Should we support the Iraqi Resistance?

[RevolucioN NoW]

Several days ago the Red Cross humanitarian aid headquarters was bombed by the Iraqi resistance, those killed were predominantly Iraqi civilians. On the same day a bomb killed 2 schoolchildren in Tikrit. Gunmen last week shot dead the editor of an independent newspaper.

So I must ask, should us lefties be supporting a resistance movement which kills 10 times as many civilians as it does soldiers? Is the resistance going to force the US occupiers out of Iraq, or will it merely strengthen the Bush Administrations bullshit ‘war on terror’ crusade.

The truth is, this conflict is not a traditional Vietnam type struggle, and as much as we hope it could be. There are no heroic defenders of the revolution, only a ragtag group of former Baathist murderers and Al Qaeda operatives.

Our primary aim should be the unconditional withdrawal of US imperialism from Iraq and the handover to a democratic government. The resistance wants only to establish either:
a) a military dictatorship (reactionary)
b) or a fundamentalist regime modelled on Iran (reactionary)
And its chances of kicking the US from Iraq are about as good as George Bush reading a good sized novel.

We should be supporting a mass movement, such as that being created by the Iraqi Communist Party, which has organised a network of 150,000 unemployed workers and soldiers, not a bunch of civilian murdering neo-nazis that the current resistance appears to offer.

:ph34r:

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

There isn't The Resistance. It contains different groups, with all different goals.

[Ian]

Well really there is no centrally controlled resistance so we cannot say the actions of a few terrorists are the actions of a single body, I support the Iraqis when they shoot Americans and British, but when they shoot Iraqi Police or bomb Aid workers it isn't cool. However we must avoid the assumtion that this is performed by a nationally organised body, because it is not, with what we have read we can guess that it is localised and most fighters are in isolated groups with little contact with other resistors.

The ICP is a bit of a rotting corpse, it joined with the American's in the ruling council and has thus become little more than a party of quislings, it is a big call, but what have they done to oppose the Americans? Some Communists are fighting, namely the ICP-Cadre, and they have had some sucess, but a lot of the resistance is coming from patriotic forces.

I still support the resistance, even though some members are psycho arseholes...

[Soviet power supreme]

Should they just let the capitalists plunder their country.What do you think that when the americans "leave" who is going to come in charge.Who do you think that they are gonna vote in their democratic country.Islamic fundamentalists are going to be in charge after this guerilla war or when the USA get the democracy there, they are elected.

The difference is that by the time when USA has planted the democracy,the oil wells and others are in capitalists pockets.

[redstar2000]

Yes, I agree that it would have been really great if the Iraqis would have consulted us first and put together a resistance movement that we could feel nice and comfy about.

Unfortunately, the "rag-heads" have their own agendas.

And the only "progressive" part of those agendas is kicking the U.S.'s ass out of their country.

Very disappointing, to be sure.

However, there is a bright spot in all this. The more damage the Iraqis can inflict on the U.S. forces there, the more difficult it will be for American imperialists to muster a semblance of popular "support" for their next war of conquest. (And, believe me, they have a list.)

You see, we are not "obligated" to "apologize" for the political nature of the Iraqi resistance...or any other resistance to U.S. imperialism. The fact that they resist serves our purpose...undermining the "legitimacy" of "our own" imperialism.

That's something that was often overlooked in 20th century anti-imperialist movements in the west. The feeling was that you had to find something "good" to say about this or that resistance movement "in order" to oppose imperialism. (And if you couldn't find anything "good", then you were "obligated" to make something up.)

Avoiding that error, I am largely indifferent to the political character of the Iraqi resistance--or that which currently takes place in any other country.

What I want to see is the catastrophic defeat of U.S. imperialism, the rise of hatred in the American people for monopoly capitalism and its wars of conquest, and proletarian revolution here!

I'm not an Iraqi or even an Arab; I don't live in Iraq or anywhere in the Arab world; and I'm perfectly content to let those folks work out their own destiny...as a Marxist, I figure they'll come around to communism when they feel that the time is right for that.

But in the meantime, every American soldier or Iraqi quisling that they kill serves to weaken, ever so slightly, the monster that I want to kill...U.S. imperialism.

And do not be so certain that the Iraqi resistance "can't win"...more than one country has inflicted "the death of a thousand cuts" on its "conquerer".

It can happen again.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[RevolucioN NoW]

There isn't The Resistance. It contains different groups, with all different goals.

Yes but there are main streams in the resitance namely the pro Saddam and Pro islamic fundamentalist groups. While they are anti-american in nature their ultimate objectives must be drawn into question, both do not really give a shit about the Iraqi people.


I support the Iraqis when they shoot Americans and British, but when they shoot Iraqi Police or bomb Aid workers it isn't cool.

It is probably the same groups pulling of both sorts of attacks, while there is evidence that the Islamic fundamentalists are those pulling of the terrorist attacks.It is true that there is no national hierarchy or authority controlling the resistance groups.


The ICP is a bit of a rotting corpse, it joined with the American's in the ruling council and has thus become little more than a party of quislings

I think that i was actually refering to the Workers Communist Party of Iraq (WCPI), which is a splinter group of the larger, and as you say, compromised ICP. The WCPI organised the large unemployed rallies that have attracted a good deal of media attention.

:ph34r:

[RevolucioN NoW]

However, there is a bright spot in all this. The more damage the Iraqis can inflict on the U.S. forces there, the more difficult it will be for American imperialists to muster a semblance of popular "support" for their next war of conquest. (And, believe me, they have a list.)

Yes, but the continued resistance will allow for the Republicans to request more money, and to continue the occupation longer under the false pretext of security. And as the resistance forces out the UN and the red cross (both imperialists, but of a lesser stature than the US) the US will have even more of a free reign over how the iraqi economy is recontructed. And the Democrats will fall all over themselves to support the US military and back Fuhrer Bush's mext war budget. Unfotunatley, the reistance, in its current form will never force America out of Iraq, only a mass movement can.


I am largely indifferent to the political character of the Iraqi resistance--or that which currently takes place in any other country.

I undertsand your sentement, that any resistance is better than none, however he must look at the resistance so as to acertain its political asperations after the US eventually leaves (if it ever does). The resistance stands only for fundamentalism adn dictatorship in its present state.


I'm not an Iraqi or even an Arab; I don't live in Iraq or anywhere in the Arab world; and I'm perfectly content to let those folks work out their own destiny...as a Marxist, I figure they'll come around to communism when they feel that the time is right for that.

This is exactly right, however the way things are going i doubt the iraqi people will ever get to decide their own destiny, it will be decided by the Imperialist US. The Iraqi people will come around to communism only through a mass movement such as that created by the WCPI, not through a civilain terrorising resistance.


But in the meantime, every American soldier or Iraqi quisling that they kill serves to weaken, ever so slightly, the monster that I want to kill...U.S. imperialism.

Yes, but a few hundred dead soldiers will not stop the Behemoth of US imperialism, the US wil invade other countries notwithstanding massive casualties. We saw that in Vietnam, and that war went on for over 10 years, leaving over 50,000 dead americans. Only we in the west can stop imperialism, at the home front.

[Pro-MyIdeals]

Originally posted by Ian [email protected] 1 2003, 07:50 PM
Well really there is no centrally controlled resistance so we cannot say the actions of a few terrorists are the actions of a single body, I support the Iraqis when they shoot Americans and British, but when they shoot Iraqi Police or bomb Aid workers it isn't cool.
how can you say you are glad when american and british soldiers are killed? did they have a choice whether they wanted to go there or not? i agree we shouldn't be in iraq, but why be happy when soldiers are killed? i have many friends over there now who don't want to be there...do you want them to die? that is a very disgusting statement

[RevolucioN NoW]

how can you say you are glad when american and british soldiers are killed? did they have a choice whether they wanted to go there or not? i agree we shouldn't be in iraq, but why be happy when soldiers are killed? i have many friends over there now who don't want to be there...do you want them to die? that is a very disgusting statement

This brings up an intersting point, should we blame individual soldiers for being in Iraq? Tbey are by all means proffesional murderers who are simply gangsters for capitalism, however with the US in its current state the Army is the only option for many poor kids.

And yes it is sad to see americans die, but at least we can hope that those deaths will breed a Vietnam style movement at home.

[Invader Zim]

Define the Iraq resistance, do you include, the "freedon fighters" who, are from other Islamic countries, and who feal that they are on a holy war to wipe out the Evil US. Do you also include the pro-Saddam thugs who fight to reinstate him. Or are you only in favour of supporting those genuine Iraqi freedom fighters, who's children have been killed, etc? From what I have read, the latter are in the minority. Or do you plan on supporting the lot?

[RevolucioN NoW]

Define the Iraq resistance, do you include, the "freedon fighters" who, are from other Islamic countries, and who feal that they are on a holy war to wipe out the Evil US. Do you also include the pro-Saddam thugs who fight to reinstate him. Or are you only in favour of supporting those genuine Iraqi freedom fighters, who's children have been killed, etc? From what I have read, the latter are in the minority. Or do you plan on supporting the lot?

Those legitmate freedom fighters, if they exist are indeed in a minority, will these people take up arms in a fit of rage and be killed, or will they help to build a movement to overthrow the corrupt governing council in a workign class revolution, that is the main question.

:ph34r:

[Xvall]

NSB stated it earlier. There is not official 'Resistance Group' taking control of every seingle action planned against the American population. 'The Resistance' is just like 'The Right' or 'The Left'. It's a massive group composed of willing people who declare themselves to be a part of it. This could be anything from a protester to a suicide bomber. It doesn't mean they are all working together. That would be like one communist out of millions of communists attacking the United States, and George Bush claiming that "Communism has declared war on us!".

