Slobodan Milosevic [Archive]

Comrade Ceausescu

24th November 2003, 01:48

An astonishing statement.

Someone who actually wanted to "destroy" the "leftist movement" and "socialism in general" would clearly have little impact on a board like this one.

Would I be wrong to suspect that what really bothers you is that people question things on this board? That we don't just sit around and repeat ritual formulas from the last century?

If so, brace yourself.

It will get "worse"!

I disagree.My point is that people don't question the right things.They are all quick to believe what i interpert as western propaganda.I honestly beleive that to spread socialism/communism of any kind,you have to be radical in your beliefs.And you have to be steadfast.I do not mean inflexable or dogmatic,but you must stand your ground against the imperialists.And I am willing to look at all the great things socialism has done,and understand the mistakes,but I see no point on dwelling on the bad like many on this board do.Some are the opposite in the sense that they don't even attempt to understand history.We must understand our past to grasp and come to terms with our present.

redstar2000

24th November 2003, 02:14

They are all quick to believe what I interpret as western propaganda.

I'm not so sure of that; I've seen "newbies" start a lot of threads with titles like "I've Been Told XYZ, is that true?".

In other words, I think that people here are very open to new and hitherto unknown information.

When people post "alternative links", I think a lot of people here actually check them out.

Of course we are all vulnerable to "western propaganda"...it's in the air we breathe. But once skepticism has begun to be learned, it doesn't just stop with "western propaganda"...it gets applied to everything.

And it should. Central to a Marxist approach is a critical attitude towards everything...even Marxism itself.

Real "leftism" is, at least in my view, not a fan club, not a church, and, most of all, not a museum of failed revolutions.

And I am willing to look at all the great things socialism has done, and understand the mistakes, but I see no point on dwelling on the bad like many on this board do.

Well, it's learning from the "bad" that's crucial for the next uprisings, is it not?

Let's be honest here; the international capitalist class "ate our lunch" in the last century. That's cause for serious and painful reappraisal of our ideas...unless we want to be just another meaningless cult.

This board's main propagandists (RedStar, YKTMX, etc) have brainwashed everyone on the board into being anti-Stalin drones, yet be pro-Che.

Neat trick, eh? :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

Urban Rubble

24th November 2003, 02:54

I agree. All of these George W. Bush/ Clinton mouthpieces are full of anti- Milosevic and anti-Saddam propaganda.

I know, us anti-fascists are so fucking stupid. Because everyone knows Saddam was a great, peaceful man who never had communists murdered.

Bolshevika and CheGuevara717, instead of spouting bullshit baseless insults and praise for fascists, why not put forth some FACTS and actually say something ?

Kapitan Andrey

24th November 2003, 09:59

Fuck all of you!

I support Milishevich! He is (may be bloody, but) hero of all Serbs!
You forgot about many good things from his biography!

Bosnia and Hercegovina...don't you remember, that musulms and croats started big slaughter against Serbs!? :huh: :angry:
Miloshevich helped those poor Serbs on "BaH" territory! That's it! :)
Yes! As a revenge he started slaughter against musulms and croats! <_<

BUT!!! I can't see any musulm or croat general or ect., that was in charge of that anti-Serbian slaughter, in Gaague tribunal!!! :huh: :angry:
SO!!! Evereone - yankee, nato, musulms and croats are against Serbs as a SLAVS!!! :angry:

AND ALL OF YOU TOO!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? :o

BRIN

25th November 2003, 03:00

Why the hell don't you liberals see the good side of him?he has also done gone good thing you know.I seems that you liberals hate every socialist leader because they made a mistake or two,it's NOT black and white they're are grey areas.

I challange any willing liberal to name 5 GOOD regimes that are/were acceptable to your small bleak views (and name industrialised regimes,no tribal stuff)

Andrey,could you name some good Milosevic biographies because i don't want to end with a biography on the same mind set as these liberal pricks

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

25th November 2003, 08:21

While not as bad as the U$A, Milosevic is still a murdering little ****, like all aspiring Hitlers.

Kapitan Andrey

25th November 2003, 10:24

NoXion...don't be so silly! He hadn't such an imperialistic ambitions! - Only helping innocent Serbs in BaH!

BRIN...sorry, my english [email protected]#%^&...not good... :unsure: So I can't post it on english... :(

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

25th November 2003, 10:47

How does murdering croats and muslims help the serbs?

Kapitan Andrey

25th November 2003, 11:08

Man, don't be blind!

I've already told, that:

...(may be bloody,...
As a revenge he started slaughter against musulms and croats!
Understood? AS-A-REVENGE!!! And I support that! Yes-yes! I'm not afraid anything! :angry:

...and opposite question -> How does murdering Serbs help croats and musulms with their "liberation"?

commie kg

25th November 2003, 19:44

Andrey, he murdered Croats and Bosnians, who are also Slavs. You can't say that they were against Milosevic because he was a Slav. The Balkans have been an ethnic hot spot for centuries.

ComradeRobertRiley

25th November 2003, 22:16

I do not support him but there are bigger criminals than him, for example George W Bush, he should be charged with mass murder against the iraqis/afghans

ComradeRobertRiley

25th November 2003, 22:22

BRIN - No ragime that has existed has been aceptable. But there will be. The PRF will be.

YKTMX

26th November 2003, 00:09

I am thankful for these threads. It really shows the Stalinists in their proper light.

Bolshevika

26th November 2003, 00:14

I challange any willing liberal to name 5 GOOD regimes that are/were acceptable to your small bleak views (and name industrialised regimes,no tribal stuff)

I'd like to see this as well...

YKTMX

26th November 2003, 00:24

I challange any willing liberal to name 5 GOOD regimes that are/were acceptable to your small bleak views (and name industrialised regimes,no tribal stuff

Why is it that Stalinists think that a commitment to socialism (in whatever strange guise they see it) is judged by the amounts of awful regimes you're willing to support. Change is not made by leaders or "regimes" but by ordinary people emancipating and LEADING themselves. The idea that Slobodan Milosevic or any of his ilk represet ANYTHING at all progressive or attractive to people who claim to be socialist is bizaare to say the least.

Urban Rubble

26th November 2003, 00:24

Why the hell don't you liberals see the good side of him?he has also done gone good thing you know.I seems that you liberals hate every socialist leader because they made a mistake or two,it's NOT black and white they're are grey areas.

First off, I am no liberal. Fuck you. See, I can be a dickhead too. Second, I realize Milosevic had some good points, I won't write an essay on what. The thing is, genocide is not a fucking "mistake". Oh, before you can say it, even if it wasn't genocide we'll call it "attempted" genocide.

I can sympathize with things about almost anyone. I can see the good and bad, Milsoevic did things which I admire, but genocide is not forigveable.

Andrey,could you name some good Milosevic biographies because i don't want to end with a biography on the same mind set as these liberal pricks

What a little ****. Why don't you fuck off then ? If we're such a bunch of liberal pussies then fuck right off to a different corner of the internet. The fact that you are looking to Andrey (the guy who supports Putin and says Chechnya has no right to exist) for support shows how fucking pathetic you are.

redstar2000

26th November 2003, 02:16

I[t] seems that you liberals [sic] hate every socialist leader because they made a mistake or two; it's NOT black and white, they're are grey areas.

Just a "mistake" or two, eh?

And a "socialist leader" is anyone who calls himself one, right?

And anyone who disputes such a claim must be a "liberal", yes?

Not to mention those continent-sized "gray areas"...?

That's quite a lot of naive foolishness to pack into just a few lines. Did you use a data-compression software package?

I challenge any willing liberal [sic] to name 5 GOOD regimes that are/were acceptable to your small bleak views (and name industrialised regimes,no tribal stuff).

Small and bleak? Are we to be labeled the "gloom and doom" caucus at Che-Lives?

Just because we won't flop on our bellies before this or that self-proclaimed "socialist"?

Ok, my total is ZERO. I don't find any regime, past or present, "acceptable".

You see, I am a real communist and real communism is the only "regime" that is acceptable to me.

I "accept no substitutes".

So tell me again...who's the "liberal" here?

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

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

Bolshevika

26th November 2003, 02:28

It is ridiculous that none of you provide a working example of an alternative to capitalism. To think any form of government will be perfect is blatant idealism, unMarxist, and probably Trotskyist/Anarchist. I do not really support Milosevic for the most part, but he is a victim of imperialism and did much good for his people. Like Saddam, he has had the imperialist ruling class attack him, politically and militarily. Your lack of support for anti-imperialist struggle shows your true roots.

synthesis

26th November 2003, 02:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 03:28 AM
I do not really support Milosevic for the most part, but he is a victim of imperialism and did much good for his people. Like Saddam, he has had the imperialist ruling class attack him, politically and militarily. Your lack of support for anti-imperialist struggle shows your true roots.
Funny, redstar was just getting shouted down for making the exact same argument about Saddam not too long ago.

Urban Rubble

26th November 2003, 02:53

Ahhh, I was waiting for it. Waiting for one of the Stalinists to throw out the "Trot/Anarchist" word.

Once again Bolshevika shows his idiocy. Also, why do you feel the need to compare Milosevic and Saddam ? If Saddam is someone you admire I feel sorry for you. Just because the man was attacked by U.S Imperialism dos not make him a good leader. He was a fascist, no amount of pity for him can change that. I am just as outraged as anyone at the U.S's actions toward Iraq, but I cannot understand the way some leftists are attempting to paint Saddam as this friendly, revolutionary defender against U.S Imperialism. He is a fascist, a coward and a very shitty leader.

El Brujo

26th November 2003, 03:22

The problem here is, many people judge figures based on single-issues which western propaghanda exaggerates (hence, the many anti-"Stalinists" in this forum. The myths about him were started by people who were professional liars [and even history teachers tell you that]). I have a neutral-to-favourable opinion of Saddam but I clearly support him over western imperialism because, looking at the full picture, it is much more dangerous to the Iraqi people and to the world than him.

PS: Saddam Hussein is not, and never has been, a fascist. And Im willing to go into more detail about that if anybody is interested.

Bolshevika

26th November 2003, 03:31

Saddam and the Iraqi people were defenseless against the imperialists. So whose the real coward?

Anyway, Saddam is not a fascist, he is more of a populistic quasi-socialist (Ba'Athism). Ba'Athists hold a progressive view of government. I did not say I wholly support Saddam's ideas, but he is much better for Iraq than any puppet dictator you may support. The more territory the imperialist gain, the harder it will be for real socialists to revolt.

Also, I find it funny that a Trot site I was looking at today condemned Saddam and wants the imperialists to "pull out" of Iraq. They seem to favor Iraq becomming a theocracy.

Urban Rubble

26th November 2003, 05:00

Saddam and the Iraqi people were defenseless against the imperialists. So whose the real coward?

Why are you attempting to make it look as if I support the invasion of Iraq ? Just because I think Saddam Hussein is mudering nutjob does not mean I support taking it out on Iraq and it's people. Stop the ad hominem dickhead, it's not working. I did not support this invasion.

I did not say I wholly support Saddam's ideas, but he is much better for Iraq than any puppet dictator you may support.

Again dick, I don't support any puppet the U.S may install. Stop saying it.

The more territory the imperialist gain, the harder it will be for real socialists to revolt.

That's rich. Do you think that Saddam murdering communists made it easy for a Socialist revolt to take place ?

Also, I find it funny that a Trot site I was looking at today condemned Saddam and wants the imperialists to "pull out" of Iraq. They seem to favor Iraq becomming a theocracy.

What does that have to do with this topic ? Oh, I forgot, anyone who doesn't support genocidal maniacs and fascist dictators must be a Trot. Listen dick, I'm no Trot.

El Brujo

I agree that Western Imperialism is far more dangerous in the long term than Saddam, however, why does that mean you have to support him ? I don't wish him to be in power, but it's clear from my oppostion to the war that I favor him over a U.S puppet regime. So tell me, what is it that you like about him ? It's clear he was a fanatic anti-communist. He was a dictator who, if not a fascist, was definately as fascistic as Bush. You can choose to believe that his crimes were exaggertaed, but the fact is that he still committed many major attrocities. WHAT DO YOU LIKE ABOUT HIM OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT HE WAS DRIVEN OUT BY THE U.S. I hate this kind of thinking "Oh, he stood up to the U.S, he must be alright".

Saint-Just

26th November 2003, 10:05

I can criticise Saddam, we all can, but the prevalence of this view of him as the worst evil only aids the American justification for war. Saddam may be a brutal dictator however we would be wrong to single him out when many countries are responsible of the same kind of atrocities he is. We think he is worse because many stories of his brutalities are dreamed up. It is not a choice of Saddam or the U.S., however by attacking Saddam you aid the U.S. We would be better of defending him against the U.S. overblown accusations and attacking the U.S. in the war of words. Ultimately we would like it to be us, who represent working people to decide who is wrong and who is right, who is good and who is evil. The decision we must make is whether we should agree Saddam is evil and that we should attack both or that we should support the U.S. or criticise only the U.S.

flayer2

26th November 2003, 14:58

PS: Saddam Hussein is not, and never has been, a fascist. And Im willing to go into more detail about that if anybody is interested.

