that. [/b]
I saw that as you most important point and I did answer it. I spent quite a few paragraphs on it. I&#39;ll summarise what I said plus some other information in shorter:

There is a great economic problem in the DPRK that is not the fault of socialism. The government in all countries lives a good lifestyle. They are extremely important in running the country since if dislike for the regime were to arise they could destroy socialism altogether. As a result the state leaders must not live like the majority of DPRK citizens. They must live with full diets in comfortable houses and cars to transport around.

Many officials don&#39;t enjoy any kind of excessive luxury. around 25,000 of the top officials and their families living in central Pyongyang on Kwangbok street. They have apartments of a modest size with simple modern facilities (I did have specifications for this but I can&#39;t find them now).

The situation in the DPRK is pressured. The economic decline has made society far less stable. As a large majority live in poor conditions the lives of the state leaders seems luxurious. However, the in the USSR and China the state leaders lived with better facilities (as they were richer countries) at their disposal.

In Britain and the U.S. state leaders also live lifestyles far better than most.

The DPRK, despite socialism, has a class system, it had destroyed any kind of economic ruling class to a large extent, however their still remains those in poverty to those living lifestyles comparative to western lower middle-class.

Dhul Fiqar
24th August 2003, 15:22
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 07:02 AM
you shouldnt have posted that, because no matter how true it may be, people on this board are just gonna dismiss it as Western Propaganda
You obviously haven&#39;t been here very long if you think the DPRK is popular here. Most of the people that support them are locked away in OI, this is a very liberal-leftist board in many ways and I am confident that DPRK supporters are as much of a minority as Stalinists here.

--- G.

Deniz Gezmis
24th August 2003, 18:26
Originally posted by Chairman Mao+Aug 24 2003, 02:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chairman Mao @ Aug 24 2003, 02:11 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 24 2003, 01:35 PM

[email protected] 23 2003, 10:32 PM
I appreciate that you took the time to post in this thread, Chairman Mao. I&#39;m disappointed that you didn&#39;t address some of my points..
Tell me which other point you want addressing. I didn&#39;t have time to address them all. Also, I may have addressed some in a very subtle manner.
The fact that the elite live luxurious lifestyles. Please try and justify that.
I saw that as you most important point and I did answer it. I spent quite a few paragraphs on it. I&#39;ll summarise what I said plus some other information in shorter:

There is a great economic problem in the DPRK that is not the fault of socialism. The government in all countries lives a good lifestyle. They are extremely important in running the country since if dislike for the regime were to arise they could destroy socialism altogether. As a result the state leaders must not live like the majority of DPRK citizens. They must live with full diets in comfortable houses and cars to transport around.

Many officials don&#39;t enjoy any kind of excessive luxury. around 25,000 of the top officials and their families living in central Pyongyang on Kwangbok street. They have apartments of a modest size with simple modern facilities (I did have specifications for this but I can&#39;t find them now).

The situation in the DPRK is pressured. The economic decline has made society far less stable. As a large majority live in poor conditions the lives of the state leaders seems luxurious. However, the in the USSR and China the state leaders lived with better facilities (as they were richer countries) at their disposal.

In Britain and the U.S. state leaders also live lifestyles far better than most.

The DPRK, despite socialism, has a class system, it had destroyed any kind of economic ruling class to a large extent, however their still remains those in poverty to those living lifestyles comparative to western lower middle-class. [/b]
Economic situation? Then how the elite afford to buy mercedes?

You say that many didnt want such a lifestyle, Che didnt want such a lifestyle. If some of the elite don&#39;t want it, Then why do they find it acceptable? I&#39;m sure you know what Che done in his free time.

elijahcraig
24th August 2003, 19:45
You obviously haven&#39;t been here very long if you think the DPRK is popular here. Most of the people that support them are locked away in OI, this is a very liberal-leftist board in many ways and I am confident that DPRK supporters are as much of a minority as Stalinists here.

I&#39;d say about 30-45% of all members are Stalinists, let&#39;s end the sham Dhul. :lol:

Jesus Christ
24th August 2003, 20:33
Originally posted by Dhul Fiqar+Aug 24 2003, 10:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dhul Fiqar @ Aug 24 2003, 10:22 AM)
[email protected] 23 2003, 07:02 AM
you shouldnt have posted that, because no matter how true it may be, people on this board are just gonna dismiss it as Western Propaganda
You obviously haven&#39;t been here very long if you think the DPRK is popular here. Most of the people that support them are locked away in OI, this is a very liberal-leftist board in many ways and I am confident that DPRK supporters are as much of a minority as Stalinists here.