[Severian]

Originally posted by RevolucioN [email protected] 1 2003, 07:05 PM

There isn't The Resistance. It contains different groups, with all different goals.

Yes but there are main streams in the resitance namely the pro Saddam and Pro islamic fundamentalist groups. While they are anti-american in nature their ultimate objectives must be drawn into question, both do not really give a shit about the Iraqi people.
Well, that's a statement endlessly repeated by the U.S. government and big-business media. That the people attacking the occupation forces are all "Ba'athist remnants" or "foreign Islamist fighters" AKA al-Qaeda.

All factual information, however, indicates that it's broader-based and varied. A very large number of Iraqis strongly resents the occupation and many of them are willing to participate in armed resistance to it. Here's a Boston Globe interview with one of these fighters. (http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2003/10/09/anger_and_faith_fuel_iraqi_resistance/)

There are, in fact, a large number of groups, with a range of ideologies, carrying out these attacks.

From the viewpoint of communist principle, resistance by a colonized country to imperialism should be supported regardless of its leadership. E.g. it was correct for Chinese communists to side with Chiang against the Japanese invasion...though not to place any political confidence in Chiang's ability or willingness to actually lead anti-imperialist resistance. Political independence does have to be maintained. With the goal of winning the leadership of the anti-imperialist struggle, or of dealing with the capitalist-nationalist forces afterward.

But to say, we won't support resistance unless its starts out with the right leadership, that's just sectarian. At best. If it's not an excuse for not strongly opposing imperialism.

You could legitimately ask whether armed resistance is the best tactic at this moment. Like all tactical questions, that has to be decided by people on the ground. There are organizations in Iraq that oppose the occupation that haven't taken up arms yet, Sadr's for example. However, those who have taken up arms have made a legitimate tactical choice as well. We simply can't decide from thousands of miles away which is correct.

BTW, somebody else was objecting to targeting Iraqi police...all revolutions and national liberation struggles have targeted cops, collaborators, and informers. Che, for example, didn't hesitate to have 'em shot.

The Iraqi police were part of the old regime's repressive machine, and now they're working for the occupiers. Wholly legitimate military targets.

[SonofRage]

I support Iraq's right to self-determination but I cannot say, as some have, that I support them when they are killing (whether it is civilians or soldiers who are mostly working class people who are either brainwasted by "patriotism" or simply are trying to get money for college). I would hope they would follow the example of Mohandas Gandhi. A massive non-violent movement could very effective and it would do even more to expose the imperialists. I believe the Palestians would be well served by this as well. Like Ghandi said, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

[redstar2000]

Yes, but the continued resistance will allow for the Republicans to request more money, and to continue the occupation longer under the false pretext of security.

Without resistance, why should they ever leave...at least until they've trained an entire generation of Iraqis to bend the knee to U.S. imperialism?

It's like saying that if only the French had stopped resisting, the Nazis would have all gone back to Germany.


And the Democrats will fall all over themselves to support the US military and back Fuhrer Bush's next war budget.

No argument from me on that one.



Unfortunately, the resistance, in its current form will never force America out of Iraq...

Emphasis added...because you are quite right. It will take a much larger and much more violent resistance to do the job.

But it's a good start.


The resistance stands only for fundamentalism and dictatorship in its present state.

Most likely you're correct, as least for the moment. But that's not our responsibility. We're not "in charge" of Iraq's future, good or bad. The Iraqis themselves must struggle over their future...and our "good advice" is irrelevant to their concerns.

I'm sure we could all "design" a really terrific resistance movement for Iraq...the difficulty is that I don't think they are real interested in our priorities.

They have their own.


...however the way things are going I doubt the Iraqi people will ever get to decide their own destiny...

Why so pessimistic? It seems to me that sooner or later, it is inevitable that Iraqis will decide their destiny independent of U.S. imperialism...unless you want to argue that the American Empire is "eternal".

All empires like to pretend they are "immortal"...none have yet realized that ambition.


Yes, but a few hundred dead soldiers will not stop the Behemoth of US imperialism, the US will invade other countries notwithstanding massive casualties. We saw that in Vietnam, and that war went on for over 10 years, leaving over 50,000 dead Americans. Only we in the west can stop imperialism, at the home front.

No, I think that's historically wrong. When a resistance movement begins to inflict severe casualties on the aggressor, that is what makes the beginning of a resistance "at home" possible.

If and when the U.S. starts losing one or two hundred soldiers per week, then resistance inside the U.S. will begin to get a lot more serious.

And there is also the demoralization of the occupation troops themselves that becomes a factor. One reason that the U.S. had to withdraw from Vietnam is that much of its army refused to fight...not in open mutiny but in deliberate avoidance of enemy troops and combat situations. "Seek and destroy" missions became "Hide and Don't Seek" missions...and gung-ho commanders who insisted on combat perished from live grenades rolled into their tents.

I have a feeling that no one is volunteering for convoy duty in occupied Iraq these days.


How can you say you are glad when American and British soldiers are killed? Did they have a choice whether they wanted to go there or not?

People always have a choice.


I have many friends over there now who don't want to be there...do you want them to die?

If they don't want to be there, they should leave. Commandeer a vehicle and drive to Jordan or Syria or Iran (it's not a long trip) and apply for political asylum.

Otherwise, they'll get what they deserve...and you will have to make some new friends.


...however with the US in its current state the Army is the only option for many poor kids.

No it isn't. Most poor kids do not join the army, do not become cops or violent criminals, etc.

Those who do become those things have much to answer for.


Define the Iraq resistance...do you plan on supporting the lot?

Any and all is fine with me...as long as they inflict damage on U.S. (and British) imperialism. The more damage they inflict, the more I'll "like" them.


Those legitimate freedom fighters, if they exist are indeed in a minority, will these people take up arms in a fit of rage and be killed, or will they help to build a movement to overthrow the corrupt governing council in a working class revolution, that is the main question.

I don't think a "working class revolution" would mean very much--considering the level of political consciousness in a place like Iraq, it would probably be a Leninist dictatorship and might even resemble North Korea.

You seem to suggest that Iraqis should not violently resist the occupation "lest they be killed". You don't have to be part of the resistance to be killed by trigger-happy GIs...they kill unarmed Iraqi civilians on a daily basis.


I would hope they [Iraqis] would follow the example of Mohandas Gandhi.

You may as well hope that pigs will fly.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[(*]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 08:28 PM
did they have a choice whether they wanted to go there or not?
The fact is, soldiers are employees of the government. Plus, they knew what they were signing up for. The soldiers are murdering Iraqis. Period.

If your boss tells you do something unethical (maybe steal something), would you do it?

Also, can one excuse all soldiers of wrongdoing? What about German soldiers during world war II guiding people to their deaths?

I believe that international law protects only post-war soldiers. The war in Iraq is not over yet.


* EDIT * I don't support the killing of soldiers, but i'm more willing to accept the death of a soldier over that of a civilian.

[REDWARRIOR]

I for one do not suppourt the Iraqi resistance. There goal is tdo set up an islamic extremest governemnt, very unlkeftiest. And they are targetting their own civilians, the Iraqi people. We are in soldiarity with the Iraqi peoples, not the terrorist. They bombed the Red Cross which is only there to suppourt the iraqi people...it was unarmed and the red cross is neutral...that was just low doing that.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 09:16 PM
I support Iraq's right to self-determination but I cannot say, as some have, that I support them when they are killing (whether it is civilians or soldiers who are mostly working class people who are either brainwasted by "patriotism" or simply are trying to get money for college).
I'm not going to answer, as others have, that those soldiers chose to be there, etc. No, their deaths are unfortunate. They are workers in uniform, and communists in the U.S. should reach out to them and encourage them to speak out against the occupation and demand to be brought home. As some are speaking out already.

But their lives are worth no more than the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by U.S. imperialim over the past decade. Killing that is ongoing. Iraqis have a right to defend their country when it is invaded. They have a right to shoot back at the soldiers who have killed their relatives, friends, neighbors, coworkers. They have a right to self-defense.

Their lives are worth no more than the Iraqi children who die because of the continuing economic collapse and exploitation under the occupation - even worse than under the "sanctions" plus Hussein.

No more than the tens of thousands who die of malnutrition and readily preventable diseases all over the world, due to the system of imperialism.

Those deaths will continue until imperialism is brought down.

U.S. soldiers are legitimate military targets. Their deaths are weakening the occupation, demoralizing the army, and impelling surviving soldiers, their relatives, and others in the U.S. to demand that the troops be brought home now. If you value their lives, join this demand, rather than telling Iraqis not to resist.

"I would hope they would follow the example of Mohandas Gandhi. A massive non-violent movement could very effective and it would do even more to expose the imperialists."

Iraqis have tried demonstrations and other non-violent means of resisting the occupation. They have been gunned down in the streets. This got little publicity in the U.S., and the "exposure" of imperialism was minimal.

As I said, means are a tactical question, and we lack the knowledge to even know which are best, let alone the right to dictate to the Iraqis.

Also: the most effective means of nonviolent resistance in India, which ultimately forced the British out, was massive strikes. With most industry in Iraq already shut down, and unemployment sky-high, this is not likely to be so effective.

And what was the immediate result of Gandhi's movement? Legions of Indians slaughtered by other Indians, as Britain controlled the manner of its exit and partitioned India into Hindu and Muslim states (Pakistan.) Divide and rule. Malcolm X commented on how pacificism can just be a cover for being too timid to use violence against the oppressor, while happily continuing to use violence against each other.