Yes.. Please do that.

Same with you Brin. Please provide info in defense of Slobodan Milosevic.

Be careful when using terms like muderer , fascist and dictator when referencing these two.

The main complaints of Saddam Hussien is his treatment of the kurds and shiites for certain they were oppressed and many of his methods are to be condemmed but many elements of these groups were disloyal to Iraq, this at a time when Iraq was facing enemies on all sides. The Kurds are a separatist group. Can you imagine what lengths the US would use to put down an AZTLAN revolt in southern california? The shiites represent 55% of the population and are aiming for some form of Islamic rule, for certain this would be reactionary compared to the previous rule. Some of you have to understand that democracy doesn't always work...

Socialists should support a strong and united arab world.

Socialists cannot achieve their great aim without fighting against all oppression of nations. Therefore, they must without fail demand that the Social-Democratic parties of oppressing countries (especially of the so-called “great” powers) should recognise and champion the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, precisely in the political sense of the term, i.e., the right to political secession. The Socialist of a ruling or colony-owning nation who fails to champion this right is a chauvinist.

The championing of this right, far from encouraging the formation of small states, leads, on the contrary, to the freer, fearless and therefore wider and mote widespread formation of very big states and federations of states, which are more beneficial for the masses and more fully in keeping with economic development.

V.I Lenin ... 1915 Socialism and War..

Soviet power supreme

26th November 2003, 17:18

What proves you got that Milosevic is guilty for those killings?
Milosevic shows that those NATO evidences are lies in Haag.Does he even have a lawyer education?Haag lawyers can't prove that Milosevic is behind those killings.They can't sentence him in prison.

Milosevic is sick and he is getting worse.They don't give him medical attention and they are just letting him die.

Comrade Ceausescu

26th November 2003, 17:24

Once again Bolshevika shows his idiocy. Also, why do you feel the need to compare Milosevic and Saddam ? If Saddam is someone you admire I feel sorry for you. Just because the man was attacked by U.S Imperialism dos not make him a good leader. He was a fascist, no amount of pity for him can change that. I am just as outraged as anyone at the U.S's actions toward Iraq, but I cannot understand the way some leftists are attempting to paint Saddam as this friendly, revolutionary defender against U.S Imperialism. He is a fascist, a coward and a very shitty leader.

Fuck you.I'm serious.You blame the "Stalinists" for using the trot/anarchist term when you fucking throw around the term "fascist".You don't even know what the fuck fascism is.You are just as bad as the westerners who condemn communism even when knowing nothing about it.I am certainly not defending fascism,I hate it,but I know why I hate it.Hussein was no fascist.I think he was an ok leader.But,whenever you people come across a dictator who is not a communist,you simply proclaim him a "fascist".

Bianconero

26th November 2003, 17:34

While I don't buy any of the lies put forward by western imperialism, I see that Milosevic clearly wasn't a Communist at all. He's just a political opportunist who used Serbian Nationalism to gain power.

I don't support him at all.

Cassius Clay

26th November 2003, 18:06

First of all on Slobodan Milosevich.

The man was a political opportunist raised on a diet of Serb nationalism in a country which was never Socialist to begin with. The Kosavans had a right to self-determination and that should of been supported. However Milosevich's crime in the eyes of the west is not any real or imagined massacres or genocide (and Milosevich is making fools of the lawyers in the Hague despite the unfair trial he is being given) but the fact he refused to cooperate with the IMF over crucial energy sources in the Balkans.

Regarding Saddam.

To quote one Iraqi. 'Saddam wasn't he CNN, or CIA or whatever you call it'. And that's what he was, the Bathists had never had anything to do with Socialism or Marxism. They massacred tens of thousands of Communists (only the Indonesian CP has suffered more losses) and other progressives. And the CIA gave him the list to do it.

Whilist I dont believe he should be supported even the least and I would also say it's wrong to defend him as a alternative to U$ Imperialism (can anyone imagine what he would do if he had one tenth of the power Bush has) I will say this about Iraq under Saddam. His regime was no worse than other Arab states and probably better in many regards in terms of securalisation and women.

Urban Rubble

27th November 2003, 00:55

Comrade Cassius, thank you for the intelligent response. That is my point exactly. I am %100 opposed to this war, but to say he is an "alright guy" or to say he is an acceptable alternative to the U.S is insane. You stated my position better than I could have (perhaps I should take the joint out of my mouth while debating).

Chairman Mao

It is not a choice of Saddam or the U.S., however by attacking Saddam you aid the U.S.

I do not agree. I have stated clearly that I do not support the U.S war, but I have also attacked Saddam. I do not think I have aided the U.S at all.

I also do not agree when you say that we have to make a choice between supporting him and attacking him. I do not support many dictators, but I wouldn't invade their countries.

Che Guevara717

Listen son, I know you're only 14 and you have some pent up teen angst, but you better fucking check yourself. There are a select few Stalinists who throw out Liberal/Trot/Anarchist to anyone who doesn't agree with their stance. That is a fact. To say that I don't know what fascism is is fucking laughable, especially coming from you. Saddam ruled according to race/religious belief. He had a secret police (gestapo if you will)who made many a person dissapear in the night. There were many fascistic policies in Iraq under Saddam, just as many as we have in the U.S (if not more), yet it is O.K to call Bush a fascist ? My problems with this country are many, mostly it's Imperialism, but we are not a fascist country, so why is it O.K for people here to call Bush a fascist ? He's evil, but not a fascist. So explain, how was Saddam not a fascist ? Also, explain how Saddam was an "O.K leader" ? Are you a Socialist ? Are you aware he had many Socialists murdered ? That fact alone makes him despicable and unacceptable. EXPLAIN WHAT YOU LIKE ABOUT THIS FASCIST.

Fucking stupid little kiddie.

redstar2000

27th November 2003, 02:14

The decision we must make is whether we should agree Saddam is evil and that we should attack both or that we should support the U.S. or criticise only the U.S.

When you put it that way, the last option is obviously the only credible choice from the left.

The world is full of tinpot dictators, none of whom were/are "nice guys".

Pretty much anything bad that happens to them is well deserved.

Anything...except conquest by U.S. imperialism.

That is our real enemy...the tinpot dictators are always, sooner or later, overthrown or assassinated or even just die of old age. One way or another, the peoples of those countries deal with their domestic tyrants...or just wait and let nature finish them off.

U.S. imperialism--like all past empires--seeks "immortality". No matter who is in the White House or in Congress, etc., the drive for empire is unending.

Yes, they may topple a "bad guy" here and there (often one that they put in office in the first place)...but that's not why they do it.

They would "justify" an invasion of Venezuela in exactly the same terms as they "justified" the bombing of Serbia or the invasion of Iraq. They'd make up the lies and deliver them with a straight face.

"Bad guy" or "good guy" makes no difference. What U.S. imperialism wants to see is reliable servility...anything else is just costuming and public relations.

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

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

Comrade Ceausescu

27th November 2003, 02:51

Listen son, I know you're only 14 and you have some pent up teen angst, but you better fucking check yourself. There are a select few Stalinists who throw out Liberal/Trot/Anarchist to anyone who doesn't agree with their stance. That is a fact. To say that I don't know what fascism is is fucking laughable, especially coming from you. Saddam ruled according to race/religious belief. He had a secret police (gestapo if you will)who made many a person dissapear in the night. There were many fascistic policies in Iraq under Saddam, just as many as we have in the U.S (if not more), yet it is O.K to call Bush a fascist ? My problems with this country are many, mostly it's Imperialism, but we are not a fascist country, so why is it O.K for people here to call Bush a fascist ? He's evil, but not a fascist. So explain, how was Saddam not a fascist ? Also, explain how Saddam was an "O.K leader" ? Are you a Socialist ? Are you aware he had many Socialists murdered ? That fact alone makes him despicable and unacceptable. EXPLAIN WHAT YOU LIKE ABOUT THIS FASCIST.

Fucking stupid little kiddie.

Ok,first never try that elder is smarter crap on me.Don't call me "son" you wigger.Ok,I speak for myself not other "Stalinists"(Marxists-Leninists).I beleieve that why people call bush a fascist is because he conquers and brings terror to countries like a fascist.For the intention of power,money, and oil.Saddam is no angel.However I am not inclined to beleive all of the horror stories about him.I think he's done a shitload of nonsense,but I try to look at what he has done to stand up to the U.S.,and his women's rights and education compared to other countries in the middle east.He gets an A+ for that(In comparison with other middle eastern countries

Comrade Ceausescu

27th November 2003, 03:08

Btw,you think just because I'm younger I don't know as much as you,or am not as educated?I admit there are plenty of subjects I am not well educate on,but still!Fascism isn't one of them.Fuck you.I read more in a week then you do in a year.

Urban Rubble

27th November 2003, 04:01

Ok,first never try that elder is smarter crap on me.Don't call me "son" you wigger

Wigger ? Is that the acceptable racial slur these days ? So I'm a white nigger ? That's fucking awesome dude, saying things like that destroys your credibility before I have the chance to. And if you're trying to imply that I'm some sort of "rapper" thug type of kid, you have me wrong. I actually listen to punk rock. You are very very ignorant.

I beleieve that why people call bush a fascist is because he conquers and brings terror to countries like a fascist.For the intention of power,money, and oil

Ahhh, so now who is the one who doesn't know what a fascist is ? Are you serious with that definition ? Do you have any idea at all what fascism is ? It has nothing to do with conquering nations. I cannot believe that you would accuse me of not knowing what fascism is and then post this load of bullshit. I can name 100's of leaders who have conquered nations for power that weren't fascists. Also, are you unaware that Saddam attempted to conquer Kuwait ?

I am not inclined to beleive all of the horror stories about him.

Of course you aren't, kids like you believe that every single thing the media says is "western propaganda".

but I try to look at what he has done to stand up to the U.S.,and his women's rights and education compared to other countries in the middle east.He gets an A+ for that(In comparison with other middle eastern countries

So because other middle eastern countries have no womens rights, Saddam should be praised ? Not oppressing women should be normal behavior for any sane person, he should not be applauded for doing what any normal person would do. Again, why are you willing to overlook the fact that he has sent many communists to die ? I've asked 3 times and you keep ignoring me.

Btw,you think just because I'm younger I don't know as much as you,or am not as educated?I admit there are plenty of subjects I am not well educate on,but still!Fascism isn't one of them.

No, I think you're less educated because I've read your posts. Do you remember the string of PM's we exchanged when you basically admitted you wre a naieve little kid ? We were both very friendly and you admitted you shortcomings, why can't you now ? Do I need to post exactly what was said to refresh you ? You aren't well educated on fascism because you believe the definition of it is someone who conquers nations for power. Why don't you describe what makes one a fascist and we'll see how educated you are.

Urban Rubble

27th November 2003, 04:05

I read more in a week then you do in a year.

Forgot about this one.

This is why I call you an ignorant little kid. This comment is just plain idiotic.

You've never met me. You have no idea how much I read in a week, yet you say you read more than me in a week. Tell me, how do you know that you read more than me in one week ? I would love to hear you explain your psycic abilities to me.

Comrade Ceausescu

27th November 2003, 04:17

Wigger ? Is that the acceptable racial slur these days ? So I'm a white nigger ? That's fucking awesome dude, saying things like that destroys your credibility before I have the chance to. And if you're trying to imply that I'm some sort of "rapper" thug type of kid, you have me wrong. I actually listen to punk rock. You are very very ignorant.

Hm,the word "wigger" for someone who is white,but thinks they are black.Being white,and using such terms as "son",etc,etc is very wigger esque.

Ahhh, so now who is the one who doesn't know what a fascist is ? Are you serious with that definition ? Do you have any idea at all what fascism is ? It has nothing to do with conquering nations. I cannot believe that you would accuse me of not knowing what fascism is and then post this load of bullshit. I can name 100's of leaders who have conquered nations for power that weren't fascists. Also, are you unaware that Saddam attempted to conquer Kuwait ?

Of course I do.Fascism is the only ideology that openly advocates totalitarian rule by one man.It is basicly the opposite of Marxism.Fascists are anti-humanists.They do not have faith in the human race as a whole.They do advocate conquering nations for power,and have the whole "world domanation" thing going on at times.Fascism is also EXTREME nationalism.Being exclusive about certain things come to mind.Saying only people who are "pure" can be here,etc,etc.Actually I would not call Bush a "fascist",rather I think he has many fascistic elements.Yes,I am aware that Saddam invaded Kuwait.That was dumb.But dosen't make him a fascsit.Going to two successive wars in less then two years is very fascistic.

Of course you aren't, kids like you believe that every single thing the media says is "western propaganda".

Hmmm....Am I wasting my time typing this?after all,you are probobly not paying attention to this,just watching fox news.

So because other middle eastern countries have no womens rights, Saddam should be praised ? Not oppressing women should be normal behavior for any sane person, he should not be applauded for doing what any normal person would do. Again, why are you willing to overlook the fact that he has sent many communists to die ? I've asked 3 times and you keep ignoring me.