--- G. [/b]
i meant that sooner or later some ignorant bum would carry that out

Loknar
24th August 2003, 21:37
The North Koreans also have broken the armistice many times, as a result many Americans and South Koreans have been killed along the DMZ.


Something else that cannot be danced around is the amount of South Koreans kid-napped by North Korean commandos (I am willing to bet that these are the most fierce fighters in the world right now), last I saw it numbered in the tens of thousands and many Japanese have been kid-napped by North Korean commandos landing on beaches. North Korea is out of control plane and simple, Kim Jong Il probably has a bad paranoia problem and as a result he doesn’t take his medications. Many defectors have claimed that he always wants to be the center of attention and if you have a conversation in front of him he looses it. I also read the story of a presidential guard who was witness to Kim Jong Il swimming in his own pool. And what about the concentration camps? The escapees have terrible stories of what happens in there.

Saint-Just
24th August 2003, 21:42
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 06:26 PM
Economic situation? Then how the elite afford to buy mercedes?

You say that many didnt want such a lifestyle, Che didnt want such a lifestyle. If some of the elite don&#39;t want it, Then why do they find it acceptable? I&#39;m sure you know what Che done in his free time.
The annual budget is more than enough to buy around 1,000,000 Mercedes.

I say that many didn&#39;t want such a lifestyle? I think you misinterpreted what I said. Of course I know how Che lived, but Fidel Castro didn&#39;t live like that.

&#39;i meant that sooner or later some ignorant bum would carry that out

I&#39;m an &#39;ignorant bum&#39; now am I?

redstar2000
25th August 2003, 00:05
In rural areas particularly maintaining discipline and providing everyone with motivation and an occupation is essential in keeping society functioning. They have had to leave by the way-side equality to let the majority of the population subsist and those who are at the top level of the political structure live in conditions that allow them to keep a healthy enthusiasm behind the regime and its socialist principles. Perhaps the DPRK will never recover and keep on its path of decline, however this is not a failure of socialism but the victory of imperialism.

I don&#39;t know about you, but that says "new ruling class" to me.

The government in all countries lives a good lifestyle. They are extremely important in running the country since if dislike for the regime were to arise they could destroy socialism altogether. As a result the state leaders must not live like the majority of DPRK citizens. They must live with full diets in comfortable houses and cars to transport around.

Yes, the comforts of this new ruling class are much more important than the well-being of the masses..."every government" thinks so and acts accordingly.

That being the case, why accept the North Korean pretense of "socialism", much less communism? Just because of their rhetoric?

It is possible to defend any country against U.S. imperialism without toadying to the class system in that country or suggesting that its ruling class is "particularly entitled" to our support because they&#39;re such "good guys".

There&#39;s nothing "good" about ruling classes anywhere...they all deserve the guillotine.

The most deserving, of course, is the one that rules the United States.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

elijahcraig
25th August 2003, 00:18
Whatever happened to "Workers Pay" for party leaders? The DPRK might consider giving this a chance. This is a flaw in the DPRK which needs to be changed.

Saint-Just
25th August 2003, 14:10
I wasn&#39;t suggesting they lived highly luxurious lives. But they can&#39;t live like all ordinary North Koreans because the ordinary North Koreans live in poverty.

Bolshevika
27th August 2003, 17:53
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 01:35 AM


So you&#39;ve never actually been there, you&#39;ve never spoken to anyone who has lived there, you don&#39;t know all the facts, you trust random people who most likely are lying to you(you say the west does it, why not anyone else?), and yet you support the DPRK 100%. Intereseting.

IT is possible to support a country you do not live in, via facts and information. If someone provides facts on North Korea, you research them and see if they are true. If they are true, than you support the said government.

Also, I do not support some of the things North Korea does, but regardless, they are being targeted by imperialists, and I believe we should stand next to our fellow Marxists (regardless what you say, their general economic policies are not feudalist, but socialist).

I also support Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people when they were attacked by imperialists. And Saddam Hussein wasn&#39;t even a Marxist.