"I believe the Palestians would be well served by this as well. Like Ghandi said, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.""

Under the occupations in Iraq and Palestine, it's: first they shoot you, then they shoot you, then they shoot you, then they shoot you....have you heard of Rachel Corrie? If the Israelis did that to a U.S. citizen, do you think they'd hesitate to kill any number of nonviolent Palestinians?

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 10:46 PM
And what was the immediate result of Gandhi's movement? Legions of Indians slaughtered by other Indians, as Britain controlled the manner of its exit and partitioned India into Hindu and Muslim states (Pakistan.) Divide and rule. Malcolm X commented on how pacificism can just be a cover for being too timid to use violence against the oppressor, while happily continuing to use violence against each other.

"I believe the Palestians would be well served by this as well. Like Ghandi said, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.""

Under the occupations in Iraq and Palestine, it's: first they shoot you, then they shoot you, then they shoot you, then they shoot you....have you heard of Rachel Corrie? If the Israelis did that to a U.S. citizen, do you think they'd hesitate to kill any number of nonviolent Palestinians?
In the end, India got their independence from the British. They fucked it up afterwards (partly by not listening to Gandhi's calls to not divide India) but this does not deligitamize the success of Gandhi's method.

You mention Rachel Corrie of the International Solidarity Movement. Of course people are going to die when using non-violent resistance, but how many have died during the violent resistance? Rachel Corrie was the first person in ISM to be killed in the two years they have worked in Palestine.

Non-violent resistance is sometimes thought of as being non-action, but there are many methods a resistance movement can employ:

symbolic protests
hunger strike
paralysis of transportation
social boycotts
specific and general strikes
civil disobedience
economic shutdowns
political noncooperation
"disappearance" under false identity
economic boycotts
public demonstrations
slow-downs
publication of banned newspapers
deliberate inefficiencies
assistance to persecuted people
broadcasts about resistance on radio and television
judicial resistance
defiance by the government
denial of legitimacy to the usurpers
non-cooperation of civil servants
legislative procrastination and delays
declaration of defiance
persistant continuation of old policies and laws
student defiance
children's demonstrations
individual and mass resignations
refusal of collaboration
maintenance of autonomy of independent organizations and institutions
subversion of the usurpers' troops, and incitement to them to mutiny[list]

[Ian]

Non-violent resistance is very productive, but there always has to be something to scare the imperialists, I think the young guerrillas in India, like marxist Bhagat Singh, really scared the Empire. Non-violent resistance can easily be put down with tear-gas.

I just feel(yes it is a very unscientific and subjective basis) that there needs to be violence against the Imperialists before they pack their bags and piss off back home.

[RevolucioN NoW]

Without resistance, why should they ever leave...at least until they've trained an entire generation of Iraqis to bend the knee to U.S. imperialism?

I never said that there should be no resistance, simply that the resistance that we as leftists back should be of a non-violent description, this argument was never about the existance of a resistance, simply what form we should support it in. I believe that a non-violent resistane can force the US to leave sooner than an armed one, as it will garner more support amongst the Iraqi people. The US cannot use the represive measures the british imperialists used against Ghandi for fear of public backlash both in iraq and at home (although this may prove a tad naive).


Emphasis added...because you are quite right. It will take a much larger and much more violent resistance to do the job.

A violent resistance will prove the exact opposite, it will lengthen the occupation, the US ruling class has many people to sacrifice in its war drives, it showed that in Vietnam.


Most likely you're correct, as least for the moment. But that's not our responsibility

Quite right, but what is our responsibility is backing the element of resistance which will force the collapse of US imperialism earlier rather than later. An unarmed, non-violent resistance will do this i believe.


Why so pessimistic? It seems to me that sooner or later, it is inevitable that Iraqis will decide their destiny independent of U.S. imperialism...unless you want to argue that the American Empire is "eternal".

I did not meant that to say that the Iraqi people will never decide their own destiny, simply that they never will while under the thumb of imperialism.


If and when the U.S. starts losing one or two hundred soldiers per week, then resistance inside the U.S. will begin to get a lot more serious.

I doubt that the current resistance will ever reach this capacity, as it is limited to the Sunni triangle, a hotbed for saddam support. 100-200 a day would be brought about by an army many thousands strong, and with popular support for its eventual aims, i doubt that many iraqi's want saddam back in power.


I have a feeling that no one is volunteering for convoy duty in occupied Iraq these days

very true, or helicopter flights either from what i just heard :D


No it isn't. Most poor kids do not join the army, do not become cops or violent criminals, etc.

I never said that every poor kid joins the army but i bet that if we could get a hold of the income brackets of those joining the military we would see a large percentage from a poorer upbringing.


You seem to suggest that Iraqis should not violently resist the occupation "lest they be killed". You don't have to be part of the resistance to be killed by trigger-happy GIs...they kill unarmed Iraqi civilians on a daily basis.

I never said that they shouldnt resist through fear of dying, simply that they should cultivate their resistance into a force which will kick imperialist butt from Iraq. If Iraqis die non-violently resisting then these deaths will be worth 100 times more than the same death in some ambush.

:ph34r:

[redstar2000]

If Iraqis die non-violently resisting then these deaths will be worth 100 times more than the same death in some ambush.

I'm afraid I don't follow your mathematics at all here.

In the U.S. media, Iraqi deaths are little reported...regardless of the circumstances. It is American deaths that hit the front pages on a daily basis (and, I presume, all the dummyvision news shows except Fox).

The more Americans (and mercenaries from other western countries, quislings, etc.) that the Iraqis kill, the worse it makes the occupation look here...and the larger the movement against it will grow.

One dead GI is worth a thousand Iraqi dead...in the eyes of Americans.


I doubt that the current resistance will ever reach this capacity, as it is limited to the Sunni triangle, a hotbed for Saddam support.

True, although there have been resistance attacks in Mosul and Basra as well. But, it's "early days" yet...the French resistance didn't do much in its first couple of years.

Neither of us has any way of predicting these things...but I am optimistic on this issue. I think the resistance will get stronger, the American occupation troops more brutal and arrogant, the conflict hotter.

I appreciate your personal commitment to non-violence as a strategy...but I think you have to realistically see that the Iraqis have a different perspective. They were "conquered" by violent aggressors...how could they not see that the best way to expel the conquerors is by violence?

And by the way, I don't really see Saddam Hussein riding on top of a tank in a victorious parade into Baghdad (like Fidel into Havana). But I think we might as well get used to him as a "folk hero" in Iraq...nothing flattered his image while he was in power like what is happening now.

As I said once before, that famous statue will almost certainly be re-erected...as a symbol of the refusal to accept conquest.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Pro-MyIdeals+Nov 2 2003, 01:28 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pro-MyIdeals @ Nov 2 2003, 01:28 AM)
Ian [email protected] 1 2003, 07:50 PM
Well really there is no centrally controlled resistance so we cannot say the actions of a few terrorists are the actions of a single body, I support the Iraqis when they shoot Americans and British, but when they shoot Iraqi Police or bomb Aid workers it isn&#39;t cool.
how can you say you are glad when american and british soldiers are killed? did they have a choice whether they wanted to go there or not? i agree we shouldn&#39;t be in iraq, but why be happy when soldiers are killed? i have many friends over there now who don&#39;t want to be there...do you want them to die? that is a very disgusting statement [/b]
They signed up, got their part of the looting of the US imperialists and now they&#39;re under going the consequences.

[RevolucioN NoW]

I&#39;m afraid I don&#39;t follow your mathematics at all here.

It is the creation of a mass media which can spread news around the world in a matter of minutes that has made non-violent resistance the most effective for the Iraqi People.

If Americans kill Iraqi civilians while they are non-vioently resisting, preferably with the presense of several TV cameras and reporters, the condemnation will come in a matter of minutes, in this aspect a non violent death is worth more than a combat one.


They were "conquered" by violent aggressors...how could they not see that the best way to expel the conquerors is by violence?

I hope that after a while struggling the majority of the iraqi people will realise that a violent resistance is getting them nowhere.

Palestinians have been violently resisting the Israeli occupation for over nearly 40 years, and it has gotten their cause nowhere, there is no independent palestinian state, the terrorist attacks simply provide added provocation to the israeli government to continue the occupation.

[Pro-MyIdeals]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard&#33;+Nov 2 2003, 03:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Non-Sectarian Bastard&#33; @ Nov 2 2003, 03:12 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 01:28 AM

Ian [email protected] 1 2003, 07:50 PM
Well really there is no centrally controlled resistance so we cannot say the actions of a few terrorists are the actions of a single body, I support the Iraqis when they shoot Americans and British, but when they shoot Iraqi Police or bomb Aid workers it isn&#39;t cool.
how can you say you are glad when american and british soldiers are killed? did they have a choice whether they wanted to go there or not? i agree we shouldn&#39;t be in iraq, but why be happy when soldiers are killed? i have many friends over there now who don&#39;t want to be there...do you want them to die? that is a very disgusting statement
They signed up, got their part of the looting of the US imperialists and now they&#39;re under going the consequences. [/b]
there was no such looting by the troops...any men who got caught looting were sent to prison

[Intifada]

there was looting by the troops. a group of us soldiers stole a golden gun from one of saddam&#39;s palaces. you are right about one thing, they were caught and sent back home, where they should be.

plus they are helping in the looting of the iraqi oil.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by RevolucioN [email protected] 2 2003, 02:42 AM

Define the Iraq resistance, do you include, the "freedon fighters" who, are from other Islamic countries, and who feal that they are on a holy war to wipe out the Evil US. Do you also include the pro-Saddam thugs who fight to reinstate him. Or are you only in favour of supporting those genuine Iraqi freedom fighters, who&#39;s children have been killed, etc? From what I have read, the latter are in the minority. Or do you plan on supporting the lot?