NO!I'm simply saying that in terms of Middle Eastern countries I think it is progressive of him,considering the fact that some Muslims beleive women are not totally human.About the communists,I have heard this before,but don't know too much about it.However he was definitly not perfect.Did a lot of dumb crap.

No, I think you're less educated because I've read your posts. Do you remember the string of PM's we exchanged when you basically admitted you wre a naieve little kid ? We were both very friendly and you admitted you shortcomings, why can't you now ? Do I need to post exactly what was said to refresh you ? You aren't well educated on fascism because you believe the definition of it is someone who conquers nations for power. Why don't you describe what makes one a fascist and we'll see how educated you are.

Yeah I do a bit.I just remeberd that it happend,not too much what was said.I never said that conquering nations was the whole definition of fascism.Also,I just admitted that i was not educated in a lot of things in my above post.Why should I admit to you all my shortcomings and mistakes?Cuz you are older then me?Why don't you give me an inch and admit your shortcomings?Or is that to much to ask?

El Brujo

27th November 2003, 07:11

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 26 2003, 02:00 PM
El Brujo

I agree that Western Imperialism is far more dangerous in the long term than Saddam, however, why does that mean you have to support him ? I don't wish him to be in power, but it's clear from my oppostion to the war that I favor him over a U.S puppet regime. So tell me, what is it that you like about him ? It's clear he was a fanatic anti-communist. He was a dictator who, if not a fascist, was definately as fascistic as Bush. You can choose to believe that his crimes were exaggertaed, but the fact is that he still committed many major attrocities. WHAT DO YOU LIKE ABOUT HIM OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT HE WAS DRIVEN OUT BY THE U.S. I hate this kind of thinking "Oh, he stood up to the U.S, he must be alright".
That is most-certainly not the case. You don't see me defending the Taliban, do you? First off, I never said I "like" Saddam Hussein, I have a neutral-to-favourable opinion of him. I have actually commented before in ISF that I think he corrupted the Baath Party in Iraq to an extent and I am staunchly opposed to some of the things he has done (for instance, the war on Iran and attacking Kurds with chemical weapons). He get's my support because I believe Baathism is a progressive secular Arab socialist movement that has been very successful in Syria and in Iraq to an extent, and it is beneficial for it to stay in power, with or without Saddam. Saddam's Iraq and Syria have some of the best education systems and treatment of women in the Middle-East. At any rate, there could have been an opportunity for him to reform, or lose power to another leader more in-line with Baathist principles.

He is not a "fanatical anti-communist," in fact, he was supported by hard-line Marxist/Leninist elements in the Soviet Union and was supported by the Soviet Union itsself until 1984. Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr (the Baathist leader in Iraq before Saddam) appointed government positions to members of the Communist Party and held close ties to the Soviet Union and to Syria which was the USSR's main ally in the Middle East. His crack-down on the Communist Party can be traced back to when Iraq got into a dispute with Syria and the Communist Party sided with Syria and the USSR (and later, became a phony imperialistic Gorbachevite party).

Urban Rubble

27th November 2003, 07:15

Hm,the word "wigger" for someone who is white,but thinks they are black.Being white,and using such terms as "son",etc,etc is very wigger esque.

Again, why do you think that is an acceptable racial slur ? Do you realize that you are calling me a white nigger, just shortened ? Why don't you just type white nigger and see how well people react you moron. Also, explain what exactly is "black behavior". I mean, I'm trying to act black, let's hear what acting black is.

Of course I do.Fascism is the only ideology that openly advocates totalitarian rule by one man.It is basicly the opposite of Marxism.Fascists are anti-humanists.They do not have faith in the human race as a whole.They do advocate conquering nations for power,and have the whole "world domanation" thing going on at times.Fascism is also EXTREME nationalism.Being exclusive about certain things come to mind.Saying only people who are "pure" can be here,etc,etc.Actually I would not call Bush a "fascist",rather I think he has many fascistic elements.Yes,I am aware that Saddam invaded Kuwait.That was dumb.But dosen't make him a fascsit.Going to two successive wars in less then two years is very fascistic.

Invading another country is more than "dumb". Torture rooms, mass killings and state sanctioned assassinations are not just "dumb". Your attempts to simplify this are amazing. These are not things that can be overlooked, a leader that does this deserves no support whatsoever, only contempt.

Hmmm....Am I wasting my time typing this?after all,you are probobly not paying attention to this,just watching fox news.

Ya, you got me, I watch fucking Fox News. You're such an idiot.

NO!I'm simply saying that in terms of Middle Eastern countries I think it is progressive of him,considering the fact that some Muslims beleive women are not totally human.About the communists,I have heard this before,but don't know too much about it.However he was definitly not perfect.Did a lot of dumb crap.

Yes, it is progressive for an Arab nation, but that still does not mean you should profess support for someone who has committed the kinds of attrocities he has. George Bush allows womens rights also.

Why should I admit to you all my shortcomings and mistakes?Cuz you are older then me?Why don't you give me an inch and admit your shortcomings?Or is that to much to ask?

I have many shortcomings, trust me, I could go on about them. I don't care, point them out if you feel like it. You're being ignorant, you're called me a white nigger, you've given support for a man who has murdered communists, allowed torture and rape of prisoners and gassed rebel groups. You're being an idiot.

I like how you skipped this part:

I read more in a week then you do in a year.

Forgot about this one.

This is why I call you an ignorant little kid. This comment is just plain idiotic.

You've never met me. You have no idea how much I read in a week, yet you say you read more than me in a week. Tell me, how do you know that you read more than me in one week ? I would love to hear you explain your psycic abilities to me.

suffianr

27th November 2003, 07:37

Isn't Mr Milosevic's politics synonymous with the term 'ethnic cleansing'?

That would make him equivalent to a butt-plug, in my book.

Kapitan Andrey

27th November 2003, 12:16

I can't get, why did cheguevara717 took BRIN's avatar of Miloshevich!? :huh:

...yes-yes...I agree, that his cleanings in Kosovo was BLOODY and IDIOTIC!!!...but! They judge him for BaH!!! So, I'm talking about BaH...

Yes, commie kg...but pols and croats are degenerated slavs!...traitors in other words! So I don't respect them!...OF COURSE, I want to see them as a friends of ther Slavs, but reality...in other words NOW they are...not our friends...suddenly 56% of pols HATE Russians...and ~68% of croats HATE Serbs...

ComradeRobertRiley...what is PRF?

ComradeRobertRiley

27th November 2003, 12:55

The PRF (Peoples Republic of Freedom) is a country that is set to come into existance within 2 years time (It will be leftist) check out www.freepeoplesmovement.tk to find out more

Edelweiss

27th November 2003, 13:05

I really don't wanna support Milosovic at all, without question he IS a war criminal and reactionary, Serbian nationalist. Unlike fools like cheguevara717 and BRIN I'm not going into the silly moral of supporting every asshole which ever was a victim of NATO/US imerialism and which claims to be a socialist.
BUT still it a plain fact that lots of the charges against Milosevic are simply faked, especially before the Kossovo war, an imperialist war justified with wrong allegations of expulsions, genocide and massacres (See HERE (http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/kosovo_crisis/html/graves.html)), and a war in which the NATO gave massive support (weapon delivery, training etc) to the rectionary, Albanian nationalist "freedom fighters" of the UCK, an organisation deeply involved in organized crime, and which is on the US list of terrorist organisations in the meanwhile, which one more time reaveals all the hypocricy of the US.
If you look at Kossovo today, you have an ethnic "clean" state, just after the criminals of the UCK suceeded with help of the NATo to control the region, they began their expulsions and oppresion of everyone who wasn't of Albanian "race", it was not only revenge acts against their former oppresors, the Serbs, but also against all other ethnic minorities in Kossovo like Jews, Sinti and Roma ("Gypsis"), and Croatioans, which peacefully lived together before the terror of the UCK began. For the time beeing, this was the final end of the multi-ethic, republic of Yuguslavia, which was systematically smashed by western powers with their sucessfully strategy of planting the "ethnic bacillus" in Yugoslavia.

Edelweiss

27th November 2003, 13:10

Andrey: With racist slurs like "pols and croats are degenerated slavs" you are really not far away from beeing banned from che-lives. Do us all a favor, and just shut the fuck up, and , stop your stupid nonsense,

Edelweiss

27th November 2003, 13:25

He is not a "fanatical anti-communist," in fact, he was supported by hard-line Marxist/Leninist elements in the Soviet Union and was supported by the Soviet Union itsself until 1984.

Nevertheless Saddam's myrmidons have slaughtered and imprisoned thoasands of members of the Iraqi communist party. Really, anybody who claims to be a socialist while supporting this madman is a shame for the movement, only because Iraq had some tiny progessive elements in comaprison with it's neighboring countries, it's still no reason to solidarize with this madman and his fascist dictatorship. So Iraq was secular...,so what? Turkey is too, in your silly logic you should support them aswell (beside that Saddam actually used Islamist rhetoric all throgh the 90s, of course it was hust propaganda means, but sill it shows that he doesn't care at all about Iraq beeing secular).

Comrade Ceausescu

27th November 2003, 13:32

I can't get, why did cheguevara717 took BRIN's avatar of Miloshevich!?
I think it is cool.Its the only small picture of him I could find.

Again, why do you think that is an acceptable racial slur ? Do you realize that you are calling me a white nigger, just shortened ? Why don't you just type white nigger and see how well people react you moron. Also, explain what exactly is "black behavior". I mean, I'm trying to act black, let's hear what acting black is.

The word "wigger" is not a racial slur.It is a term used for someone who acts like they are a rap star or something.Thats all.Let me re-phrase that.My mistake really.It is not at all "acting black".It is acting like a rap star.Rap stars make only a small percentage of black people in America,so therefore it is ignorant to say that they represent blacks everywhere and they are the definition of "black".My bad.

Invading another country is more than "dumb". Torture rooms, mass killings and state sanctioned assassinations are not just "dumb". Your attempts to simplify this are amazing. These are not things that can be overlooked, a leader that does this deserves no support whatsoever, only contempt.

I agree.However,I beleive Saddam did that because of oil,and also because he thought that the people of Kuwait were "traitors".I am not saying this justifies it,simply saying the facts.

Ya, you got me, I watch fucking Fox News. You're such an idiot.

So you can insult me,but I can't make a few jokes for the fun of it?Lighten up.I honestly don't think you watch Fox News.Its just a joke.

Yes, it is progressive for an Arab nation, but that still does not mean you should profess support for someone who has committed the kinds of attrocities he has. George Bush allows womens rights also.

I am simply pointing out the good things he has done.You can't compare him to Bush.It is a different culture.You don't understand that in many places in Muslim culture women are looked down upon.It is very very progressive of him to go against his own beliefs for a moment,and actually do what he thought was right.

I have many shortcomings, trust me, I could go on about them. I don't care, point them out if you feel like it. You're being ignorant, you're called me a white nigger, you've given support for a man who has murdered communists, allowed torture and rape of prisoners and gassed rebel groups. You're being an idiot.

Yes,I my point exactly.This is not an appropriate place to discuss them.If you have any questions for me about my personal life,I will be glad to answer them if I feel they are appropriate.I am not saying that Saddam is perfect.Simply pointing out the good things he has done as well.I support him,maybe 25%.Thats honestly it.

Forgot about this one.

This is why I call you an ignorant little kid. This comment is just plain idiotic.

You've never met me. You have no idea how much I read in a week, yet you say you read more than me in a week. Tell me, how do you know that you read more than me in one week ? I would love to hear you explain your psycic abilities to me.

Didn't see this right away.Anyway,my point of making that post was basicly to say that I am not one of those idiotic "ReBElIoUsS" teenagers.Do not think of me as one of those.

Greeny

27th November 2003, 15:10

sorry, I haven't read all the posts on this topic just beacuse I dont pay a dime for a racist-murderer.He caused a great number of people's death..what a nonsence to praise Miloshevich!!!

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

30th November 2003, 02:12

Right on Greeny, hes nothing but the virtual embodiment of revisionism - twisting the values of Communism into his own personal right wing, reactionary, racist, corrupt, and very much capitalist agenda. Rather then blatent and open capitalists, these worms infest the party and corrupt various members into following their reactionary, very much fascist, agenda while still keeping the "Communist" label. Trying to create an ethnicly pure state? Internationalism my ass.

Kapitan Andrey

1st December 2003, 09:05

Malte...oh-oh-oh! I'm scared! Help me! :angry:

NO!!! This is my opinion!

THEY ARE nationalists(pols) and racists(croats)!...but I didn't said - "Kill em'!"or "They must be eliminated!" - NO!!!

They are bastards, but let the time heal their minds! <_<
I hope, that my childres willn't be against them...may be all that bloody events would be forgotten...I hope so... <_<

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

1st December 2003, 10:17

Come back to bed, Kapitan Andrey!