What you liberals have to comprehend is that most of the things you see spouted by Western government owned TV stations like PBS is untrue. You must use your dialectical materialist powers (if you are a true communist) to see through the lies and get the truth. When imperialists have a target, in these cases North Korea and Iraq (Well not Iraq anymore), they will go to extreme lengths in order to justify their imperialism. So if it means making the target look bad, and pretend you are &#39;liberating them&#39; from &#39;evildoers of evil&#39;, you may get the more gullible citizens of your country to support your actions.

Don&#39;t believe the lies.

elijahcraig
27th August 2003, 20:18
I also support Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people when they were attacked by imperialists. And Saddam Hussein wasn&#39;t even a Marxist.

You don&#39;t support the dictator do you? I support the people, the same as the workers&#39; parties there.

Urban Rubble
27th August 2003, 23:40
"I also support Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people when they were attacked by imperialists. And Saddam Hussein wasn&#39;t even a Marxist. "

What a fucking idiot. Why in the hell would you support Saddam for ANYTHING ? Are you aware that he is also an Imperialist ? Are you aware that he murdered and tortured thousands of innocent people ? How the fuck can you support that ?

I don&#39;t support the U.S for going into Iraq, but to imply any sort of support for that peice of shit is pure IDIOCY.

Bolshevika
27th August 2003, 23:58
What a fucking idiot.

Please refrain from insulting.

Why in the hell would you support Saddam for ANYTHING ?

I should&#39;ve rephrased, I meant that I support Saddam over George W. Bush. And I also supported Saddam in resisting the United States. His general economic policies are very similar to those of a socialist. Iraq was one of the only Middle Eastern nations that did not practice theocracy, respected homosexuals, and women.

Are you aware that he is also an Imperialist?

Yes.

Are you aware that he murdered and tortured thousands of innocent people ?

Wow, you know how powerful the Western propaganda machine is when even pseudo Socialists like yourself repeat their lies. They don&#39;t torture innocent people, that is ludicrous. You probably have the image in your brainwashed head where Saddam is running his finger through a phone book, picks a random name, and says "this one, let&#39;s torture him for fun".

How the fuck can you support that ?

I only support him in this conflict. In fact, the United States has killed more Iraqi&#39;s with their food and supply embargo than Saddam. Estimation of deaths due to American food embargoes are 1 million, half were children under 5. Not to mention all the civilians killed during the two gulf wars.

The United States is constantly playing the game of deception when speaking of him. They say "the reason we killed 400 civilians was because Saddam put them infront of the building", but it is a ridiculous lie that I will be ashamed for you if you buy it.

If Iraq wouldn&#39;t constantly be at war, and the United States lifted its criminal embargo, it wouldn&#39;t of been such a bad place under the Ba&#39;Athists. Re think which side you are on.

sliverchrist
28th August 2003, 13:48
On Saddam killing his own people, <stop me if i&#39;m wrong> I was unaware that anyone in the middle east <with the exception of the kurds themselves> consider the kurds to be there own people. Just becuase someone lives in your nation, does not necassarily mean that everyone is like &#39;hey your an iraqi" you know?

Not supporting the slaughter mind you because Saddam did kill kurds, but then again so do the Saudi&#39;s and have been for the longest time, but their not in too bad with the US.

Bolshevika
29th August 2003, 00:19
The reason Saddam dropped a chemical weapon in that Kurdish village was because they were revolting against him for religious reasons. Of course civilians did tragically get caught in the crossfire, but you make it sound as if he picks random places to bomb.

redstar2000
30th August 2003, 01:54
I&#39;d like to address the matter of Saddam Hussein&#39;s "imperialism".

Our normal conception of an "imperialist" country is one that conquers and rules another country, either by violence or through economic and political penetration.

I submit that Hussein&#39;s invasion of southern Iran and of Kuwait don&#39;t meet that definition.

Here&#39;s why.

It&#39;s my understanding that the small territorial ambitions of Hussein in southern Iran consisted of an area predominately inhabited by Arabs.

If that is truly the case, then would one want to argue that the early Italian state was "imperialist" because it wished to annex those parts of the southern Austro-Hungarian Empire that were inhabited primarily by Italians?

The early Italian kingdom was, in fact, imperialist (in Libya)...but the desire to unify their country is not "imperialist".

No one, to my knowledge, ever argued that Hussein intended to "conquer" Iran or install a quisling regime in Tehran.