Those legitmate freedom fighters, if they exist are indeed in a minority, will these people take up arms in a fit of rage and be killed, or will they help to build a movement to overthrow the corrupt governing council in a workign class revolution, that is the main question.

:ph34r:
The frredom fighter/terrorists (what ever you want to call them) are certainly not interested in socialism or a working class revolution, if they win they will probably set up their own right wing tin pot dictatorship, instead of an American supported tin pot dictatorship.

[Ian]

Not all people in the resistance movement are reactionaries or aspiring tinpot dictators, read below...




Interview with Ahmed Karim, leader of the Patriotic opposition of the Iraqi Communist Party

Anti-imperialist Camp: How do you evaluate the development of the resistance?
Ahmed Karim: Frankly speaking, I did not expect such a rapid expansion of the resistance movement. Many set all their hopes on the Iraqi army and then were frustrated by the betrayal of the high command. On the level of popular organisation almost nothing could be prepared before the attack, though we asked the regime of Saddam Hussein to grant us elementary liberties in exchange for our support against the US aggression. Beside the fact that Saddam reacted only reluctantly it was too late anyway. Considering these circumstances, the development is more than we could have expected. The military resistance is firmly rooted and backed by the broad masses of the poor classes and not only by them. And the resistance keeps growing – also thanks to the appalling atrocities perpetrated by the occupying army. And we should not forget that we have the strong support of the Arab masses and at least the sympathy of the majority of the world population. Even in Europe many people side with us without daring to express it openly. Indeed, now it is far too late for the US to take a soft stance and thus lulling the resistance into sleep, whatever step they make it leads to new escalation.

AIC: Do you think that the “Governing Council” will succeed in stabilising the situation to a point that the US can hand over power to a puppet regime?

AK: No, the council became a part of the problem, not its solution. The US army has to protect them, to feed them, to pay them and they start asking themselves about returning back home. The council has lost even the slightest trace of credibility within the popular masses if it ever might have had one. This is being reflected in the fact that some elements of the Iraqi forcess that supported the US and were organised by them in the London alliance now oppose the council. That does by no means indicate a change of their treacherous role but by that move they try to increase their weight in front of their masters.

AIC: How do you comment the participation of the Iraqi Communist Party in the US governing council?

AK: This is the worst thing I could ever imagine. Before this incredible treason the party leadership was already moribund with its implicit support for the genocidal embargo and the military aggression. But now they are completely burned, dead. Any communist worth this name must be in the first line of the resistance, with the masses. Anybody who serves the occupation is an enemy of the people who only deserves to be fought against.

AIC: But does this evoke opposition and splits within the Communist Party and the communist milieu?

AK: While the party leadership is opening offices all over the place under the protection of the US occupation forces, many of communists turn their backs towards the party and join the ranks of the resistance. The party which was once the strongest party of Iraq is like a dead corpse. But this mortal crisis, this agony of the party does produce opposition even within the central committee. Not all are supporting the suicidal line. Soon we will experience splits.

AIC: How will the anti-imperialist communists act in order to build a communist wing of the resistance?

AK: First we will participate by all means in the resistance and its attempts to build a common national liberation front. Only by fighting we will be able to rebuild the communist movement. Regarding the remnants of the CP we will organise a conference right in Baghdad. The leadership will try to sabotage our attempts but we will proceed with or without them. This will be combined with an open letter by the patriotic communists supported by nearly all the Arab communist parties. No single party supports the US occupation and its governing council. They support us.

AIC: How do you judge the possibilities of the construction of a national resistance front?

AK: This front is an urgent necessity and I am sure that it will see the light of day sooner or later. Eventually we will succeed to bridge the differences between the leaderships of the Nationalist, Islamic and Communist forces. On the popular level this co-operation is already evident as the resistance is no matter of religion or confession but of national and social self-determination. However, we cannot say how long it will take us to forge the front. You have to bear in mind that the occupation has been lasting for only have a year while we have been deprived of political life for decades. We need time, much more time to build the necessary central leadership and command.

AIC: Is it true that the relation with the Shiite leadership is the main political problem for the resistance?

AK: There is no common Shiite leadership. On one hand there are some clerics who only care to preserve their role. They oppose the occupation not as a principle but only insofar as their interests are endangered. The US have already understood that their governing council will not carry them far and that they need other pillars. Therefore they are wooing some clerical leaders. On the other hand you have to keep in mind that there are millions of very poor Shiites. They used to be communists and now they want to fight the occupation. They mainly defend their class interest which includes independence from imperialism. They will follow whatever leadership which provides for that. The process revolving around the definition of the political role of the clerics has not finished yet and will be object of further conflicts. Its outcome is decisive for the resistance – and that does indeed know also the US. They are powerful and will always find people ready to collaborate.

AIC: What you expect of the global anti-war movement?

AK: We absolutely need that movement on several levels. First of all in the US and Great Britain to set pressure an the warmongers to force them to eventually withdraw they troops. Secondly you need to exert pressure to the European governments not to retroactively justify the aggression and occupation by giving money or sending troops even if this happens under the guise of the UN. The US and its British watchdog must be progressively isolated. Thirdly the resistance needs direct political support as has been given by the Anti-imperialist Camp. The resolution adopted in Assisi and endorsed by dozens of organisations around the world openly calling for the victory of the resistance has been spread in Iraq and has encouraged the resistance movement. We look forward to the international demonstration not only against the occupation but also in favour of the resistance scheduled for December 6 in Rome. If thousand and thousands will express their support for as it that will be a big political blow against our enemies and their European, Middle East and Iraqi collaborators.

Vienna, October 27, 2003

SOURCE (http://www.antiimperialista.com/en/view.shtml?category=9&id=1067381560&keyword=+)

[Kapitan Andrey]

Yes&#33;

Support resistance&#33; Kill yankee&#33; That&#39;s great&#33;&#33;&#33; :)

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Kapitan [email protected] 3 2003, 11:15 AM
Yes&#33;

Support resistance&#33; Kill yankee&#33; That&#39;s great&#33;&#33;&#33; :)
Yes&#33;

Support Chechen resistance&#33; Kill Ruski&#33; That&#39;s great&#33;&#33;&#33; :)

.................................................. ...........................


That is very true Ian. Some are genuine.

[RevolucioN NoW]

revolution now are you living in the US?

Im from Brisbane, Australia and most of my sources are from either:
1. Local TV (channel 9 or SBS/ABC)
2. BBC (most trusted cappie news site)


I ask because on BBC news and Euro news I very rearly see Iraqi freedom fighters killing non military personnel.

The resistance is killing many more civilians than military through suicide car bombs and the like, these attacks will only allientate the Iraqi people from the anti-imperialist struggle.


The frredom fighter/terrorists (what ever you want to call them) are certainly not interested in socialism or a working class revolution, if they win they will probably set up their own right wing tin pot dictatorship, instead of an American supported tin pot dictatorship.

This is very true, there is no large socialist element of the resistance as the Iraqi left was savaged by Saddam and his US overlords during the past 30 years, it will take a while for the "dead corpse" of iraqi communism to become revitalised.

:ph34r:

[Dhul Fiqar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 09:05 AM
However, there is a bright spot in all this. The more damage the Iraqis can inflict on the U.S. forces there, the more difficult it will be for American imperialists to muster a semblance of popular "support" for their next war of conquest. (And, believe me, they have a list.)

You see, we are not "obligated" to "apologize" for the political nature of the Iraqi resistance...or any other resistance to U.S. imperialism. The fact that they resist serves our purpose...undermining the "legitimacy" of "our own" imperialism.


Says it all&#33;

Long live the resistance&#33;&#33;&#33;

--- G.

p.s. of course I am horrified by bombings of places like the Red Cross - but I must admit I was delighted to see that chopper bite the dust with 15 "baby killers" going with it

[Pro-MyIdeals]

Originally posted by Dhul Fiqar+Nov 3 2003, 06:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dhul Fiqar @ Nov 3 2003, 06:25 PM)
[email protected] 2 2003, 09:05 AM
However, there is a bright spot in all this. The more damage the Iraqis can inflict on the U.S. forces there, the more difficult it will be for American imperialists to muster a semblance of popular "support" for their next war of conquest. (And, believe me, they have a list.)

You see, we are not "obligated" to "apologize" for the political nature of the Iraqi resistance...or any other resistance to U.S. imperialism. The fact that they resist serves our purpose...undermining the "legitimacy" of "our own" imperialism.


Says it all&#33;

Long live the resistance&#33;&#33;&#33;

--- G.

p.s. of course I am horrified by bombings of places like the Red Cross - but I must admit I was delighted to see that chopper bite the dust with 15 "baby killers" going with it [/b]
and if that "baby killer" was your loved one, would you be happy? that has to be one of the most foul things i have ever heard

[commieboy]

This is a hard subject....But do you know who i feel sorry for?

The American troops forced there, because in uncle sam&#39;s army you&#39;re either with them or a terrorist. So the men and women forced to fight are taking a big risk, and when they come home everyone against the war calls hem baby killers or some shit like that...