Kapitan Andrey

1st December 2003, 10:30

Fuck you, moron! :angry:

General A.A.Vlasov

1st December 2003, 11:41

...At least he is better, than bush, hitler, stalin, beria...!!! <_<

Greeny

1st December 2003, 15:43

Originally posted by General [email protected] 1 2003, 12:41 PM
...At least he is better, than bush, hitler, stalin, beria...!!! <_<
what an unneedful comparison

Comrade of Cuba

1st December 2003, 15:58

Originally posted by General [email protected] 1 2003, 12:41 PM
...At least he is better, than bush, hitler, stalin, beria...!!! <_<
It's hard to become worse. But I'am totally against Miloshevic. Luckily there are also a lot of good people in the last century.

BRIN

1st December 2003, 23:30

I think what the Kosovo liberation army did was criminal,they were the ones who started the genocide with wepons from the US.Milosevic did the only rational thing could do in that situation,he fought back.So why is Milosevic the bad guy?

Does any infidel here support the forced regime change?if so give info why.

Good on you Cheguevara717,the more Milosevic supporters the better ;)

El Brujo

2nd December 2003, 04:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 10:25 PM
Nevertheless Saddam's myrmidons have slaughtered and imprisoned thoasands of members of the Iraqi communist party.
I have already explained the background of Saddam's relationship with the Communist Party. If you bother to read my whole post, I don't have to repeat myself.

Really, anybody who claims to be a socialist while supporting this madman is a shame for the movement, only because Iraq had some tiny progessive elements in comaprison with it's neighboring countries, it's still no reason to solidarize with this madman and his fascist dictatorship.

Yes it is. As I am a true Marxist, I believe the only efficient way to achieve socialism is a nation at a time and that developments vary depending on the culture and reality of the nation. I believe Ba'athism and Islamic socialism are the most progressive movements the middle east has to offer which arent extremely obscure (looking at the matter realistically, the only alternatives are theocracy's and pro-western imperialist puppet states). These are not politically correct times and people must subscribe to the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosohpy to achieve anything (as long as it is not directly antagonistic to the movement, of course). In case you don't recall, the July 26th movement consisted of some of the most disgusting and reactionary elements of Cuban politics, yet Che and Fidel successfully utilized it to bring about socialism in Cuba.

At any rate, do please explain how Saddam is a "Fascist." He is not racist or imperialistic and Iraq's socio-economic system in no way resembled that of corporatism. Either you are extremely liberal in your definition of a "fascist" or you are brainwashed by western propaghanda.

So Iraq was secular...,so what? Turkey is too, in your silly logic you should support them aswell

Absolutely not, that is an extremely simple-minded way to look at it. I am not judging Iraq solely on the fact that it is secular. I look at the full picture not at one single issue. Turkey may be secular, but it is also racist, imperialistic and a puppet to the west and Iran may not be racist, imperialistic or a puppet to the west but it is fundamentalist.

(beside that Saddam actually used Islamist rhetoric all throgh the 90s, of course it was hust propaganda means, but sill it shows that he doesn't care at all about Iraq beeing secular).

Can you please explain the execution of Islamists under Saddam if he "does not care about Iraq being secular"?

Kapitan Andrey

2nd December 2003, 08:43

Greeny...hmm, I agree.

Comrade of Cuba...It's hard to become worse.
Ha! I remember someone said, that he is AS bad AS hitler!!! <_<

Edelweiss

2nd December 2003, 18:13

Originally posted by El Brujo+Dec 2 2003, 07:27 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Brujo @ Dec 2 2003, 07:27 AM)
[email protected] 27 2003, 10:25 PM
Nevertheless Saddam's myrmidons have slaughtered and imprisoned thoasands of members of the Iraqi communist party.
I have already explained the background of Saddam's relationship with the Communist Party. If you bother to read my whole post, I don't have to repeat myself.

Really, anybody who claims to be a socialist while supporting this madman is a shame for the movement, only because Iraq had some tiny progessive elements in comaprison with it's neighboring countries, it's still no reason to solidarize with this madman and his fascist dictatorship.

Yes it is. As I am a true Marxist, I believe the only efficient way to achieve socialism is a nation at a time and that developments vary depending on the culture and reality of the nation. I believe Ba'athism and Islamic socialism are the most progressive movements the middle east has to offer which arent extremely obscure (looking at the matter realistically, the only alternatives are theocracy's and pro-western imperialist puppet states). These are not politically correct times and people must subscribe to the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosohpy to achieve anything (as long as it is not directly antagonistic to the movement, of course). In case you don't recall, the July 26th movement consisted of some of the most disgusting and reactionary elements of Cuban politics, yet Che and Fidel successfully utilized it to bring about socialism in Cuba.

At any rate, do please explain how Saddam is a "Fascist." He is not racist or imperialistic and Iraq's socio-economic system in no way resembled that of corporatism. Either you are extremely liberal in your definition of a "fascist" or you are brainwashed by western propaghanda.

So Iraq was secular...,so what? Turkey is too, in your silly logic you should support them aswell

Absolutely not, that is an extremely simple-minded way to look at it. I am not judging Iraq solely on the fact that it is secular. I look at the full picture not at one single issue. Turkey may be secular, but it is also racist, imperialistic and a puppet to the west and Iran may not be racist, imperialistic or a puppet to the west but it is fundamentalist.

(beside that Saddam actually used Islamist rhetoric all throgh the 90s, of course it was hust propaganda means, but sill it shows that he doesn't care at all about Iraq beeing secular).

Can you please explain the execution of Islamists under Saddam if he "does not care about Iraq being secular"? [/b]
I think the moral of supporting the enemy of your enemy is extremely disgusting. If you seriously think you can achieve socialism with butchers like Sadam Hussein, than you are extremely naive. Saddam Hussein doesn't give a fuck about any socialit ideas, he gave up all progresive ideas bathism had long time ago, all socialist who were involved in the bathist movement splinted off long time ago, and were oppressed, haunted, and killed just like anybody who dared to express any opposition to saddam. His only interest was to stay in power in the end, he is a whore who was fucking with the Americans aswell as with the Soviets. To solidarize with him is against any socialist ideals, and tactically extremely stupid aswell.
Concerning Saddam beeing a fascist: It was admitingly not very precise to call him a fascist, nevertheless his regime has plenty of fascist elements, but obviesly you Stalinists never had problems with things like extreme nationalism, militarism, leader cult and ethnic cleansings.
Concerning Saddam and Islamism: As I already told you, his Islamic rhetoric was a propaganda means, but nevertheless he did use it to justify his crimes, it was of course nothing than pure hypocricy. But still it shows that he doesn't give a fuck about Iraq beeing secular.

El Brujo

2nd December 2003, 20:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 03:13 AM
I think the moral of supporting the enemy of your enemy is extremely disgusting. If you seriously think you can achieve socialism with butchers like Sadam Hussein, than you are extremely naive.
What do you think of the July 26th movement?

Saddam Hussein doesn't give a fuck about any socialit ideas, he gave up all progresive ideas bathism had long time ago, all socialist who were involved in the bathist movement splinted off long time ago, and were oppressed, haunted, and killed just like anybody who dared to express any opposition to saddam. His only interest was to stay in power in the end, he is a whore who was fucking with the Americans aswell as with the Soviets. To solidarize with him is against any socialist ideals, and tactically extremely stupid aswell.

He gave up all progressive Ba'athist ideas? Like I said, I agree that Saddam corrupted the Iraqi Ba'ath Party but he still held quite progressive social programmes and kept most of the major industries in Iraq nationalized. Even if he was not that great of a leader, he could have either changed for the better or ousted by a coup within the party.

Concerning Saddam beeing a fascist: It was admitingly not very precise to call him a fascist, nevertheless his regime has plenty of fascist elements, but obviesly you Stalinists never had problems with things like extreme nationalism, militarism, leader cult and ethnic cleansings.

On to the "Stalinist" ramblings. Yes, I do approve of nationalism because, as Mao said "nationalism of the oppressed is internationalism." I support oppressed peoples gaining national self-sufficiency. That is not extreme nationalism. Im not even going to go into militarism, leader cult, and ething cleansing bit. You know that neither us "Stalinists" nor Saddam support any of that (except for Saddam's leader cult).

Cassius Clay

2nd December 2003, 20:51

El Brujo.

I've only read parts of this thread but I cant yet understand how Saddam should of ever been supported, now or ever.

He was CIA for thirty years (hey wouldn't be surprised if he still is) and murdered tens of thousands of Communists aswell as other progressives. To say that Bathism was the only progressive force in the Middle East is wrong. In 1959 the Iraqi Communist Party was capable of organising a million people march in Baghdad, it had Kurds, Sunni's, Shia, Christians and Jews in it's ranks. It was very anti-Imperialist and had a good land reform programme for the peasants.

I dont buy what CNN or Fox says about Saddam. He was no worse than any other of the governments in the Middle East. The main threat to the people's of the world today is U$ Imperialism, for that I'm glad the Bathists refused to play ball with the U$ and fight back. Doesn't make them Marxist-Leninists or even Socialists. And there are a number of groups fighting the Imperialists, mainly based in the 'Iraqi Patriotic Alliance' which is formed of groups who have oppossed Saddam for years but are correctly fighting the occupiers.

Urban Rubble

2nd December 2003, 21:23

Thank God. Nice post Cassius.

It's unfortunate that some leftists will overlook all the horrible things men like Saddam Hussein do as soon as the U.S turns on them. The man stood for everything any sane Communist should oppose, but it is all ignored.

I do agree that he was no worse than alot of other Middle Eastern dictators, but that isn't saying a whole lot is it ?

Kapitan Andrey

6th December 2003, 07:17

Ho-ho-ho!

Malte...well, that was good post! :)

*****

"Free Miloshevich!"

hazard

6th December 2003, 07:48

this great man is nicknamed

"the butcherer of the balkans"

thats great for ya

Comrade Ceausescu

6th December 2003, 13:15

Thank God. Nice post Cassius.

**smirks**the irony is killing me.you totally diss 'stalinists' a few pages back,now you are complementing one

Soviet power supreme

6th December 2003, 13:28

You say that Slobo was evil murderous bastard but what are your evidences?

The haag haven't found evidences against Milosevic in fact the whole process is a farce.

Sure in wars many crimes were made but what is connection with these crimes and Milosevic?

Bolshevika

6th December 2003, 17:47

Saddam was not an anti-communist. I agree what he did to communists there was wrong, but you must understand his situation. Saddam was in the middle of a war with Iran, to protect Iraq's sovereignity against theocratic aggressors, and he needed weaponry. Unfortunately the USSR did not jump up and help him out, so Ronald Reagan did instead in an attempt to have both Iran and Iraq destroyed. Saddam did not know this, so in exchange for weaponry, he carried out some orders from the U.S. government.

However, this is all in the past. In the last 10 years he has shown significantly good behaviour. I agree that he is a tad bit off, but he was much better to his people than the George W. Bush Christian dictator brigade will ever be. Saddam is a Leftist, as is Milosevic (although Milosevic is much more socialistic than Saddam) no matter how reactionary they may be.

The indecision of Trotskyists and Liberals is why they never get anywhere. "Well, I don't like Bush, but I also don't like Saddam, and I don't like the Iraqi theocrats, so in the end, I don't know have a stance on what Iraq should be, well other than a Trotskyist revolution". You are dogmatists, you have to open up your mind a little bit.

redstar2000

7th December 2003, 02:14

You are dogmatists, you have to open up your mind a little bit.

Perhaps.

Or perhaps it is the job of real revolutionaries to be "against the boss" no matter who he is or what color flags he chooses to display.

I'll freely admit to my "dogmatism"--all bosses deserve the guillotine.

Trying to pick a boss to "latch on to" in the hope of gaining political influence is called opportunism.

It is usually followed by capitulationism.

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

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

Bolshevika

7th December 2003, 02:37

See Redstar, you have the wrong idea. Instead of harbouring Pol Potist ideas of class struggle, we must view all who are on the fence as potential allies. People like Saddam Hussein and Milosevic are potential allies against imperialism and against capitalism. We must be optimistic about all people we speculate, it isn't opportunism, it is making do with what we Leftists have in the new capitalist order.

LuZhiming

7th December 2003, 03:51

I agree. All of these George W. Bush/ Clinton mouthpieces are full of anti- Milosevic and anti-Saddam propaganda.

I wasn't defending Saddam Hussein. When I said "that," I meant that he wasn't as bad as Milosevic. Saddam Hussein is still a cruel leader. Milosevic is a complete loser.

SonofRage

7th December 2003, 04:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 09:37 PM
See Redstar, you have the wrong idea. Instead of harbouring Pol Potist ideas of class struggle, we must view all who are on the fence as potential allies. People like Saddam Hussein and Milosevic are potential allies against imperialism and against capitalism. We must be optimistic about all people we speculate, it isn't opportunism, it is making do with what we Leftists have in the new capitalist order.
ehh, I don't know about you but I'm not willing to compromise like that. In these cases, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend either.

LuZhiming

7th December 2003, 04:07

He was no worse than any other of the governments in the Middle East.