Now, as to "Kuwait", a little history lesson. After World War I, the British and the French created a number of "nations" out of one people, the Arabs.

Central and southern Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, and the Arabian peninsula are one nation that was divided by imperialists in order to make ruling those conquered people easier.

Northern Iraq, inhabited by the Kurds, was "added" to Iraq by the British, because of the oil deposits of course.

There is little doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein saw himself as a "great heroic unifier of the Arab peoples" and the conquest of Kuwait as the first step in that direction.

That&#39;s not imperialism.

Naturally, the American-British imperialists saw this as a huge threat to their domination of the oil wealth of that region...and have reacted predictably.

The objective of the imperialist countries has always been to keep the Arabs weak, backward, and divided amongst themselves.

So far, they have been successful.

But material conditions in favor of a "united Arab republic" continue to mount. The Iraqi resistance is supported passively or actively throughout the Arab world, as is the resistance in occupied Palestine. Soon, the imperialists risk military intervention in Syria. The United States is already building a new base in one of the Gulf states. And so it will go.

When the monarchy in "Saudi" Arabia is overthrown, things will heat up even more.

Hussein was certainly a rather unpleasant fellow; "heroic nationalists" usually are. He was also not overly bright...setting up an independent Kurdistan early in his regime would have been a brilliant move.

Nevertheless, I predict that he will eventually become a "folk hero" of the Arabs...one who stood up to the imperialists and, though defeated, set the stage for the next level of struggle against them.

In 50 years or less, that famous statue in Baghdad will be restored.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Invader Zim
30th August 2003, 02:30
It&#39;s my understanding that the small territorial ambitions of Hussein in southern Iran consisted of an area predominately inhabited by Arabs.

If that is truly the case, then would one want to argue that the early Italian state was "imperialist" because it wished to annex those parts of the southern Austro-Hungarian Empire that were inhabited primarily by Italians?

Yes but he didnt do it for that reason. He invaded Kuwait, if not Iran as well, for its Oil and that is widly accepted... and as it is imperialism if the west invades a nation for oil, then it is imperilaism if Saddam invades a country for oil.

Loknar
30th August 2003, 02:33
Uh ok, so Saddam is not an imperialist so he is just a nice guy? Do you even know how many people died in the Iran-Iraq war? Around 800,000. Do you know how many of his own people he has killed?

Invader Zim
30th August 2003, 02:37
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 03:33 AM
Uh ok, so Saddam is not an imperialist so he is just a nice guy? Do you even know how many people died in the Iran-Iraq war? Around 800,000. Do you know how many of his own people he has killed?
Ive been trying to drum this into Redstars head in other threads, he still cant quite accept that Saddam is a fascist... even though he attempted to ethnicly clense an entire region. 100,000 of thousands of Kurds died because of it.

And Redstar makes up petty excuses to defend Saddams servants, such as "chemical Ali". And he calls me "a servile lacky of US imperialism". Well there is a case of the pot and the kettle, and no mistake.

redstar2000
30th August 2003, 03:36
Loknar, supporter of U.S. imperialism and AK47--"Colonel Blimp" to those who have read his posts--have discovered common ground: opposition to me. :D

It just demonstrates the truth of what I&#39;ve been saying all along: you, AK47, are no leftist of any kind.

Sooner or later, you had to drift into an alliance with pro-capitalists and pro-imperialists...everything you said pointed in that direction--not least your expressed "respect" for Napoleon Bonaparte.

I&#39;ll leave you to your song-fest: God Save the Queen, America the Beautiful, etc.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Invader Zim
30th August 2003, 03:45
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 04:36 AM
Loknar, supporter of U.S. imperialism and AK47--"Colonel Blimp" to those who have read his posts--have discovered common ground: opposition to me. :D

It just demonstrates the truth of what I&#39;ve been saying all along: you, AK47, are no leftist of any kind.

Sooner or later, you had to drift into an alliance with pro-capitalists and pro-imperialists...everything you said pointed in that direction--not least your expressed "respect" for Napoleon Bonaparte.

I&#39;ll leave you to your song-fest: God Save the Queen, America the Beautiful, etc.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
Loknar, supporter of U.S. imperialism and AK47--"Colonel Blimp" to those who have read his posts--have discovered common ground: opposition to me.