There are too many damn groups out there too, say you tell someone you&#39;re pro-iraq....someone will call you a traitor....and then you have to be like, "Oh no, i&#39;m not ba&#39;athist, i&#39;m pro Iraqi Communist" and there&#39;s too much confusion, and possiblity of getting the shit kicked out of you for not being patriotic.

[redstar2000]

and if that "baby killer" was your loved one, would you be happy? that has to be one of the most foul things i have ever heard

Oh? What kind of a pervert "loves" people who are professional killers for U.S. imperialism?

That has to be one of the sickest things I&#39;ve ever heard.


The American troops forced there, because in uncle sam&#39;s army you&#39;re either with them or a terrorist. So the men and women forced to fight are taking a big risk, and when they come home everyone against the war calls them baby killers or some shit like that...

No one "forced" them to do anything. Any one of them or all of them could put an end to this shit tomorrow morning, by act of mutiny.

They are there by "right" of (temporary) conquest...they sincerely believe that their superior strength has given them the "right" to be there and to kill whomever they wish. They believe in the American Empire...that it is America&#39;s "destiny" to rule the world.

Of course, they may be having some "second thoughts" now...having received a somewhat different kind of "welcome" than they were led to expect.

Tough shit&#33; I am getting weary of reading the nauseatingly saccharine banalities about the "poor occupation troops" who are just "carrying out their orders".

We&#39;ve heard that pathetic crap before...at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[RevolucioN NoW]

Oh? What kind of a pervert "loves" people who are professional killers for U.S. imperialism?

That has to be one of the sickest things I&#39;ve ever heard.

was this a joke?


No one "forced" them to do anything. Any one of them or all of them could put an end to this shit tomorrow morning, by act of mutiny.

A mutiny would be good, but is this very likely? It took the soldiers in vietnam many years to realise that to simply disobey orders was better than putting your ass on the line for your boss.

And nowdays, any rebelious soldier would be jailed for a long, long time. I dont know much about the US military court system, but could organisers of such a mutiny be executed?


Tough shit&#33; I am getting weary of reading the nauseatingly saccharine banalities about the "poor occupation troops" who are just "carrying out their orders".

Not to be a party pooper, but arent we supposed to be standing up for the working man and women, trying to get some sort of class solidarity from within the military?

i dont think that celebrating their friends deaths will get us very far in the way of revolution.

:ph34r:

[Urban Rubble]

and if that "baby killer" was your loved one, would you be happy? that has to be one of the most foul things i have ever heard

So let me get this straight: Say I have a brother that was sent by the U.S to kill a few Iraqis and he died in that crash, now, of course I would be sad that I lost a brother, but I would also be sad that my brother was a murderer for hire.

By saying that it&#39;s not O.K to want U.S soldiers to die instead of (innocent) Iraqis you are saying that an American life is worth more than an Iraqi life. Is that what you believe ? Is an American soldier&#39;s life more valuable than an Iraqi civilian ?

[redstar2000]

was this a joke?

No.


A mutiny would be good, but is this very likely?

What does that have to do with anything?


Not to be a party pooper, but aren&#39;t we supposed to be standing up for the working man and women, trying to get some sort of class solidarity from within the military?

No. There is no such thing as "class solidarity" with those who sign up to militarily defend imperialism. It does not matter what they "used to be"...being determines consciousness.

When you join a "professional" army (police, private security force, etc.), you identify with your employer, not your old class.

You are what you do&#33;

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[SonofRage]

I feel bad for the poor fools who are there thinking they are actually fighting for freedom. I don&#39;t wish death on them, I wish they could come home.

[Pro-MyIdeals]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 08:53 PM

They are there by "right" of (temporary) conquest...they sincerely believe that their superior strength has given them the "right" to be there and to kill whomever they wish. They believe in the American Empire...that it is America&#39;s "destiny" to rule the world.


have you spoken to these soldiers? do you really know that is what they think? from what i gather, from talking to many soldiers, is that they do not enjoy this war, they do not want the killing, they just want to come home to their families...you have no respect for human life...you need to stop being so cold and stop letting your political beliefs cloud your mind from common sense...any loss of life is a shame

[Urban Rubble]

you need to stop being so cold and stop letting your political beliefs cloud your mind from common sense...any loss of life is a shame

Of course a loss of life is a shame. It&#39;s also a shame when that helicopter with those soldiers in it reaches it&#39;s destination an takes more human lives.

Perhaps you shouldn&#39;t let you patriotic beliefs cloud you common sense. These Imperialists need to be stopped at any cost or far more life will be lost.

[Pro-MyIdeals]

i agree we should not be in iraq..it wasn&#39;t the time or place at the moment...however, rejoicing at the loss of life is terrible

[(*]

Any loss of life is terrible. I agree.

What gets me though is how some people consider another life to be worth more. For example, they&#39;d rather have 10 Iraqis die than one American. As if the Iraqis are expendable. Or as the military puts it, collateral damage.

[Kapitan Andrey]

Enigma, moron&#33; Stop this idiotism&#33; We are talking about yankee&#33;

[Dhul Fiqar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 07:41 AM
and if that "baby killer" was your loved one, would you be happy? that has to be one of the most foul things i have ever heard
I love no babykillers - no one is conscripted - they all chose to go there and take part in genocide. That is more choice than the Nazi soldiers had.

--- G.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Oh, and btw - http://www.mykeru.com/bodycount.html

These are the people who did this - and still are continuing to do it. To wish them dead is to wish for Iraqi children to live and/or be avenged.

--- G.

[kylie]

As the physical implementors of US imperialism, i would much rather see US soldiers come home in bodybags. They are the enemies of the working class, sure they might be human, but them dying will save many more Iraqi lives. And unlike the Iraqis, they are not innocent here. No ones forcing them to be there.
Look at what happened in vietnam. 50000 die, this causing increasing feelings of mutiny within the military, enough so that eventually the US was forced to withdraw from there. The demonstrations in the US played only a small role if any in affecting what the government did, in fact they were a bad thing, channeling anger into the controllable, safe route of bourgeios politics.


The struggle against war and its social source, capitalism, presupposes direct, active, unequivocal support to the oppressed colonial peoples in their struggles and wars against imperialism. A ‘neutral’ position is tantamount to support of imperialism."

[redstar2000]

have you spoken to these soldiers? do you really know that is what they think? from what i gather, from talking to many soldiers, is that they do not enjoy this war, they do not want the killing, they just want to come home to their families...you have no respect for human life...you need to stop being so cold and stop letting your political beliefs cloud your mind from common sense...any loss of life is a shame

Why are you telling me this crap? I&#39;ve never taken a single human life.

Deliver your message to the imperial shiteaters in the White House and their lackeys&#33;

Have you forgotten? It&#39;s your fucking war&#33; Iraq didn&#39;t land troops on Long Island, dammit&#33;

And that part about your mercenaries "don&#39;t enjoy the killing"...that&#39;s rich&#33; I don&#39;t suppose the guys pushing Jews into the gas chambers were having a fun time either, do you? No, they were just "professionals" "doing their job".

How dare you defend the American imperial murderers in Iraq and then speak to me of "respect for human life"???

You disgusting hypocrite&#33;

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Soviet power supreme]

Were there any drafted people in U.S army?

[redstar2000]

The military draft in the United States was abolished in approximately 1974...although males are still required by law to register for the draft at age 18...and if you neglect to do so, you can be declared ineligible for a (rip-off) student loan.

Otherwise, it makes sense not to register.

--------------------------------------

On the attitude of U.S. mercenaries in Iraq, there&#39;s this...

Sergeant Littlefield said: "We&#39;re going to be in Iraq for a long time. I&#39;m proud to do it."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/3244865.stm

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Soviet power supreme]

Aha so let the bastards suffer then.They are not forced to be in there.
They knew that they could die in war.

[Urban Rubble]

Aha so let the bastards suffer then.They are not forced to be in there.
They knew that they could die in war.

First off, let me say I am not defending those that joined the army of this country for any reason. They chose to join this army, and no matter why they did it, they did it.

Just keep in mind, for alot of young people in this country, joining the army sometimes the last resort. Alot of these people have been forced into this situation because of the economic situation of this country. Alot of people that get out of high school and can&#39;t afford college don&#39;t have many options. There are a million different reasons they are tricked into it, but sometimes the army seems like a sweet deal.

Let me tell you about two guys I met a few weeks ago: We were sitting in a bar waiting for a band to come on stage that we came to see. At the next table there were a couple regular looking punker kids, one of them was wearing a shirt of a band I like, so we started talking. After talking to them for about an hour, I got their story. They both came from shitty parts of Chicago. After they graduated high school, they didn&#39;t really have a chance to go to college. They didn&#39;t have any skills, any family, no hope, no future. After not even being able to find a job in construction, they met an army recruter, I think it was he was just out on the street. He started to tell them all these things that the army would give them, steady money, good money, insurance, college if they wanted it. All they had to do was go to basic, serve 2 years, after that it was like 1 weekend a month, and they would be set, even retirement. This was 6 months before the war broke out. They were sent to Washington, specifically this hellhole called Fort Lewis. At the time we talked they had 2 weeks till they were being sent to Iraq. By the way they talked, both of them were against the war, but they wouldn&#39;t admit it. When I asked them point blank they told me that they can&#39;t think about, they can&#39;t have an opinion. If they do they would go insane.

These are just good, normal kids who made a mistake. Now they are being sent to a foreign country to fight a war they have no part of. They were tricked, they made a mistake, but they aren&#39;t bad people.

With that said, if these 2 new friends of mine have to die in order for U.S Imperialism to end, then I hope they are sacrificed.

[Soviet power supreme]

This was 6 months before the war broke out.