Would you please cease this stereotyping of the Middle East? Oman, Lebanon, Jordan, and Qatar are not anywhere to the level of Iraq.(Or a lot of the other nations in the region)

Comrade Ceausescu

7th December 2003, 07:35

Would you please cease this stereotyping of the Middle East? Oman, Lebanon, Jordan, and Qatar are not anywhere to the level of Iraq.(Or a lot of the other nations in the region)

They are all non-progressive,U.S. backing bouregoise democracies.

Cassius Clay

7th December 2003, 12:18

Saying that Saddam was not a anti-Communist is madness.

Once again he was CIA, his persecution of Communists didn't begin with the war with Iran. It began withthe Bathist coup in 1963 and more so with the coup in 1968. DUring that time the CIA gave him lists of Communists to go and kill.

Saddam was and is bourgesie to the core, he represented Iraq's national bourgesie. This and only this can be regarded as 'progressive' in that he wasn't prepared to become a complete puppet of the west.

It has been a correct policy to support Iraq against the UN sanctions, against U$ bombing and Imperialist invasion. We can even supportt the Republican guard in killing as many Imperialists as possible. Doesn't mean we need to defend Saddam as some sought of Communist whose interest lay in being a working class hero.

To change history is to insult the thousancds of real Communists who died at Saddam's hands. More to the point why do you need to? It is allready clear who the real criminall is and that is U$-UK Imperialism, that's obvious for everyone without Saddam being painted as some sought of hero.

Our duty is to support the Iraqi resistance. Since a great deal of this is being led by Communists in the ICP then I'll support them aswell as others. And in the very unlikely outcome it turns out all this is eing done by 'Saddam loyalists' and 'Bathist elements' then I'll support them to.

Bolshevika

7th December 2003, 16:53

Cassius Clay: You make some good points, but what are the chances a sucessful workers parties will rise to power in Iraq? 0, those are the chances.

The reason I support Saddam is because the Iraqi people were better under him than they will ever be under imperialist occupation or feudal Islamic theocracy (if the Americans get kicked out, it will end up in this and if they don't kicked out, it will end up in a militaristic fascist state).

So, we must analyze the situation, and come to a realistic conclusion. Who is better for the Iraqi peoples: George W. Bush and his oil mongering lackeys, feudalistic theocrats, or militaristic Washington backed fascists (trust me, many more communists will die in this case). Saddam allowed communist.

Another thing, I'm not sure, but I've heard somewhere that the Iraqi communist party has a history of subversion and cooperation with the imperialists in the recent war.

They are all non-progressive,U.S. backing bouregoise democracies

Not even that. They are theocratic/feudalist. Not to sure about Qatar and Oman, but I believe Turkey is the only bourgeois "democracy" (in actuallity it is run by the military) in the Middle East (Israel i think also). So some of these countries make Iraq look extremely progressive, especially Sudan and Saudi Arabia, which in my opinion are the worst of all. Egypt doesn't have a bad government either.

Urban Rubble

8th December 2003, 01:45

Thank God. Nice post Cassius.

**smirks**the irony is killing me.you totally diss 'stalinists' a few pages back,now you are complementing one

You're an idiot. I never said anything about all Stalinists, I was talking about you and Bolshevika's (and many other Stalinsts) tendency to call anyone who disagrees with you and liberal or a trot. I have nothing against Stalinists, just the close minded morons like a great majority of them are. Cassius Clay has proven himself to be one of the most educated members of this board, the complete opposite of the little pubescent Stalin fan club we have here.

Weren't you leaving this board anyway ?

Cassius Clay

9th December 2003, 10:19

Bolshevakia (sorry about wrong spelling).

In 1959 the Iraqi Communist Party was capable of getting a million workers in Bagdad to march for revolution. They have a strong history and will be remembered hopefully by some Iraqi citizens as very much progressive. They were also the first party to publish a newspaper after Saddam had gone. Yes it is correct that some in the leadership have turn collobarotor and sell out. THe cadres in the ICP have disowned this bunch in articles and have called for reistance against any occupier be it U$ or UN.

I dont deny that Saddam's Iraq was more 'progressive' than other Arab states (bexst health care ssytem in Middle East before 1991) and the UN Imperialists are responsible for far more deaths than Saddam in the form of sanctions and bombings. Still doesn't excuse his crimes against the people of Iraq, a great deal of whom were Communists and workers.

I will support the Iraqi resistance whatever form it takes. Call me a optimist for pointing to the Communist stake in this fight but I will. It was Communists who led the struggles against Fascism in WW2 and if they could liberate there countries from Fascism in Vietnam, Albania, Yugoslavia, Italy, Phillipines, China and elswhere then I have faith in the Communists in Iraq getting rid of this mod3ern Imperialists and their lackeys.

Urban rubble.

It may well be that some 'Stalinists' have a tendancy to be close minded morons. That aint for me to say but there's also a fair deal of morons who fit under the label 'Trot and liberal'. More to the point Josef Stalin has nothing to do with this thread and if folkes cant win a argument without resorting to insults that makes them a moron regardless of whehter they like uncle Joe's moustache.

As someone who favors that moustache I think the best thing to do is stay on the topic at hand and for everyone to stop the rhectoric.

Simply put. Slobodan Milosevich and Saddam Huissien may be a mixture of many things. Standing up to the western Imperialism? Yes. Not as bad as CNN tells us? Yes. Even having parts of their society be more 'progressive' than others? Yeah sure. But Communists they weren't and there is no need to pretend they were.

Urban Rubble

10th December 2003, 01:22

It may well be that some 'Stalinists' have a tendancy to be close minded morons. That aint for me to say but there's also a fair deal of morons who fit under the label 'Trot and liberal'. More to the point Josef Stalin has nothing to do with this thread and if folkes cant win a argument without resorting to insults that makes them a moron regardless of whehter they like uncle Joe's moustache.

As someone who favors that moustache I think the best thing to do is stay on the topic at hand and for everyone to stop the rhectoric.

I didn't exactly start this mudslinging. I only mentioned his "Stalinism" because that is what I've heard him (and the other people I was reffering to) call themselves over and over. These are the same little kids that call everyone who disagrees with him Trots or Liberals, which is what he did and why I said what I did.

Anyway, I agree, it's rhetoric and should end.

Comrade Ceausescu

10th December 2003, 05:22

You're an idiot. I never said anything about all Stalinists, I was talking about you and Bolshevika's (and many other Stalinsts) tendency to call anyone who disagrees with you and liberal or a trot. I have nothing against Stalinists, just the close minded morons like a great majority of them are. Cassius Clay has proven himself to be one of the most educated members of this board, the complete opposite of the little pubescent Stalin fan club we have here.

Weren't you leaving this board anyway ?

I never mentioned anything about Trots.Also,I though I was leaving,circumstances have changed at least for the moment.I never actually said I was actually leaving,just wouldn't post nearly as much.

Xprewatik RED

10th December 2003, 15:47

Malosevich was evil. Nice to hear the Stalinists are alive and well. All you Westerners go to your websites and argue your opinions, with information from your own websites. People here actually have family who lived there.
A dictator is a dictator, they crush their opposition period.

Cassius Clay

10th December 2003, 18:26

I didn't exactly start this mudslinging

And no one has accussed you of.

Bottom line is we shouldn't be defending Slobodan Millosevich and Saddam Huissien as any sought of defenders of Socialism or Communism. Someone who says we should I do believe is far more of a 'moron' label than a 'liberal' who doesn't.

Ofcourse ignorant kids who are still believing fairy tales about famines and genocide and that somehow this same terrible tyrant is repsonsible for all the misery in that country today top's it all of.

What next Xprewatik Red? Did you grandad take up arms against the 'Stalinists' and kill 2000 party beuracrates before being caputred, upon which Stalin himself demanded to see him being tortured? And what was your grandad's name? Moses by any chance, before the Stalinist hordes he declared 'Let my people go'.

It's amazing that you have a go about people using websites yet presumambly you aren't in the same fix as many of your fellow countrymen and women selling kidneys and working as child sex slaves.

What a shame 4.5 million Ukrainains felt the need to serve in the Red Army in WW2. If just a few thousand more had joined the original 20,000 who chose the Nazis then Ukraine would of been liberated for good right?

Bolshevika

10th December 2003, 20:43

Urban Rubble :

I do not call myself a "Stalinist", the people on this board label me one. A consider myself a non dogmatic, non revisionist Marxist-Leninist, or in Che-Lives speak "A STALANIST BERUCRAT".

I recall that once whilst debating you on some issue you said you hated "authoritarian assholes" like me. You hate authoritarians, and the anti thesis of an authoritarian is an anti-authoritarian, and libertarians consider themselves anti-authoritarian, so hence you are a liberal.

From what I've gathered from you, you have some extreme bourgeois tendencies and many non-revolutionary ideas. I do not mean to offend you, I am simply being critical of you. I urge you to be critical of me as well, and comrade Cheguevara717, because we are open to it.

Comrade Cassius Clay :

I agree that the class struggles of the past against the bourgeoisie have been many times sucessful, but that is due to the fact that we had powerful revolutionary forces behind us (Comrade Chairman Mao and Comrade Stalin), supporting our struggles. At this moment, no powerful nation is supporting the Iraqi Communist party, the imperialists are not letting the ICP be involved in any internal affairs, and the chances the imperialists will allow the ICP be involved in the upcoming (and probably last) [rigged] "elections".

So in the end, what do the Iraqi proletariat benefit from the imperialist occupation? What do they benefit from the ousting of Saddam by foreign powers?

Xprewatik RED

You are a reactionary. You fail to completely analyze or study the situation with Milosevic and automatically label him "evil". You sound much like George W. Bush, Lev. I don't even label the capitalist oligarchs "evil" because it is utterly simplistic, extreme and moronic.

Urban Rubble

10th December 2003, 23:31

I recall that once whilst debating you on some issue you said you hated "authoritarian assholes" like me. You hate authoritarians, and the anti thesis of an authoritarian is an anti-authoritarian, and libertarians consider themselves anti-authoritarian, so hence you are a liberal.

Your logic is so idiotic. You're saying that because I share one view with the Libertarian party that I automatically become one ?

I think Western deomcracy is greatly flawed, so did Hitler and the fascists. So, by your logic, that would make me a fascist ?

Sorry, your logic is just ridiculous.

Also, you support Authoritarians ? You would really want to live in that kind of society ? Or are you just one of these kiddies with fantasies of being a dictator, so you wouldn't have to live in it ?

Bolshevika

11th December 2003, 00:10

An authoritarian is anyone who believes in a state or a revolution. Anarchists (in their revolutionary phase), bourgeois social democrats, Marxist-Leninists, and practically everyone believes in authoritarianism.

I don't want to be a dictator at all. Implying that you 'hate' authority says that you want no authority, is this a wrong summarization? If so, why do you think so?

I would definetly like to live in a nation that is by your definition "Stalinist". The revolutionary environment appeals to me, and I believe in the surpression of the bourgeoisie and their ideas. The western definition of a dictator is not what I want to be.

Urban Rubble

11th December 2003, 03:18

An authoritarian is anyone who believes in a state or a revolution. Anarchists (in their revolutionary phase), bourgeois social democrats, Marxist-Leninists, and practically everyone believes in authoritarianism.

You are insane. Do you have any idea what an Authoritarian society is like ? I am not talking authority, of course I believe in authority to an extent, I am talking extreme authoritarianism much like the DPRK of the present.

Implying that you 'hate' authority says that you want no authority, is this a wrong summarization? If so, why do you think so?

I didn't say I hate authority. I said I hate authoritarianism. I do not wish to live in a society where some government official can dictate my sexual practices (for instance) or what job I have to work. I am simply talking about a society where there is an excessive amount of authority. In the last 3 years the U.S has become extremely authoritarian, much like the Soviet Union under Stalin.

I would definetly like to live in a nation that is by your definition "Stalinist".

I very much doubt that you would enjoy starving in the DPRK. Say what you will about Western society, I will be right there with you, but you cannot deny that we are much more free that most.

revolutionary environment appeals to me

This is the kind of shit that leads me to believe you are a little kid infatuated with Socialism because it's "cool". Would you not rather live in a society where revolution is not necessary ? The only reason there should be revolution is if society is extremely fucked and needs changing.

Bolshevika

11th December 2003, 03:38

You are insane. Do you have any idea what an Authoritarian society is like ? I am not talking authority, of course I believe in authority to an extent, I am talking extreme authoritarianism much like the DPRK of the present.

I have a moderate opinion on Kim Jong Il. The reason for the weird governmental policies in the DPRK is due to Korean culture, not Kim Jong Il. Their culture promotes the strong, unquestioned support of their leader. It isn't an authoritarian issue because most people do it because they want to. I think the recent arbitrary arrests in Korea are a new thing, due to the fact of the need for labour in the Korean regions where Korean workers would not voluntarily work at to get the economy out of the slump it is in.

So really you using DPRK as some sort of argument is pretty invalid due to the cultural values Koreans hold, this has been going on for hundreds of years. They live much better now than they did under the Japanese imperialists.