The only person who knows me as "Colonel Blimp" is you, and every one who reads you calling me that knows your an immature idiot.

It just demonstrates the truth of what I&#39;ve been saying all along: you, AK47, are no leftist of any kind.

No it demonstraits that even the cappies know your full of shit.

Sooner or later, you had to drift into an alliance with pro-capitalists and pro-imperialists...everything you said pointed in that direction--not least your expressed "respect" for Napoleon Bonaparte.

Your such a dumb ass. How is it wrong to admire the greatest military General for centurys. Even if I dont agree with what he did, does not mean that I cant admire his military genious. I also admire Robert Lee, does that make me a conferdorate? I admire Mozart does that make me a composer? I admire Mike Atheton does that make me a cricketer?

You are such a fucking idiot, its hard to believe.

redstar2000
30th August 2003, 03:53
...immature idiot...full of shit...dumb ass...fucking idiot.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Invader Zim
30th August 2003, 03:55
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 04:53 AM
...immature idiot...full of shit...dumb ass...fucking idiot.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
I see (as usual) you dont actually have an argument though.

:cool:

Vinny Rafarino
30th August 2003, 04:06
Touché RS.

If the question is either supporting that "evildoer" Hussein against the fascist, imperialistic, international-law violating attack from Dubya and his jail-house ***** lackeys, we as communists, socialists and anarchists have only one option. Support Iraq. Fence-staddling on international issues such as this is the same as showing support for the imperialists.


I is only a good idea to keep your mouth shut when these specific issues arise;

A] Your wife/girlfriend poses the "does this outfit make me look fat" question.

B] Your wife or girlfriend asks if you would stay with her if she were hit by a bus and became a parapalegic.

C] Your wife or girlfriend asks if you would ever re-marry or search for a new mate in the event of her death.

D] Your wife or girlfriend ask you if "you can notice the crows-feet around her eyes".


To all feminists;

If you cannot find the humour in this last post, then you need help. Please don&#39;t flood me with your accusations of mysoginy and sexism.

Loknar
30th August 2003, 04:08
So long as your goals are not imperalistic you can attack other countries?

Loknar
30th August 2003, 04:15
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 03:36 AM
Loknar, supporter of U.S. imperialism and AK47--"Colonel Blimp" to those who have read his posts--have discovered common ground: opposition to me. :D

It just demonstrates the truth of what I&#39;ve been saying all along: you, AK47, are no leftist of any kind.

Sooner or later, you had to drift into an alliance with pro-capitalists and pro-imperialists...everything you said pointed in that direction--not least your expressed "respect" for Napoleon Bonaparte.

I&#39;ll leave you to your song-fest: God Save the Queen, America the Beautiful, etc.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
You do of course know Napoleon defied the church right? he stopped the Catholic inquisition and gave people liberties more so than any other monarch of the time. He was a great military leader, what about the man do you hate? The &#39;imperialism&#39;? Big deal. Imperialism had absolutely nothing to do with Communism you know. Imperialism didn’t stop the Red army from conquering the Ukraine.

So Saddam is a good man? yes or no?




No it demonstraits that even the cappies know your full of shit.



LMAO :lol:

lostsoul
30th August 2003, 05:40
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 01:54 AM
In 50 years or less, that famous statue in Baghdad will be restored.

I agree..Don&#39;t forget he overthrew general Abdul Karim Kassem, who killed many many socialist.


Yes but he didnt do it for that reason. He invaded Kuwait, if not Iran as well, for its Oil and that is widly accepted... and as it is imperialism if the west invades a nation for oil, then it is imperilaism if Saddam invades a country for oil.

Your an asshole, and thats widely accepted. But it doesn&#39;t mean its the truth. I hope you don&#39;t fall victim to rumors.


Your such a dumb ass. How is it wrong to admire the greatest military General for centurys. Even if I dont agree with what he did, does not mean that I cant admire his military genious. I also admire Robert Lee, does that make me a conferdorate? I admire Mozart does that make me a composer? I admire Mike Atheton does that make me a cricketer?


You admire Elton John...that makes you a faggot.