Iraq war?So America&#39;s imperialism started from Iraq?
They didn&#39;t know about the Afghanistan, Vietnam , etc,etc?


After they graduated high school

History education can&#39;t be this bad in America.

[Urban Rubble]

Iraq war?So America&#39;s imperialism started from Iraq?
They didn&#39;t know about the Afghanistan, Vietnam , etc,etc?

Alright you fucking smartass. I didn&#39;t say that they weren&#39;t at fault for joining. All I said was that they didn&#39;t join with the intent of defending our Imperialist actions. They joined because they were confused kids with no prospects for a good life, partly thanks to Capitalism. I would think you&#39;d have a little sympathy for kids like this.


History education can&#39;t be this bad in America.

What the fuck does that even mean ? You make it sound like I was trying to claim Iraq as the first U.S war.

[Soviet power supreme]

All I said was that they didn&#39;t join with the intent of defending our Imperialist actions.

Should I be sorry that these kids die?
You think that economic situation justifies that they kill Iraqis?Fuck&#33;I would rather live in sewers and eat shit than join imperialistic army.


What the fuck does that even mean ? You make it sound like I was trying to claim Iraq as the first U.S war.

well aren&#39;t you?

[Saint-Just]

This evil will become greater and have a greater insatiability the less resistance it encounters, the more territory it conquers and influence it gains. We should support the Iraqi resistance in that they are fighting the most evil menace to face mankind in our age. It is a menace of ideas, of violence, of exploitation and of oppression.

It is unfortunate that people will die, but life is one of the costs we must pay to end U.S. imperialism. The lives we waste ourselves will never equal the pain and death caused by U.S. Imperialism. The Iraqi resistors may have political motives we do not agree with, but as such evil faces the whole world we cannot afford to do anything but support their struggle and hail every death as victory in the most significant struggle in the modern world.

It may not seem that defeating imperialism is a struggle towards socialism, but as the imperialist beast is combatted its very basis, capitalism and monopoly capitalism, will be defeated and with that oppression lifted and socialism will be at liberty.

The struggle against imperialism will intensify as its influence and power grows, perhaps at the moment the struggle is not at its peak, but we must fight it until we destroy it. Preserving life at the expense of the struggle against imperialism is nothing but an illusion, there exists a real fight against imperialism, one that it is imperative for us to win.

[redstar2000]

Let me tell you about two guys I met a few weeks ago: We were sitting in a bar waiting for a band to come on stage that we came to see. At the next table there were a couple regular looking punker kids, one of them was wearing a shirt of a band I like, so we started talking. After talking to them for about an hour, I got their story. They both came from shitty parts of Chicago. After they graduated high school, they didn&#39;t really have a chance to go to college. They didn&#39;t have any skills, any family, no hope, no future. After not even being able to find a job in construction, they met an army recruiter, I think it was he was just out on the street. He started to tell them all these things that the army would give them, steady money, good money, insurance, college if they wanted it. All they had to do was go to basic, serve 2 years, after that it was like 1 weekend a month, and they would be set, even retirement. This was 6 months before the war broke out. They were sent to Washington, specifically this hellhole called Fort Lewis. At the time we talked they had 2 weeks till they were being sent to Iraq. By the way they talked, both of them were against the war, but they wouldn&#39;t admit it. When I asked them point blank they told me that they can&#39;t think about, they can&#39;t have an opinion. If they do they would go insane.

These are just good, normal kids who made a mistake. Now they are being sent to a foreign country to fight a war they have no part of. They were tricked, they made a mistake, but they aren&#39;t bad people.

The French have this saying: to know all is to forgive all.

But it&#39;s not true.

At least not for me. By all accounts, Hitler had a miserable childhood and, as a young guy, nearly starved in Vienna...and even dodged the draft in Austro-Hungary.

That may serve as a partial explanation of why he did what he did, but it doesn&#39;t excuse it.

These two guys undoubtedly have had shitty lives...so have millions of others. But most kids, no matter how bad their lives may be, don&#39;t join the military, don&#39;t become cops, and do not become violent criminals.

They find some other way to survive.

What is the "special characteristic"(s) that distinguishes people who are willing to become professional killers for the ruling class and those who are not?

Is it gross stupidity? Is it greed? Is it a kind of sociopathic attitude that says I will "do anything" to get "ahead"?

Even at that last moment, they still had a choice. The Canadian and Mexican borders are no more than 12 hours away from anywhere in the U.S. If you realize that you&#39;ve been tricked, you can always back out, escape, get away. In fact, you can still just disappear even now...no phone, no credit cards, no driver&#39;s license, work for cash in the gray market, drop out of the existing order of things. It&#39;s a really tough life...but you don&#39;t have to kill anyone simply because you&#39;re ordered to do it.

I don&#39;t think they were "good" kids.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[commieboy]

okay, i havent had a chance to reply yet..so RedStar when i said Forced to war i meant, The people who join the US military to Protect the United states...isn&#39;t that the purpose of the armed serivices? So when they are just being red blooded americans trying to defend their homes and families, and becase of their job are FORCED to go to Iraq...and you cannot have a mutiny in the UNITED STATES ARMY&#33; think of the mindless rednecks who will call you a commie bastard and blow your head off. And i dont think the Iraqis will know who and who not to shoot....Think of the situation.....what if this was you?

You&#39;re in a foreign country...you dont speak the languange...there are bullets flying at your head from a scared man defendng his home...just like you enlisted in the US army for...what are you going to do? Stand up and try and sign to him that you&#39;re a good guy? NO&#33; you&#39;re going to fucking shoot back&#33; and i dont care how Noble you try and sound i know everyone here would fucking shoot back if it was your life on the LINE&#33;

So dont be pissed at the soldiers....be pissed at the politics who sit in Washington in a nice cozy room, and play chess with peoples&#39; lives&#33;

[redstar2000]

...So when they are just being red blooded Americans trying to defend their homes and families, and because of their job are FORCED to go to Iraq...

And were the Germans who murdered the Jews just being "red-blooded Germans trying to defend their homes and families"?

That strikes me as a really pathetic excuse. No American territory has been invaded since the War of 1812&#33; No American territory has even been attacked since 1941&#33; All modern American wars have been wars of conquest fought on the territories of other countries.

"Defending their homes and families" my ass&#33;


Think of the situation.....what if this was you?

It was me&#33; I was called up for induction in 1962. I told them flat out that if they drafted me, I would desert to the "Viet Cong" (National Liberation Front of South Vietnam) at the first opportunity.

Quite to my surprise, the reclassified me IV-F...meaning not to be drafted unless Russian/Chinese marines land on Long Island.

It was a "war of nerves" of course...I already had my bus ticket to Toronto; I had no intention of allowing myself to be drafted into the military at all. But they didn&#39;t know that and since I sounded as if I would be a royal pain-in-the-ass, they let me go.

Later on, groups I was in used this technique extensively: if the military sees that you&#39;re going to be a problem, it&#39;s easier for them to just write you off.

You always have a choice.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Iepilei]

To a lesser extent, I suppose we should rejoice the Iraqi opposition to the US occupation of their nation - but can we truly trust who is trying to re-establish "society" there? Fundamentalist groups seem nothing short of an enemy of the revolution - just as their capitalist oppressors.

I don&#39;t know, though, I can&#39;t speak for anyone. I&#39;ve always been against the notion of fundamentalism, however.

In essence, I can say I honestly don&#39;t know enough about the politics of resistance organisations in Iraq as of present to make a concrete decision regarding this. Geh. Such a bind.

[Severian]

Whether U.S. soldiers are drafted or not has little to do with anything. The Vietnamese NLF killed conscripted U.S. soldiers, not because they were bad people or because they deserved to die or anything like that. But because it was a necessary part of the struggle, and the body bags helped bring the day closer when the U.S. got out of Vietnam.

Same thing today.

At the same time, though, the NLF made radio propaganda broadcasts appealing to U.S. GIs, and collaborated in the field with those using "search and evade" tactics...avoiding U.S. soldiers who were seeking to avoid combat. Late in the war, this became widespread, with some units lighting fires when on patrol, suicidal though that might seem, so Vietnamese would see &#39;em and go through somewhere else.

I doubt we&#39;ll see that approach taken by Iraqi resistance groups....precisely because the leadership there is bourgeois. Nation vs nation, not class vs class. Unfortunate but not surprising to see some people in this thread, who call themselves communist, taking the same attitude.

It&#39;s pretty strange, also, to see communists saying that people have "free choice" as long as they are not physically forced by the law to do something. Sounds more libertarian, really.... Emphasizing individual factors and individual choices over the market forces that govern the fact that people join the military.

Probably most of these soldiers did support the war and many continue to support the occupation. For one thing, there&#39;s a powerful psychological mechanism at work here - nobody likes to believe they&#39;re dying for nothing. Then there&#39;s intimidation by the brass and the belief that they&#39;re obligated to be "patriotic" in order to be in the military.

But individual soldiers are not automatically "enemies of the working class" in the sense that cops are. Most remain part of the working class. Some are "lifers", sure, but most hope to get out of the military with a bit of cash and training, and will probably rejoin the civilian working class.

Historically, soldiers have sometimes been won to actively supporting the working-class movement, including in opposition to imperialist wars. During the Vietnam War, the "going home" mass soldiers&#39; movement after WWII, the Russian Revolution, etc.

For that matter, more and more U.S. soldiers in Iraq have been criticizing the occupation, questioning its propaganda justifications, and asking to be brought home now. More and more of their relatives have been doing the same.