I didn't say I hate authority. I said I hate authoritarianism. I do not wish to live in a society where some government official can dictate my sexual practices (for instance) or what job I have to work. I am simply talking about a society where there is an excessive amount of authority. In the last 3 years the U.S has become extremely authoritarian, much like the Soviet Union under Stalin.

You have a bourgeois outlook on authority, historical authority, and various socialist nations, especially Stalin.

Firstly, the authoritarianism of the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin gave people the liberty to study, work, produce in any sector that fit their skills. In fact, Lenin and Stalin promoted diversity in labour by making college completely free. Low skilled workers didn't really mind working in factories, etc because that is where their skills were needed. However, labour was distributed fairly and so were wages, so the factory workers got sufficient funds for their families, just like doctors, lawyers, et al did.

Secondly, I don't know when Stalin intereferred in someone's sexual practices. I guess there was some prejudices against homosexuals etc but that is a contradiction in all societies, especially during the 20's, 30's, and 40's. Whatever the situation with homosexuals was in Stalin's Russia, was 10 times worse in the western Judeo Christian influenced nations.

The United States is much more "authoritarian" than Stalin, you just don't know about it. I am sure me you and all other members on this and many other boards are kept on some sort of list. The scary thing is, when will this list be used? Not yet. I believe the United States government is planning on installing some sort of totalitarian fascist state when capitalism collapses.

I very much doubt that you would enjoy starving in the DPRK. Say what you will about Western society, I will be right there with you, but you cannot deny that we are much more free that most.

This is blatant opportunism. It is not Stalin, nor his ideas fault that the people of the DPRK are starving. I will continue this tomorrow.

Urban Rubble

12th December 2003, 02:30

I have a moderate opinion on Kim Jong Il. The reason for the weird governmental policies in the DPRK is due to Korean culture, not Kim Jong Il. Their culture promotes the strong, unquestioned support of their leader. It isn't an authoritarian issue because most people do it because they want to. I think the recent arbitrary arrests in Korea are a new thing, due to the fact of the need for labour in the Korean regions where Korean workers would not voluntarily work at to get the economy out of the slump it is in.

So really you using DPRK as some sort of argument is pretty invalid due to the cultural values Koreans hold, this has been going on for hundreds of years. They live much better now than they did under the Japanese imperialists.

You cannot fully blame the hero worship going on in the DPRK on the Korean culture. Yes, they are a culture that promotes strong support of a leader, however, putting our literature that basically claims you are God is not helping anything. Kim Jong Il pushes this cult of personality and anyone who looks at this issue objectively would have to agree.

You have a bourgeois outlook on authority, historical authority, and various socialist nations, especially Stalin.

I do not think wanting a certain degree of freedom in my life is a bourgeoise outlook at all. Also, don't tell me my outlook of Stalin in the Soviet Union. I won't say I've read more than you, but I have read an incredible amount of material on the Soviet Union and it's leaders. The opinions I hold did not come lightly. I also am not an opponent of the Soviet Union, I just think they made alot of horrible mistakes.

Firstly, the authoritarianism of the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin gave people the liberty to study, work, produce in any sector that fit their skills. In fact, Lenin and Stalin promoted diversity in labour by making college completely free. Low skilled workers didn't really mind working in factories, etc because that is where their skills were needed. However, labour was distributed fairly and so were wages, so the factory workers got sufficient funds for their families, just like doctors, lawyers, et al did.

I am aware of everything you just typed. That had nothing to do with authoritarianism at all. There is far more to life than free healthcare and enough bread to eat. I would rather starve than live the kind of lives the majority of Russians lived at the time.

Secondly, I don't know when Stalin intereferred in someone's sexual practices. I guess there was some prejudices against homosexuals etc but that is a contradiction in all societies, especially during the 20's, 30's, and 40's. Whatever the situation with homosexuals was in Stalin's Russia, was 10 times worse in the western Judeo Christian influenced nations.

I wasn't talking about anyone in particular, just demonstrating how an authoritarian state can restrict freedoms. However, homosexuals were persecuted and many sex acts were severely punishable.

The United States is much more "authoritarian" than Stalin, you just don't know about it. I am sure me you and all other members on this and many other boards are kept on some sort of list. The scary thing is, when will this list be used? Not yet. I believe the United States government is planning on installing some sort of totalitarian fascist state when capitalism collapses.

The United States is definately authoritarian, but not nearly to the extent of Stalin's USSR. I am sure I'm on all kinds of lists to be used at their discresion, but that does not mean I'm not free to a certain extent. I know how authoritarian my country is becoming, it becomes for fascistic with eery passing month. The death of the American dream is at hand. I firmly believe things will only get worse.

JohnTheMarxist

12th December 2003, 15:17

I dont know much about the whole issue. However, I know under communism the country wasn't constantly ripped apart like this. I am sure Milosivec was probably not a good person but how many world leaders are? Did none of you watch the war unfold? Most of Clinton's genocide claims could never be proven and in fact American bombing killed more people. Now the western imperialists have moved into Serbia and put workers in sweat shop type conditions for their own benefit. The only reason we went to war is because imperialists wanted cheap resources and labor. Don't ever think imperialists will go to war for "humanitarian" missions and especially not NATO an American puppet. It is garbage.

elijahcraig

12th December 2003, 21:52

This thread is so pathetic. Milosevic WAS A GENOCIDAL MANIAC. I KNOW, I have close friends who lived there and saw people shot in the head for NOTHING.

Please stop this idiocy. Saddam and Milosevic are anti-communists, and Saddam murdered communists in large numbers at the express requests of the so-called "Western propagandaists".

SonofRage

12th December 2003, 21:56

I'd like to echo elijahcraig, I to have known people who lived under his rule and there is certainly no love for Milosevic.

Urban Rubble

13th December 2003, 18:36

Where've you been Elijah ?

elijahcraig

13th December 2003, 19:16

Writing essays, reading Shakespeare, having sex.

Urban Rubble

13th December 2003, 19:38

Essays for what ? School ?

What shakespear you reading ? Ahhh fuck it, I'm not a Shakespeare fan, my girlfriend says it's because I'm too stupid. I just read Joyce's "Dubliners" though. Good stuff. Hard read.

Sex with who ? A blowup doll of Uncle Joe ? haahahaha

The Feral Underclass

13th December 2003, 19:47

This is the best sentence I have ever read, ever in a million years..

Bolshevika

the anti thesis of an authoritarian is an anti-authoritarian, and libertarians consider themselves anti-authoritarian, so hence you are a liberal.

:lol: :lol: :lol: You have no shame do you....how did you go from libertarian to liberal...are you not aware they mean completely different contradicting things....i love this kid, keep up the good work.

It's simply psychology. young people need to have people to idolize, role models. Some express it through music, some through being vampires, some through being rappers. Some idolize kurt cobain, some idolize Count Dracula and some idolize two pac and they all strive to be them in some quest to find an identification. In this instance this expression comes in the form of politics. Although extremly weird politics you guys idolize Milosovic because you want to be him. Maybe you have had some authotarian experience in the past that has molded your mind to express yourself in this way. Maybe you have a superiority complex that forces you to believe you are actually these men...There is nothing wrong with it. You are both 14 if that. you have at least another 61 years to express your identity. And you will change your mind a few times before you get there. Lets hope your mind changes about this.

Please be aware that you are only 14, that we have all been there and know exactly what it's like. So when people talk about teenage angst, they do it because they use to be you. And not that long ago. So no matter how much you stamp your little foot you're never gonna look like the big intelligent know it all you crave to be.

To everyone else...leave these guys alone...although they look stupid, so did we when we were 14.

Urban Rubble

13th December 2003, 19:54

Thank you for seeing the idiocy of that logic.

So if I am opposed to abortion (I'm not, just an example) and so are the Reupblicans, that means I am therefore a republican ?
By Bolshevika's logic I would be.

I have made it clear I give these little kids with dictator complexes some leeway because they are so young. If it was a 30 year old guy spouting this shit, you can guarentee I would ridicule him like no other. However, he is only 14, so I give him time. They will come around someday (I hope).

Bolshevika

13th December 2003, 20:49

I have anything but "teenage angst". There are people on this board that consider themselves "Libertarian Marxists", does that not mean a more liberal, anti-authoritarian Marxist? Urban Rubble has "anti-authoritarian" sentiment, but still claims to be a socialist, making him a Libertarian Marxist (if he knows who Karl Marx is of course). I do not mean Anarcho-capitalist/Objectivist.

Urban Rubble: you are extremely uncivilized in debate, typical of those who have no argument. Using words like "idiocy" , "moron", "dumbass" don't make the point you're trying to make any better.

So if I am opposed to abortion (I'm not, just an example) and so are the Reupblicans, that means I am therefore a republican ?

This is one issue, but you made a broad statement, you frankly said "I hate authoritarians" and have on numerous occasions called me an "authoritarian asshole". If you hate authoritarians, and hate authoritarianism, what does it make you?

I have made it clear I give these little kids with dictator complexes some leeway because they are so young. If it was a 30 year old guy spouting this shit, you can guarentee I would ridicule him like no other. However, he is only 14, so I give him time. They will come around someday (I hope).

I am a dictator, Karl Marx was a dictator, Anarchist Tension is a dictator, George W. Bush is a dictator, Fidel Castro is a dictator, Emma Goldman had dictator ideas, and all forms of democracy are dictatorship, including direct democracy, proletarian/workers democracy, social democracy and bourgeois democracy. All collective and most non-collective societies are authoritarian.

A dictatorship is forcing the opinions of one group of people over another group of people, I am a dictator in the sense that I want to force the opinions of the working people, the proletariat, on the bourgeoisie, or rather, destroy the bourgeoisie and their reactionary ideas.

However, I do not believe in absolutism/autocracy (the western propagandists have purposely confused dictatorship with absolutism/autocracy, and like to take statements by communists out of context).

I do not care if you ridicule me, in fact, I want you to. Contrary to what Anarchist tension says, I do not "worship" anyone as he makes it out to be. I believe it is all of you who have the superiority issues, in regards to you all being extremely arrogant in thinking you are more intelligent/knowlegable because you are older.

My aunt is 46 years old, does she have any political ideas? Nope. Right now, I have pretty unbreakable views that will be hard to change. During the course of 6 months I changed ideologies, from Anarchist, to American Liberal, to Libertarian Marxist, all the way to Anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist. Marxism-Leninism is usually the last stage of ideological maturity, I am sure my friend Anarchist Tension will see the light one day and snap out of his idealism.

i believe you Urban Rubble and Anarchist Tension who will change their ideas. Once you let go of all that pot and booze and realize you don't need it to live a full happy life, you will share my ideas. This is a very common pattern amongst the masses.

Saint-Just

13th December 2003, 21:28

I hardly think that being a Marxist-Leninist who supports patriotism and anti-imperialism in the way we do is something peculiar to teenagers. There are many people who share our views. I am sure you know many patriots, if not anti-imperialist, who are older than 14.

how did you go from libertarian to liberal...are you not aware they mean completely different contradicting things....i love this kid, keep up the good work.

These words have many different meanings. And they share some qualities, to be liberal says you value tolerance, individuality and freedom. Libertarian can mean similar things. I would also say that he is right into saying you subscribe to these values, in terms of what they mean to western liberalism.

I do not think that Bolshevika is entirely correct in saying that the beliefs of Urban Rubble and Anarchist Tension will change to become authoritarian. Although I imagine if you have wives and children they will change slightly, but in a slightly different way.

I used to look at things differently, similarly to Bolshevika. I used to look at things from an Anarchist perspective. I also advocated drug use and promiscuity and so forth. However, I think the change can happen the other way, to become liberal from authoritarian, neither is a concrete indication of maturity. I am not trying to demean Anarchy as an ideology, I found other ideas that I could better identify with.

I believe that all of us here are similarly mature.

The Feral Underclass

13th December 2003, 21:43

Bolshevika

I have anything but "teenage angst".

That is exactly what 14 year old boys say!!!

I do not mean Anarcho-capitalist/Objectivist.

Once again you are stringing together words that dont have any meaning in connection with each other. Wat is an anarchist-objectivist.

During the course of 6 months I changed ideologies, from Anarchist, to American Liberal, to Libertarian Marxist, all the way to Anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist. Marxism-Leninism

you dont know what anarchism is...you dont know what libertarian marxism is...you just think you do.

Once you let go of all that pot and booze and realize you don't need it to live a full happy life

I am sorry to burst your bubble but I dont smoke weed and I rarly drink.

you will share my ideas.

You dont have any ideas that are coherant.

This is a very common pattern amongst the masses.

What work have you done with the masses to make such a conclusion...YOUR 14!!!!!!!! Stop talking like this...just stop it.....your 14.....FOUR--TEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!! You cant even have sex yet!

SonofRage

13th December 2003, 21:47

I have commented as much as anyone on the youngness of some of the Che-Lives members but lets not lower ourselves to ageism and attack people simply for being young. That being said, some of our younger comrades need to be open-minded and recognize that a wise man knows above all that he knows nothing.