So Saddam is a good man? yes or no?
Yes and No. He is good to his people, and not a good man to nations who&#39;s intrests conflict with them. You know that most muslim countries hate india, but Iraq is one of its close allies. I wondered alot about this, and after reading a bit on this subject found out that Iraq is one of the freest countries in the middle east. women can walk around freely and don&#39;t need to be covered. women can drive. Any religion is allowed, etc.. This really piss&#39;s off many middle eastern countries that is one of the reasons i think many of these nations start progranda against iraq.



In my opinion, Saddam is guility of what most world leaders are guilty of...First trying to hold on to their own power...then if they have time and the heart to take care of the people. China, America, India, USSR, Russia, etc... Its just saddams plots to stay in power have been used to show how "Evil" he is. Why does no show the children in North Korea or Cuba straving as a result of Americian sactations? Why not show the labour campes people who oppose the chinese goverment go to? Or the fancy houses the Indian Ministers buy for themselfs before they even cosider doing their job?

I doubt Saddam gets a hard on after he kills people, or anything. I agree that Saddam will be considered a Hero soon(if not already). I have met so many who like Stalin, simply because he stood up against the world and outsmarted almost everyone, and they don&#39;t care about his politics. Saddam will be the same. Just how Che is admired by so many who don&#39;t know his politics.

187
30th August 2003, 14:43
"He is good to his people"

<_<

You better get your facts straight.

lostsoul
30th August 2003, 17:02
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 02:43 PM
"He is good to his people"

<_<

You better get your facts straight.
Maybe you can straighten them out for me.

I grew up around Arabs and Iraqies. Some of my friends hate Saddam..probally because he took their parents land. but many of my other friends say he is amazing, because without him Education would not have been so common around their country. If an Iraqi is accepted to any university, the Iraq goverment will pay not only their tutution, but also all their costs(living, travel, etc..). The parents said they liked Saddam becase he made many basic things cheaper and easier to get, like water, food, etc..

From having a monocary to becoming one of the freest and modern country&#39;s in the middle east, Saddam turned that country around.

Bolshevika
30th August 2003, 17:46
Yes, Saddam sports many Socialist policies. That is why I support him over Bush. I would rather Iraq have a socialist economy, in comparison to a neo-liberal American economy.

Loknar
30th August 2003, 18:11
Yes Saddam did allot for his people, but man so did Hitler.

40,000 people each year were disappearing in Iraq and just about every news reporter says when they tried to interview people they were scared to death.


Has anyone ever seen footage of the victims of Saddams chemical attacks? How many mass graves have we found since America occupied Iraq? No amount of good can erase this mans bad side.

ernestolynch
30th August 2003, 18:49
Lest we forget who put Saddam in power first.....the CIA, in order for him to massacre thousands of Iraqi Communists.

187
30th August 2003, 18:50
Go to the Amnesty International website and read any document on Iraq before the war. It&#39;s a great source for information on Saddams "freedom/socialist" policies.

You know there&#39;s something wrong with your society when...

Your leader can not be removed from office
You can&#39;t speak freely about your country&#39;s leaders without fear of persecution
You can&#39;t walk a block in your country without a picture of of your leader glarring you in the face
Your leader lives in multiple gold palaces, laced with everything you either can&#39;t afford, or can&#39;t legally own, while you (and the high majority of the rest) wallow in the dust of rations and poor housing projects.
Your government tortures it&#39;s citizens
Your government clearly isn&#39;t by the people, for the people.

187
30th August 2003, 18:54
"Lest we forget who put Saddam in power first.....the CIA, in order for him to massacre thousands of Iraqi Communists. "

Does that really change anything?

elijahcraig
30th August 2003, 18:54
Anyone who supports Saddam is just confused or stupid. Get in contact with the Iraqi Workers Marxist-Leninist Parties, and see what the REAL communists have to say about Saddam and his "socialism".

Bolshevika
30th August 2003, 18:56
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 06:50 PM
You can&#39;t speak freely about your country&#39;s leaders without fear of persecution
You can&#39;t walk a block in your country without a picture of of your leader glarring you in the face
Your leader lives in multiple gold palaces, laced with everything you either can&#39;t afford, or can&#39;t legally own, while you (and the high majority of the rest) wallow in the dust of rations and poor housing projects.
Your government tortures it&#39;s citizens
Your government clearly isn&#39;t by the people, for the people.
I do not see the big deal about these things. Welcome to the freaking middle east, all nations are like that and much worse.

Iraq is the most modern out of the middle east . Saddam will be missed on a wider scale once the United States puts in a new feudal Saudi-style theocracy.