This should be encouraged, not written off.

Just to avoid any misunderstandings, I fully support the right of Iraqis to defend their country and resist the occupation, by any means they consider necessary. It&#39;s some of the arguments given, that assume that U.S. soldiers are automatically and for all time supporters of U.S. imperialism, that I object to.

Heck, if that was true, revolution in the U.S. would be a wholly unrealistic prospect. And if there was no prospect at all for revolution in the U.S, revolutions in the rest of the world would ultimately be pretty pointless.

Edit: some posters have mentioned Wehrmacht soldiers. The Third Reich wasn&#39;t a classless society, or completely unanimous under the surface, either, y&#39;know. Some resistance groups in occupied Europe did make an attempt to direct propaganda at German soldiers, at times with some success. Despite the shameful anti-German chauvinism - racism, really - promoted by bourgeois and Stalinist forces.

[Mano Dayak]

I just can&#39;t imagine that the Americans could establish a "normal" state over there, but who can do it? Exiled Iraqis expelled by Saddam and non-fundamentalists?

[redstar2000]

Nation vs nation, not class vs class. Unfortunate but not surprising to see some people in this thread, who call themselves communist, taking the same attitude.

Well, isn&#39;t that the fundamental basis of a war of national liberation...nation vs. nation?

Doesn&#39;t the oppressed nation seek to unite all classes--except the colonial bourgeoisie (quislings)--to expel the invader?

As I noted earlier, things would undoubtedly be different if the Iraqis had asked for our advice...but they somehow overlooked that option and decided on their own priorities.

Until such time as there is a genuine and significant communist presence in Iraq, I would imagine the place will be a slightly more civilized version of Afghanistan...run by warlords/crony capitalists/fundamentalist reactionaries, etc. It will be, in other words, a hellhole. (Like most places, when you stop and think about it.)

Even a modern bourgeois state is far away on the horizon of Iraq...2050? 2075?

But if you want to see what Iraq will look like if U.S. imperialism is victorious, look at central America...or, at best, the Philippines. The "client states" of U.S. imperialism contain tiny islands of prosperity amidst an ocean of uttermost degradation.

No matter what happens, the Iraqis will do better on their own.


It&#39;s pretty strange, also, to see communists saying that people have "free choice" as long as they are not physically forced by the law to do something. Sounds more libertarian, really.... Emphasizing individual factors and individual choices over the market forces that govern the fact that people join the military.

No one denies that "market forces" form the background of "choice" under capitalism; all "choices" are made under constraint. There&#39;s no such thing as "free choice" as an abstraction.

Nevertheless, people choose. To scab or not to scab; to be a cop or to hate cops; to be a soldier or to refuse; to prey on the helpless through violent crime or not to do that; etc.

And most people make the right choice. They don&#39;t scab. They don&#39;t join the police or the army. They don&#39;t become violent criminals. They make the right choice regardless of "market forces".

Why is that? Why do most people do the right thing and some do the wrong thing?


Probably most of these soldiers did support the war and many continue to support the occupation. For one thing, there&#39;s a powerful psychological mechanism at work here - nobody likes to believe they&#39;re dying for nothing. Then there&#39;s intimidation by the brass and the belief that they&#39;re obligated to be "patriotic" in order to be in the military.

Yes, those factors probably explain a good deal about their current attitudes. But it doesn&#39;t explain why they joined in the first place.


But individual soldiers are not automatically "enemies of the working class" in the sense that cops are. Most remain part of the working class. Some are "lifers", sure, but most hope to get out of the military with a bit of cash and training, and will probably rejoin the civilian working class.

In what capacity? I have this impression that an enormous proportion of cops, prison guards, and private security forces come from a military background. They get out of the military and find that their training has "molded" their mind-sets in such a way as to only be "comfortable" in a quasi-military setup.

Hard information would be welcome here...what percentage of military volunteers go into "law enforcement" and "security" after they leave the military? My guess is that it&#39;s more than 50 percent and maybe a lot more...but it would be useful to actually know. (Of course, "market forces" play a role here as well...repression is one of the fastest growing "industries" in America.)


Historically, soldiers have sometimes been won to actively supporting the working-class movement, including in opposition to imperialist wars.

This was true in the conscripted armies of the last century; I know of no instance where a "professional" (mercenary) army has mutined...and I&#39;m pretty skeptical of the possibility. When a new era of proletarian revolution begins, I expect the professional armies to possibly commit a few atrocities, realize their position is essentially hopeless, and quietly melt away into the civilian population...hoping to remain unnoticed and unprosecuted. What else could they do?


It&#39;s some of the arguments given, that assume that U.S. soldiers are automatically and for all time supporters of U.S. imperialism, that I object to.

I think that&#39;s the reasonable working assumption until there is clear evidence to the contrary. To my knowledge, there is exactly one U.S. marine serving a six-month sentence in North Carolina for refusing occupation duty in Iraq. There may be some others, of course...I would expect the military to suppress any publicity about unrest in its own ranks.

I would be delighted to see serious and wide-spread acts of mutiny among American occupation troops...but, at this point, I regard that as wishful thinking.


Heck, if that was true, revolution in the U.S. would be a wholly unrealistic prospect. And if there was no prospect at all for revolution in the U.S, revolutions in the rest of the world would ultimately be pretty pointless.

A dubious thesis on several grounds. A massive proletarian revolution in the U.S. or western Europe would easily overwhelm the professional militaries of those areas...you have to remember that mercenaries fight for pay--if the governments that pay them totter and fall, what&#39;s the point of defending them?

Back pay?

I also think that communism in western Europe would probably be a fatal blow to capitalism in the U.S....plunging it into a massive depression and economic collapse within a couple of years. I&#39;m speculating, of course, but I&#39;m basing it on the fact that the vast bulk of capital flow over the last half century has been between the U.S. and Europe.

Were that to suddenly cease, the repercussions would be major.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 09:58 AM
This was true in the conscripted armies of the last century; I know of no instance where a "professional" (mercenary) army has mutined...and I&#39;m pretty skeptical of the possibility. When a new era of proletarian revolution begins, I expect the professional armies to possibly commit a few atrocities, realize their position is essentially hopeless, and quietly melt away into the civilian population...hoping to remain unnoticed and unprosecuted. What else could they do?
"Mutiny"? What is this ultraleft crap? Leave it to the brass to pretend all dissent in the military must be "mutiny."

People who have successfully done political work with soldiers, and in the army, don&#39;t start by encouraging them to "mutiny". Armed insurrection is not a game.

And then you start asking when "mercenaries" have "mutinied" - they did it all the time, notorious for indiscipline. "Mutiny" is not the issue here. Christ, Franco led a "mutiny" in Spain.

And communists, unlike pacifists, are not in the business of moral witness by means of individual refusal to serve, which accomplishes nothing.

The starting point is that soldiers remain citizens, with the rights of citizens. That they should excercise their constitutional rights, to read, discuss, inform themselves, and publicly express their opinions. Organize. Write home. Demonstrate.

Which can potentially grow into all kinds of things. As in the examples I gave earlier.

You know of only one soldier who has refused duty? Fine, whatever. Plenty more have spoken against the occupation, and said they should be brought home now.

I know - have worked with - plenty of former soldiers, including from the post-draft period. So clearly they don&#39;t all become prison guards. How many cops do you think there are in this country, anyway? Not nearly enough for all ex-soldiers to go into that line of work....

When has a "mercenary", i.e. not drafted army gone over to the revolution, you ask? French Revolution comes to mind. A decisive moment in the &#39;79 Iranian revolution was when the "homafars", Air Force ground personnel, went over, really that&#39;s when the armed insurrection began. I&#39;d guess they weren&#39;t conscripts, though Army soldiers often were, &#39;cause they were technicians and so forth. Most Air Forces, incl the U.S.&#39;s, didn&#39;t draft personnel even when the army did. Iran is one of the best examples of a classic-style proletarian insurrection in recent decades.

In all revolutions, some volunteers, including NCOs and so forth, have come over along with the draftees.

The post-Vietnam abolition of the draft in the U.S. is recent enough that we don&#39;t know from experience how the current army - a new type to some extent - will react to a revolutionary crisis. There simply hasn&#39;t been one since then.

But from a class viewpoint, the main change is that the military is now even more proletarian, and even includes even more people from the oppressed nationalities.


A dubious thesis on several grounds. A massive proletarian revolution in the U.S. or western Europe would easily overwhelm the professional militaries of those areas...you have to remember that mercenaries fight for pay--if the governments that pay them totter and fall, what&#39;s the point of defending them?


Believe they&#39;re paid by the month, bubba. The issue would be decided one way or the other before payday, most likely. ;)

But you didn&#39;t mean that as a serious point, did you? Surely you don&#39;t expect a government to "totter and fall" without first defeating or winning over its armed forces. Since you&#39;ve written off winning them over, that leaves defeating them. Can you give one historical example to support your belief that this is possible? Keeping in mind this ain&#39;t some half-assed neocolonial puppet army here, but the most powerful military force the world has ever seen.

In the Russian Revolution, cops were killed, but the soldiers were won over. In order to do this, of course, a willingness to fight was required, so that soldiers knew that the revolutionaries meant business, that things would not stop halfway and leave soldiers open to punishment.

Refusing military orders is not a game, after all.


I also think that communism in western Europe would probably be a fatal blow to capitalism in the U.S....plunging it into a massive depression and economic collapse within a couple of years. I&#39;m speculating, of course, but I&#39;m basing it on the fact that the vast bulk of capital flow over the last half century has been between the U.S. and Europe.