The Feral Underclass

13th December 2003, 21:59

I'm not being ageist...im stating fact.....

Bolshevika

13th December 2003, 22:04

Comrade Chairman Mao

That is a very insightful and intelligent criticism, I agree with you to an extent on how their ideas will change when they have a family. You are probably correct in the sense that they probably will never become non-revisionist Marxist-Leninists unless a new revolution occurs, it certainly depends. Most Marxist-Leninists were once anarchists at one point or another, and I've noticed this pattern.

The Anarchist Tension

That is exactly what 14 year old boys say!!!

If by "teenage angst" you mean anger, than I certainly am angry. I am angry at the exploiter. I assume you share anger towards the enemy? If you do not, I really cannot see how you can be a revolutionary.

Once again you are stringing together words that dont have any meaning in connection with each other. Wat is an anarchist-objectivist.

You claimed I was using the term "Libertarian" in a wrong form, Libertarians are the Ayn Randist reactionaries, also known as "anarcho-capitalist/objectivists" in America, however the term "Libertarian" is used to describe liberal ideas.

you dont know what anarchism is...you dont know what libertarian marxism is...you just think you do.

Anarchists are utopian, anti-statists who belive in "Mutualism", "Federalism" and other idealist concepts that will lead to the regrowth of capitalism. (varies) At times anarchists seem to be anti-collective, and pro-individualist.

Libertarian Marxism has never been properly defined, I suppose it means Anarcho-Communism ? However, it is also used to describe a more liberal, individualistic approach to class struggle and elimination of class system.

I am sorry to burst your bubble but I dont smoke weed and I rarly drink.

I was referring to Urban Rubble, who is the typical high school skateboarding, potmoking mainstream "cool dude" (although sadly, I don't think he is still in high school).

You dont have any ideas that are coherant.

I'm sorry you feel that way :( ... :lol:

You cant even have sex yet!

Please sir! There is a difference between not having anyone to have sex with, and not being able to have sex :D You weren't sexually mature, had hairy legs/rearend/armpits/pubes etc at my age? You were definetly a slow bloomer.

Anywho, my 15th birthday is next month, so maybe then I will 'make more sense' to you.

The Feral Underclass

13th December 2003, 22:09

If by "teenage angst" you mean anger, than I certainly am angry. I am angry at the exploiter. I assume you share anger towards the enemy? If you do not, I really cannot see how you can be a revolutionary.

i love you bolshevika

Bolshevika

13th December 2003, 22:18

:blink:

Urban Rubble

14th December 2003, 00:12

Urban Rubble has "anti-authoritarian" sentiment, but still claims to be a socialist, making him a Libertarian Marxist (if he knows who Karl Marx is of course). I do not mean Anarcho-capitalist/Objectivist.

You complain to me about my ad hominem debating, then you do the exact same thing by implying I don't know why Karl Marx is. Hypocrite.

This is one issue, but you made a broad statement, you frankly said "I hate authoritarians" and have on numerous occasions called me an "authoritarian asshole". If you hate authoritarians, and hate authoritarianism, what does it make you?

You are confusing authority and authoritarianism. When I say authoritarian I mean extreme authoritarianism. I am talking when the state can tell you how to live your personal life. There has to be some sense of authority or there is chaos, but I do not wish to have my personal freedoms suppressed by the state. I know I know, personal freedoms are a bourgeoise luxury. As long as we have food shelter and healthcare who needs freedom ? Right ?

I am a dictator, Karl Marx was a dictator, Anarchist Tension is a dictator, George W. Bush is a dictator, Fidel Castro is a dictator, Emma Goldman had dictator ideas, and all forms of democracy are dictatorship, including direct democracy, proletarian/workers democracy, social democracy and bourgeois democracy. All collective and most non-collective societies are authoritarian.

I refuse to argue semantics with you. You're beginging to sound like Anti Fascist/ Huzington. You know exactly what I mean when I say dictator.

have pretty unbreakable views that will be hard to change.During the course of 6 months I changed ideologies, from Anarchist, to American Liberal, to Libertarian Marxist, all the way to Anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist. Marxism-Leninism is usually the last stage of ideological maturity, I am sure my friend Anarchist Tension will see the light one day and snap out of his idealism.

Absolutely hilarious. You say you have unbreakable views that will be hard to change, then, in the very next sentence you say you've changed your ideology 4 times in the last 6 months ? Do you not see how that sounds ? Also, what is it with you hardline Leninists (what some would call a Stalinist) that you think your ideas are so superior and concrete ? You are saying we'll "see the light" ? This coming from a 14 year old kid who has admitted to changing ideologies almost as frequently as I change my underwear ? In my opinion Anarchism is very idealistic, but if you think this Socialist state that will eventually turn Communist that we all dream of is not idealistic then you are insanse. We have seen the kind of terror Leninism can bring, so why do you stick to the ideals that haven't been revised one bit in the last 60 years ? Leninism has been shown that it needs some work to say the least.

i believe you Urban Rubble and Anarchist Tension who will change their ideas. Once you let go of all that pot and booze and realize you don't need it to live a full happy life, you will share my ideas.

What is it with people who don't drink or smoke that think I need it to live a happy life. I don't need to smoke a joint anymore then someone needs to eat a good steak. I do it because it is relaxing and I enjoy it. The fact that you talk like this shows how well the government has done in it's aim to demonize these things and make the people that use them look like depraved sick "adicts". Also, what does this have to do with my ideals ? If I stop smoking I'll suddenly become an extreme authoritarian ?

I was referring to Urban Rubble, who is the typical high school skateboarding, potmoking mainstream "cool dude" (although sadly, I don't think he is still in high school).

Wow. You are amazing. Again hypocrite, you just critisized me for the ad hominem. This is one of the most ignorant things that has ever been said to me on this board. I am completely suprised you could be this ignorant, even you. I'm "mainstream" ? Oooh, and you're so cool and "underground", right ? I'm just one big confromist. Skating is a part of my life. I started skating before the X-games and before it was "cool". Up until about 3 years ago I was still getting my ass kicked for riding a skateboard. I have had my ass kicked by 3 frat boys (when I was a 15 year old kid) for riding this plank of wood. They broke my ribs and gave me a concussion, I was in the hospital for 5 days. That really shows you how I skate to be cool right ? I skate every single day I can, it is a part of my soul. Skateboarding literally saved my life, I would be on the streets right now if not for skateboarding and the oppurtunities it has brought me. The fact that you would try to generalize me into this catergory of "X-treme" high school skaters that spike their hair and hardly even skate really pisses me off. This is my life. You know nothing about me or about skateboarding, I cannot understand why you think you do.

Congratualtions, you are one of the only people that has ever actually made me physically mad with something they said to me on the internet. That almost never happnens.

Urban Rubble

14th December 2003, 00:15

And someone please explain how my ideas will change once I have a family. I don't get that one. Actually, why not let the 14 year old tell me how my life will change. I'm sure he has a wife and kid and can tell me all about it.

Comrade Ceausescu

14th December 2003, 00:27

I love how the age card isn't being used in this topic.

Urban Rubble

14th December 2003, 01:26

Your reading comprehension is off the charts

The age card is completely valid, especially in this case. Bolshevika is saying that my views will change when I haev a wife and kids, he is 14. How can he have a frame of refernce in a topic like this ? Does he have a wife and kids ? In this case the age card is completely valid.

Actually, the age card is valid in alot of cases. He is telling me my views will change with time, again, he's 14, how the fuck does he know ?

14th December 2003, 01:52

The age card is always valid. That's life. I'm 21, and still get slapped with the age card every now & then.

Comrade Ceausescu

14th December 2003, 04:00

redstar2000

14th December 2003, 04:06

In general, I'm against the "age card". :P

But there is a "restricted" version that's relevant here. If you venture to predict how someone's views are going to change in the future, you are implying that you have the actual experience of observing those changes in similar circumstances.

That's a tough call for someone who is 14...even an unusually intelligent 14.

My observation, for what it's worth at 61, is that it is nearly impossible to predict with any significant accuracy how some particular individual's views are going to evolve...even if you think you "know" them really well.

In good ways and bad ways, people will surprise you.

That's what I've learned from experience.

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

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

Bolshevika

14th December 2003, 04:53

If it's ok to judge someone on their age, is it ok to judge someone on their race, gender, or sexuality?

Of course not. It is not my fault I am very young, it is not redstars fault that he is old, it is not your fault you are middle aged. So this prejudice you have is incorrect. Judging someone by their age is based on stereotypes and generalizations.

Urban Rubble, you are an angry, and at times too sensitive man who has extreme individualist ideas and gobbles up anti-communist propaganda. You have this image of Stalin's Russia as if Soviet citizens were any less free in their personal lives than American/Western citizens, and Stalin controlled everything about them. Sure, there wasn't much political "freedom" (well, actually, Stalin welcomed criticism, and there were elected workers delegations that served the people) for those who held bourgeois ideas, there wasn't much tolerance for counter revolution, and there wasn't much religious "freedom" for those who held reactionary beliefs, but it wasn't the extreme totalitarian police state you, and many bourgeois journalists/writers make it out to me. This was authentic socialism. I have come to this conclusion by speaking to many old and young Russian immigrants (the only ones who usually give me a negative view of Stalin are Ukrainians and Poles, most didn't even live under him!) that Stalin's Russia was an excellent alternative to western exploitation and labour and goods were distributed in a fair, socially just manner.

Comrade Ceausescu

14th December 2003, 06:01

If it's ok to judge someone on their age, is it ok to judge someone on their race, gender, or sexuality?

Of course not. It is not my fault I am very young, it is not redstars fault that he is old, it is not your fault you are middle aged. So this prejudice you have is incorrect. Judging someone by their age is based on stereotypes and generalizations.
Exactly.That is what I am trying to say.yet you fault Bolshevika and I for using the word "wigger". <_<

Urban Rubble, you are an angry, and at times too sensitive man who has extreme individualist ideas and gobbles up anti-communist propaganda. You have this image of Stalin's Russia as if Soviet citizens were any less free in their personal lives than American/Western citizens, and Stalin controlled everything about them. Sure, there wasn't much political "freedom" (well, actually, Stalin welcomed criticism, and there were elected workers delegations that served the people) for those who held bourgeois ideas, there wasn't much tolerance for counter revolution, and there wasn't much religious "freedom" for those who held reactionary beliefs, but it wasn't the extreme totalitarian police state you, and many bourgeois journalists/writers make it out to me. This was authentic socialism. I have come to this conclusion by speaking to many old and young Russian immigrants (the only ones who usually give me a negative view of Stalin are Ukrainians and Poles, most didn't even live under him!) that Stalin's Russia was an excellent alternative to western exploitation and labour and goods were distributed in a fair, socially just manner.

This is all correct.Especially the part about workers delagations.And they could elect part officials,and if they felt they really sucked,they could re-call them whenever they wanted. Could you tell me a bit about these conversations?I am interested.

Urban Rubble

14th December 2003, 06:05

If it's ok to judge someone on their age, is it ok to judge someone on their race, gender, or sexuality?

That is ridiculous. Yes, judging someone on their age is far more acceptable than judging on gender or race. You see, the younger you are the less life experience you have and the smaller learning capacity you have. Are you really going to deny the fact that a 16 year old will be smarter and wiser than a 10 year old almost without exception ? Is that being "ageist" ? It is different to judge someone on age because it is completely valid, younger people are usually going to be a little less knowledgeable. Again, that's not to say a 16 year old can't be smarter than a 40 year, but usually that just is not the case.

As for the Stalin thing, I'm not about to start this debate again. I have done it hundreds of times. I am not some propaganda sponge, I do not believe that Stalin killed 20 million. However, I know that life in Stalin's USSR was very restricted and very hard. I have studied this stuff quite extensively, I know what I am speaking.

Authentic Socialism ? Then why was the average citizen hovering right above the poverty line ? Why was the wealth not distributed equally ?

peaccenicked

14th December 2003, 06:15

Comrades, it is not often I come accross such a lively debate between people of seemingly diametrically opposed persuasuions. I feel a bit out of it age wise, being 43, yet I am impressed by the ammount of passion held by those participating and the serious self questioning and conviction
of arquement.
I really dont want to get involved because my views are already well established in other threads on Che-lives, Plus its getting late for me here.
Anyhow, I was wanting to direct everyone here to a pamphlet by Engels
"On Authority". I hope it widens the debate.
http://eserver.org/marx/1872-on.authority.txt

The Feral Underclass

14th December 2003, 09:54

Bolshevika...the ageism being demonstrated her is justified...if a black person came and made the statements you make it would be racist to say they dont know what your saying because they're black. The same for a woman. But age is about experience and knowledge which bring a better understanding of things. Being 14 you can not have that perspective yet. it is not the same as being black or being a women.

peaccenicked

14th December 2003, 12:20

Anarchist Tension.
That is authoritarian crap. It is certainly ageist. No one deserves any lack of respect for their views because of their age.

elijahcraig

14th December 2003, 17:43

Essays for what ? School ?

Yes.

What shakespear you reading ? Ahhh fuck it, I'm not a Shakespeare fan, my girlfriend says it's because I'm too stupid. I just read Joyce's "Dubliners" though. Good stuff. Hard read.

I’m reading Harold Bloom’s commentary on Shakespeare (The Invention of the Human), alongside some of Shakespeare’s early histories and tragedies.

Dubliners is a good book, but lacks Joyce’s mastering which he accomplishes in his longer works (Finnegans Wake and Ulysses especially).

Sex with who ? A blowup doll of Uncle Joe ? haahahaha

Girls, dolls, men with square foreheads.

NOTE: There’s no such thing as “ageism”.

The Feral Underclass

14th December 2003, 17:51

peaccenicked

That is authoritarian crap. It is certainly ageist. No one deserves any lack of respect for their views because of their age.

What are you talking about? When did I say I wasnt being ageist, I fully accepted that I was being ageist, and I think it is justified...and I never ever ever said I disrespected the fact bolshevika has views because he is 14. I simply stated fact...I dont even think bolshevika is offended, at least he shouldnt be...

I am sorry you can not inteperate my very straight forward posts but that is something you will have to deal with...in the meantime, start paying attention!

Saint-Just

14th December 2003, 18:00

Most Marxist-Leninists were once anarchists at one point or another, and I've noticed this pattern. ~Bolshevika

Yes, I think this is because that Marxism-Leninism is less popular in the west than these more liberal socialist, so the change tends to be from anarchist or democratic socialist to Marxism-Leninism rather than the other way round.

The Feral Underclass

14th December 2003, 18:02

I changed from Leninist to anarchist...there just levels of consciousness, Mine is more developed than yours :D

Bolshevika

14th December 2003, 18:17

Wrong thread!

The Feral Underclass

15th December 2003, 06:26

wrong thread?

SonofRage

15th December 2003, 07:48

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 14 2003, 01:00 PM

Most Marxist-Leninists were once anarchists at one point or another, and I've noticed this pattern. ~Bolshevika

Yes, I think this is because that Marxism-Leninism is less popular in the west than these more liberal socialist, so the change tends to be from anarchist or democratic socialist to Marxism-Leninism rather than the other way round.
Funny, I seem to be going in the opposite direction. :D

El Brujo

16th December 2003, 06:44

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 15 2003, 03:00 AM

Most Marxist-Leninists were once anarchists at one point or another, and I've noticed this pattern. ~Bolshevika

Yes, I think this is because that Marxism-Leninism is less popular in the west than these more liberal socialist, so the change tends to be from anarchist or democratic socialist to Marxism-Leninism rather than the other way round.
Thats exactly what happened to me. :D

LuZhiming

16th December 2003, 08:34

They are all non-progressive,U.S. backing bouregoise democracies.

Lebanon is U.S. backed? :lol: I won't even bother debating with the last two comments, but non-progressive? At the very least, Oman is a progressive government.

Saint-Just

16th December 2003, 08:47

Originally posted by El Brujo+Dec 16 2003, 07:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Brujo @ Dec 16 2003, 07:44 AM)
Chairman [email protected] 15 2003, 03:00 AM

Most Marxist-Leninists were once anarchists at one point or another, and I've noticed this pattern. ~Bolshevika

Yes, I think this is because that Marxism-Leninism is less popular in the west than these more liberal socialist, so the change tends to be from anarchist or democratic socialist to Marxism-Leninism rather than the other way round.
Thats exactly what happened to me. :D [/b]
I would say that is what happened to virtually all Marxist-Leninists. It is the same with Cassius Clay, and me. It is the same for other Marxist-Leninists I know in the UK. I know a Trotskyist who was enlightened in his 30s from JISGE.

General A.A.Vlasov

22nd December 2003, 06:54

People, do not compare Muloshevich with Hussein!!!

Comrade Hector

23rd December 2003, 08:33

Greetings Comrades! Milosevic is not a war criminal. He defended his country against reactionary forces led by the western imperialists. He stood for Socialism in Serbia and Montenegro and tried to preserve it, and successfully did until the NATO sponsored coup d'etat. Yugoslavia consisted only of Serbia and Montenegro. Slobodan Milosevic fought against the privitization and the third worldization of Yugoslavia which has been a failed target for the imperialists. Hence he tried to prevent the break up of Yugoslavia. The genocide which occured in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo from the Serbs were committed by Serbian militias (Chetniks), all of whom were outside of the control of Belgrade. These groups were in no way part of the Yugoslav People's Army. Milosevic was very unlike other staunch Serbian nationalists such as Vojislav Seselj, Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic, Vuk Draskovic, Zeljko Raznatovic (a.k.a Arkan), and Milan Martic all of whom advocated genocide. Be aware that Vojislav Seselj even called Slobodan Milosevic the biggest traitor to Serbia in its history. Vuk Draskovic went along with this accusation with the argument that Slobodan Milosevic had no intention of expelling the Albanian population of Kosovo, which Draskovic deemed a threat to the creation of a "Greater Serbia." These are a few reasons why I don't believe he is a rabid nationalist.

Here is a quote from this "nationalist":

"Yugoslavia is a multinational community and it can survive only under the conditions of full equality for all nations that live in it"

----Slobodan Milosevic
Kosovo Field Speech, June 28, 1989

Freedom For Milosevic!
Sloboda Za Milosevica!

General A.A.Vlasov

24th December 2003, 06:50

Well said Comrade Hector! :)

Saint-Just

24th December 2003, 12:34

Originally posted by General [email protected] 24 2003, 07:50 AM
Well said Comrade Hector! :)
Vlasov, Comrade Hector is saying that Milosovic was not guilty of ethnic cleansing. I would suggest that you probably do not care if he is or not, in a previous post Kapitan Andrey advocated ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, in your signature you talk about a new Russia without Bolsheviks, what if Comrade Hector and everyone else in this thread who supports Milosevic support Bolshevism.

Urban Rubble

24th December 2003, 15:26

Anything a man that uses Vlasov (a Nazi collaborator) as his nick and avatar does not deserve to have an opinion.You are a moron, please kill yourself.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

24th December 2003, 18:19

This is absolute nonsence, yes I think Milosevic started out as a Communist, but later started following an extreme right-wing path. Anyone who really thinks that Slobodan was truely a communist, must be truely gullable. Defending him is like defending Pol Pot.

giant24us

27th December 2003, 04:27

Milosevic is responsible for the brutle deaths of thousands of Muslims. he should be tried and sentenced to death- even tho that can't happen.

General A.A.Vlasov

30th December 2003, 06:56

Chairman Mao...I can't get the meaning of your post...

Urban Rubble...he was't a nazy-collaborator! You danm moron!...read more (RUSSIAN) books about him!

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr...stupid kid! Do not compare Pol Pot and Miloshevich! They are 2 different people!

giant24us...musulms are responsible for brutle deaths of thousands and thousands of Serbs! BUT I CAN'T SEE ANY musulm war criminal sitting in Gaague!

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

30th December 2003, 08:30

Milosevic the killer
now ain't that a thriller

He killed muslims and Serbs as well
Just as well
He's going to hell.

He sits now in The Hague,
protesting innocence, that's fake.
hope they toss him in a lake

When they pull the trigger
I'll say with a snigger
'the gun shoulda been bigger!'

death to dictators
those procrastinators
Just as well
they're going to hell.

Comrade Ceausescu

30th December 2003, 08:59

wow noxion,did you write that?I know a lot about hip hop,I assume that was an attempt at a "rap".And with all honesty I have to say its a disgrace to the artform.I would say the same if you were expressing pro-Milosevic ideas.On second thought I think I'd just say nothing then,since you would at least be exspressing revolutionary ideals,opposed to the reactionary ones you are exspressing now.I honestly give up on all the anti-Milosevic people here.Your mind will never be changed.What is sad to me is that you haven't read both sides of the story,and you ignore my continuous urgings to read certain books about Milsevic and Yugoslavia.So I give up.The topic of comrade Milosevic is exhaughested.Free Milosevic!Free Serbia!

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

30th December 2003, 09:46

Just a poem I made up on the spot. If I'd have spent more time on it I could have made it scan properly and given it proper structure. I never imagined putting it to music.
It may have been influencd by rap but I had a freeform structure in mind.

Just because he resists the US doesn't mean we have to kiss his ass.

I don't like Bush. I don't like Saddam. How can I like Milosevic?

Who was it who said the world would be a better place when the last tyrant was hung with the entrails of the last preacher?

Bolshevika

31st December 2003, 19:40

This is something interesting I heard on the news, a group of union strikers/Marxist coalition supported the overthrownment of Milosevic by the United States. However now they take this back and call for the resignation of the NATO puppets put in Milosevics place.

Doesn't this sound familiar to what has happened in Iraq? The Iraqi party cheers the overthrownment of Saddam Hussein, but there is a good chance that they will not be thrilled with the puppets put in its place?

Y2A

3rd January 2004, 04:52

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...erbia_elections

Milosevic Wins Serbian Parliament Seat
2 hours, 34 minutes ago

By DUSAN STOJANOVIC, Associated Press Writer

BELGRADE, Serbia-Montenegro - Jailed former President Slobodan Milosevic (news - web sites) and another U.N. war crimes suspect won seats in Serbia's parliament as an extreme nationalist party swept weekend elections, according to results released Monday.

Vojislav Seselj's Serbian Radical Party, which supported Milosevic's Balkan war campaigns in the 1990s, won 81 seats in Sunday's ballot for the 250-seat parliament — far more than the pro-Western groups that toppled Milosevic three years ago, the state electoral commission said.

Milosevic of the Serbian Socialist Party and Seselj are jailed by the U.N. tribunal at The Hague (news - web sites) on atrocity charges stemming from the wars in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo.

They topped their parties' lists in a parliamentary vote considered crucial for the still-volatile Balkans, meaning they each have a right to a seat. Milosevic's Socialists won 22 seats.

Milosevic and Seselj can't attend parliamentary sessions, but their parties can still decide to award them seats when the new parliament convenes in January.

"It would be symbolic for Milosevic to get a seat in the parliament," said his party deputy, Ivica Dacic. "We'll talk to Milosevic about it, and we'll see if he wants it."

The Radicals' deputy leader, Tomislav Nikolic, said he spoke on the phone with Seselj briefly Monday, but claimed the conversation was interrupted by prison authorities in The Hague.

"Vojislav Seselj has been placed in isolation because of the victory he and his party gained at the elections in Serbia," Nikolic said.

The tribunal slapped a 30-day gag order on Seselj and Milosevic during the elections, which Seselj managed to violate at least once when he addressed supporters by phone on the eve of the vote.

Murat Mercan, the head of the Europe Parliamentary Assembly observer team, Serbia sends a negative message to the world by including the war crimes suspects on candidate lists.

"While formally not in breach of the law, it shows a lack of political responsibility and is a reminder that a number of political parties in Serbia are still caught up in the denounced legacy of the past," Mercan said.

The Radicals' victory indicated strong public disillusionment with the pro-Western leadership that has ruled Serbia since it ousted Milosevic in a popular revolt 2000 and extradited him to The Hague a year later.

"The success of the Radicals is mainly due to failures of the outgoing government," said Vojislav Kostunica (news - web sites), the former Yugoslav president who succeeded Milosevic and whose conservative Democratic Party of Serbia finished second with 53 seats.

The pro-Western Democratic Party, a separate bloc which led the outgoing reformist government, was third with 37 seats, according to the near-complete results.

The Radicals on Monday offered to form a new government with Kostunica's party. His party, which in the past has rejected the idea of such a coalition, did not immediately respond to the overture.

The parties belonging to the Democratic bloc suggested they might join forces and try to form a government that would keep Serbia on track with democratic reforms and close ties with the West.

In Washington, U.S. officials commended Serbia for holding free and fair elections.

"We welcome Sunday's orderly elections in Serbia and commend the Serbian people for their participation in the democratic process," State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said in a statement.

The European Union (news - web sites) appealed for Serbia's pro-democratic parties to unite behind a new reformist government in response to the big gains by extreme nationalists.

"I appeal to all democratic forces to work together to ensure that a new government based on a clear and strong European reform agenda can be formed rapidly," said Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief.

The high level of support for the Radicals is a setback for the EU, which has sought to rebuild ties with Serbia since Milosevic's overthrow.

Although the Radicals did not garner a majority that would allow them to form a new Cabinet — even in a coalition with Milosevic's Socialist Party — they will be a tough opposition for any new government.

After campaigning on a platform of defiance to the West and accusing the post-Milosevic leadership of corruption, the Radicals have also focused on the devastated economy and from deep anti-West feelings generated by the NATO (news - web sites) bombing of Serbia for its crackdown in Kosovo in 1999.

Milosevic, who presided over four Balkan wars, has been on trial at The Hague since February 2002 on 66 counts of war crimes, including genocide. Seselj is accused of allowing paramilitary troops under his control to murder and torture non-Serbs during the Balkan wars.