By the way, in Kuwait, who the United States alway&#39;s holds up as a "model of Middle Eastern human rights" violates those same laws you mentioned.

And Elijah: what you said is pretty narrow minded. You do not understand the situation, it&#39;s either picking Saddam Hussein or the American imperialists. I don&#39;t know about you, but I prefer having a pseudo-Socialist nation in comparison to a neo-liberal capitalist nation.

elijahcraig
30th August 2003, 19:17
Narrow-minded? Contact Workers Party in Iraq, see what they say. Saddam is not a socialist, he has never put forth socialism, he is a lackey of the US imperialists. A full-throttle, living in palaces while slaughtering 200,000 rebels, CAPITALIST.

187
30th August 2003, 19:44
"I do not see the big deal about these things. Welcome to the freaking middle east, all nations are like that and much worse."

Oh, well I guess that makes it acceptable.... <_<


"Saddam will be missed on a wider scale once the United States puts in a new feudal Saudi-style theocracy."

Why would they miss their oppressor, and what feudal(?) Saudi-style theocracy? Where do you see evidence of a theocracy?

"By the way, in Kuwait, who the United States alway&#39;s holds up as a "model of Middle Eastern human rights" violates those same laws you mentioned."

Ok and?

Bolshevika
30th August 2003, 21:55
Elijah: The only reason Saddam once served for U.S. imperialism (during the Iran-Iraq war) was to have weapons support to crush his enemies (Saddam didn&#39;t know the U.S. was illegally arming the Iranians too). Saddam is no puppet, if he was he wouldn&#39;t of invaded Kuwait and threatened American oil. He also is no capitalist.

Simply because Communists are suppressed in Iraq doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s going to get any better with removing Saddam via imperialist American invasion. Didn&#39;t you hear about the political meeting where they didn&#39;t invite the Iraqi communist party? So really, if you have to pick, who is superior?

187: "Oh, well I guess that makes it acceptable...."

It sure does. You do not understand that region of the world. Any kind of civilized government is impossible. So, Saddam, who atleast is a socialist (according to Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, Socialists are "enemies of Islam") is superior to all other Middle Eastern governments.

"Why would they miss their oppressor, and what feudal(?) Saudi-style theocracy? Where do you see evidence of a theocracy?"

Because theocracy is the only form of government that survives in the Middle East. Atleast Saddam respected homosexuals, women, &#39;ethnic enemies&#39;, and non-Muslims, it is going to be hard for the United States to put up and keep up a capitalist neo-liberal government. In fact, it will be impossible.


"Ok and?"

Kuwait is a nation the United States "liberated", don&#39;t you remember? Well, a few months after Kuwait was "liberated" they go back into a far-right capitalist/theocratic/oppressive dictatorship.

elijahcraig
30th August 2003, 22:26
Saddam Huessein is a National Socialist, he is NOT a Marxist, he is not even a real socialist. He is a Yankee puppet, simple as taht. He came to power with the US, worked alongside them, he was a PUPPET. I don&#39;t choose between a Imperialist and an Imperialist lackey.

IPkurd
30th August 2003, 23:18
iraq isnt the most modern in the middle east, kuwait is more modern, saudi is more modern and turkey is the most modern of them all, althoguh turkey isnt really that middle eastern but it still counts

Bolshevika
30th August 2003, 23:54
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 10:26 PM
Saddam Huessein is a National Socialist, he is NOT a Marxist, he is not even a real socialist. He is a Yankee puppet, simple as taht. He came to power with the US, worked alongside them, he was a PUPPET. I don&#39;t choose between a Imperialist and an Imperialist lackey.
How can an imperialist lackey stand up to its father imperialist? Saddam is not an imperialist lackey.

I never said he was a Marxist, just that he had Socialist ideas. He has said numerous times that he admires Stalin.

Invader Zim
31st August 2003, 00:01
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 11:26 PM
Saddam Huessein is a National Socialist, he is NOT a Marxist, he is not even a real socialist. He is a Yankee puppet, simple as taht. He came to power with the US, worked alongside them, he was a PUPPET. I don&#39;t choose between a Imperialist and an Imperialist lackey.
Its a very sad day, but i find my self in complete agreement with Elijah here. Except that I would nit call him a puppet of the US any longer. He used to be, but not any more.