Ah. And what is the U.S. government - free from any fears about the poltical reliability of its troops, according to you - doing while the revolution sweeps across western Europe? Playing tiddlywinks?

This is fantasy-land stuff, Redstar, leading me to think that you are not remotely serious about revolution. That your ultraleft rhetoric is just lip-service.

[RevolucioN NoW]

To a lesser extent, I suppose we should rejoice the Iraqi opposition to the US occupation of their nation - but can we truly trust who is trying to re-establish "society" there? Fundamentalist groups seem nothing short of an enemy of the revolution - just as their capitalist oppressors.

This is the exact point that i was making when starting this thread, and it seems to have degenerated into a debate over military issues. basically, we can, as RS2000 argues, support any anti-imperialist actions anywhere as a means of destabalising the west, while igonoring the aims of these groups.

Which is all well and good for the short term, but i dont think the Iraqis want another saddam, or an Ayattolah for that matter, and as such we should choose very carefully who we support


What does that have to do with anything?

you brought up the mutiny issue, you tell me

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Originally posted by Dhul [email protected] 4 2003, 12:43 PM
Oh, and btw - http://www.mykeru.com/bodycount.html

These are the people who did this - and still are continuing to do it. To wish them dead is to wish for Iraqi children to live and/or be avenged.

--- G.
I agree strongly

[Soviet power supreme]

Should we support the Iraqi Resistance?, well?

Well if we should then comes question HOW?

Would many of you join their guerilla armies or would you sell guns to them?

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 9 2003, 01:29 PM

Should we support the Iraqi Resistance?, well?

Well if we should then comes question HOW?

Would many of you join their guerilla armies or would you sell guns to them?
Donate guns would be better, since I doubt they have the cash to afford decent guns. But they are already supplied by Saudi-Arabia and other countries. The best way you could help them in their struggle is to make their actions public and shown to the people in your country and than maybe they will see them as heroes ...

[Invader Zim]

[b]and if that "baby killer" was your loved one, would you be happy? that has to be one of the most foul things i have ever heard [/B


Oh? What kind of a pervert "loves" people who are professional killers for U.S. imperialism?

That has to be one of the sickest things I&#39;ve ever heard.

Oh? What kind of a pervert "loves" people who are professional killers for U.S. imperialism?


Their parants,
brothers,
sisters,
wives,
children,
cousins,
friends,
etc.

That has to be one of the sickest things I&#39;ve ever heard.

Yes the idea that a persons family may love them would seam sickening to a person like you.

[redstar2000]

The starting point is that soldiers remain citizens, with the rights of citizens. That they should exercise their constitutional rights, to read, discuss, inform themselves, and publicly express their opinions. Organize. Write home. Demonstrate.


You left out "vote".

You consider my views "fantasy" and offer in contrast a litany of bourgeois legalisms that have no bearing on military life at all.


I know - have worked with - plenty of former soldiers, including from the post-draft period. So clearly they don&#39;t all become prison guards. How many cops do you think there are in this country, anyway? Not nearly enough for all ex-soldiers to go into that line of work....

Well, I admitted that hard information would be welcome. Do you have any or are you just guessing...like me?


In all revolutions, some volunteers, including NCOs and so forth, have come over along with the draftees.

No argument; there are individual exceptions in every historical phenomenon.


The post-Vietnam abolition of the draft in the U.S. is recent enough that we don&#39;t know from experience how the current army - a new type to some extent - will react to a revolutionary crisis. There simply hasn&#39;t been one since then.

Well, perhaps we will soon find out. I would be quite happy about it if you turned out to be right and I turned out to be wrong.

If there is a major upsurge of rebellion (of one sort or another) among American mercenaries in Iraq or elsewhere, that would prove me wrong.


But from a class viewpoint, the main change is that the military is now even more proletarian, and even includes even more people from the oppressed nationalities.

I disagree with this analysis; I think mercenaries identify with their employers.

But we shall see.


Believe they&#39;re paid by the month, bubba. The issue would be decided one way or the other before payday, most likely.

And they do have a very short attention-span, right?


Surely you don&#39;t expect a government to "totter and fall" without first defeating or winning over its armed forces.

Yes, actually I rather expect that to be the case...and, of course, I could also be wrong about that as well.

I do expect some armed conflict with police forces and possibly a few units of the military...but the bulk of the armed forces I expect to remain cautiously neutral. Why? Because there&#39;s no practical way for them to successfully suppress the vast majority of the civilian population.


And what is the U.S. government - free from any fears about the political reliability of its troops, according to you - doing while the revolution sweeps across western Europe?

Probably trying rather desperately to hold on to its Middle Eastern possessions, oops, I mean "democracies". That is what our president has promised us, anyway...a decades-long "involvement" in the Middle East.

Unless the U.S. wants to "nuke" Paris or Berlin, what can they possibly hope to do?

And would it make sense for them to do that and risk losing the east coast of the U.S. to a retaliatory strike?


This is fantasy-land stuff, Redstar, leading me to think that you are not remotely serious about revolution. That your ultraleft rhetoric is just lip-service.

Yeah, I&#39;m just making it all up as I go along. :P


but I don&#39;t think the Iraqis want another Saddam, or an Ayatollah for that matter, and as such we should choose very carefully who we support.

Why not "choose carefully" who we oppose and let the Iraqis decide on their own what they want.


The best way you could help them in their struggle is to make their actions public and shown to the people in your country and than maybe they will see them as heroes...

No, that&#39;s the wrong approach and, if carried out consistently, paints you into the corner of endorsing whatever nonsense the Iraqis may come up with.

The best approach is to attack the U.S. and British governments and their crony capitalists without limit. Pound away on their dishonesty, their greed, their vaulting ambitions, their incompetence and stupidity and arrogance.

What we really want is for working people in the U.S. and the U.K. to come to regard "their" governments as the enemy.

That is what really helps resistance movements in "third world" countries...not meaningless and empty pledges of "support" and "solidarity".

Let there be sufficient "chaos in the streets" and the soldiers will be brought home.


Yes, the idea that a person&#39;s family may love them would seem sickening to a person like you.

No matter what they do, right? As always, Enema, you show your priorities. What&#39;s a few war crimes here or there...when it comes to family?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Soviet power supreme]

What we really want is for working people in the U.S. and the U.K. to come to regard "their" governments as the enemy.

That is what really helps resistance movements in "third world" countries...not meaningless and empty pledges of "support" and "solidarity".

Let there be sufficient "chaos in the streets" and the soldiers will be brought home.

This will take too long.The casualties must be higher before working class will make chaos in the streets.

[Desert Fox]

No, that&#39;s the wrong approach and, if carried out consistently, paints you into the corner of endorsing whatever nonsense the Iraqis may come up with.

The best approach is to attack the U.S. and British governments and their crony capitalists without limit. Pound away on their dishonesty, their greed, their vaulting ambitions, their incompetence and stupidity and arrogance.

What we really want is for working people in the U.S. and the U.K. to come to regard "their" governments as the enemy.

That is what really helps resistance movements in "third world" countries...not meaningless and empty pledges of "support" and "solidarity".

Let there be sufficient "chaos in the streets" and the soldiers will be brought home. Well how are you going to do that, most people have had enough misery and you will need years to get them in action. But you want wore than only help the Iraqis you want a world revolution and if that would happen, we would be put back in the dark ages. A revolution is in order but only when 95 % of the people crave for it ...

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 05:42 PM

Yes, the idea that a person&#39;s family may love them would seem sickening to a person like you.

No matter what they do, right? As always, Enema, you show your priorities. What&#39;s a few war crimes here or there...when it comes to family?
Your obsession with calling me "enema" is very childish, perhaps its because youve had a few... at your age, after all.

No matter what they do, right?

Most troops never fire a round in anger you fuckwit.

What&#39;s a few war crimes here or there...when it comes to family?

So all Amercan troops commit war crimes do they, your suchan ignorant steriotyping old fart, its unbelieveable. Go back and lecture your anarchistic sheep, because no-one else in their right mind would take you seriously judging that comment.

[redstar2000]

A couple of points I overlooked...


And communists, unlike pacifists, are not in the business of moral witness by means of individual refusal to serve, which accomplishes nothing.

The individual&#39;s subjective motive for refusing occupation duty in Iraq is of little interest to me--I do not care if they have suddenly become ardent pacifists or if they are simply scared shitless.

Objectively, the refusal to murder for U.S. imperialism is a clear act of international proletarian solidarity and should be encouraged under every conceivable circumstance.


Iran is one of the best examples of a classic-style proletarian insurrection in recent decades.

I&#39;m going to ask a favor of you, both for me and for the other members of this board. I want you to start a thread in the Theory forum and justify this statement in as much reasonable detail as you can.

I have never heard this asserted before...but I am willing to learn.


This will take too long.

and


...and you will need years to get them in action.

You are both right; a serious anti-war movement that has a major impact on events takes years. To my knowledge, the first substantial demonstration against the war in Vietnam took place in New York City on May 2, 1964...about 1,000 people took part.

Nine years later, the U.S. finally withdrew from South Vietnam.(&#33;)

Maybe, with the internet, it will take less time. We&#39;ll see.


Most troops never fire a round in anger you fuckwit.

Quite so, but you don&#39;t really know who does the actual killing, do you?

Consequently, I would say that willingness to participate in occupation duty is evidence of "presumptive intent" to commit war crimes if ordered to do so.


So all American troops commit war crimes do they; you&#39;re such an ignorant stereotyping old fart, it&#39;s unbelievable.

Believe it, Enema. :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas