So-called Great Man by

[elijahcraig]

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/04/63302.html

For any of those who call themselves "socialists" or "communists" while still supporting the opposition to those two things.

:ph34r:

[Don't Change Your Name]

?????

[Bolshevika]

Elijah, do not make the same mistakes as the Trotskyists.

I strongly disagree with Saddam ideologically, however, I disagree much more with George Bush ideologically. Didn't American imperialists bomb a base filled with innocent union members?

So really, who is the enemy of the Iraqi people, someone who set semi-progressive policies or George Bush who wants their oil and wants to have them slave labour making Nike shoes?

[elijahcraig]

Enemy of Iraqi people? US, Saddam, anyone else who collaborates with those two.

[Urban Rubble]

It amazes me how any person callin themselves a Socialist can support this piece of shit.

Let's see, he worked with the CIA and the American government, he had a program to exterminate Communists, he is an Imperialist, he gives approval for state sanctioned rape muder and torture, he gassed his own people with U.S made bombs, he suppressed any kind of dissent at all with the penalty of death. I could go on and on.

What is it you like about this man ? Oh yes, he was slightly less brutal than other mid east dictators and he was attack by the U.S, great reason to support him you fool.

Elijah, as many problems as we've had, Bolshevika's shit makes me look at you like an old war buddy.

[Urban Rubble]

Also, don't forget the law he made that says workers in the state enterprises can't form unions.

[Guest1]

bolshevika, you don't know what you're talking about.

true, the Ba'ath socialist party was once pretty progressive. In Iraq however, that ended when Saddam came to power. Watch the video of his takeover. Meeting of the revolutionary council in Iraq, Saddam stands up, and reads a list of names of people in the room. About a third of the party members, far left especially. Deadly silence as they walk out knowing their fate.

Hundreds were shot by firing squad that very day.

A coup, orchestrated by the US, to undermine the Socialist platform of the Ba'ath party. First thing Saddam did as the new leader, he broke ties with the Soviet union and established an alliance with the US. To avoid confusion and mix-ups between his "socialism" and the socialism of the Ba'ath party, he renamed it to the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party. Syria's Ba'ath party, while not much better, was still much more progressive and held some semblence of socialism. So they broke off relations with Iraq immediately, and led the attacks on Iraq in the first gulf war.

Get your facts straight, the CIA saw the advantage of speeding a Stalinist takeover of a socialist party, and decided to put their money behind it.'

Saddam is far worse than alot of leaders around today, just because his anti-union, anti-communist policies couldn't be forced on others, doesn't mean he's any better than GW. I stood against the war as you do, but anyone who attempts to support Saddam is no Socialist, and no comrade of mine.

[elijahcraig]

Get your facts straight, the CIA saw the advantage of speeding a Stalinist takeover of a socialist party, and decided to put their money behind it.'

It's not a "Stalinist" takeover.

The two things really are not related.

[Bolshevika]

true, the Ba'ath socialist party was once pretty progressive. In Iraq however, that ended when Saddam came to power. Watch the video of his takeover. Meeting of the revolutionary council in Iraq, Saddam stands up, and reads a list of names of people in the room. About a third of the party members, far left especially. Deadly silence as they walk out knowing their fate.

The Saddam's government was to the left of many autocracies in the Middle East. How about that scumbag monarch Saudi prince? The Saudi government is just as bad, or worse than the Taleban (remember we got bombarded by propaganda against the Taleban, funny we don't hear much about the Saudis).

Saddam was secular, unlike the other theocracies in the middle east and what Iraq will now become when the American pigs are finally thrown out. So let's see: pro-American fascist slave driving dictatorship, quasi-left-wing secular dictatorship, or theocracy?

You make the choice. On television they were interviewing Iraqis who, even now that Saddam is "beat" still support him fiercely.

You see things from an idealists prospective. You think some socialist workers government will grow out of the liberation of Iraq? Of course not. Saddam was progressive compared to others in that region, actually, the U.S. supported dictators in that region make Saddam look like a saint (except for maybe the Libyans who are somewhat progressive).


A coup, orchestrated by the US, to undermine the Socialist platform of the Ba'ath party. First thing Saddam did as the new leader, he broke ties with the Soviet union and established an alliance with the US. To avoid confusion and mix-ups between his "socialism" and the socialism of the Ba'ath party, he renamed it to the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party. Syria's Ba'ath party, while not much better, was still much more progressive and held some semblence of socialism. So they broke off relations with Iraq immediately, and led the attacks on Iraq in the first gulf war.

Actually the Ba'Ath parties in the mideast rallied behind Saddam when he was being taken out of power by Bush, I don't think they disliked him.

Saddam was intelligent in forging relations with the imperialists. He was in a tight situation during the Iran-Iraq war (which was fought in part to keep Iraq secular), it was either have Emperor Reagan solely support Iran, or get some weapons from the U.S. However, he did not hesitate to defend what was his during the Gulf war (Kuwaitis were stealing Iraqi oil) , even though the United States made it pretty clear that if Saddam didn't leave Kuwait he would face trouble. He may of been influenced by the United States during his war with Iran, but was no puppet.

Again I'm not defending him ideologically, I am simply saying that he is much better for Iraq than George W. Bush puppet capitalist or a theocracy.


Get your facts straight, the CIA saw the advantage of speeding a Stalinist takeover of a socialist party, and decided to put their money behind it.'

Please do not say you are serious. I suggest you refrain from saying I don't know about Saddam when you're going to make a statement like "sADDAM WAS A STLINIST!!1". Are you one of those misinformed people who actually believe this rubbish? It is almost amusing that you say this, because it is something Steve Malzberg or Sean Hannity would say.

Well, I guess you have somewhat of a point, Saddam killed lots of people and was a dictator, that is all "Stalinists" do
:rolleyes:

[Guest1]

perhaps the stalinist comparison was a little off the mark, he strived to be one.

saddam was fanatically obsessed with stalin's methods, the purging of the party to consolidate power is taken directly from stalin. the personality cult, the palace guard, the secret police, etc... etc...

but you're right, Saddam was not like Stalin, because even Stalinists aren't naive enough to think he was in any way leftist.

when it comes to the ba'ath parties, none supported Saddam except for the Iraqi one, as far as I know. if not, then I know absolutely without a shadow of a doubt, the only other ruling Ba'ath party stood against him. Syria was very pissed at Saddam and his purging of communists. The syrian government may not have been completely friendly to communists, but they run a coalition government with them and keep them as long as they behave like everyone else. Saddam didn't even kill them for speaking out, he killed them for being communists.

saddam may have been a little secular, but once again fell out with the main ally of the Iraqi Ba'ath party, Syria, when he abandoned the Ba'ath party's traditional secularism, passing laws for alcohol and the like, adding islamic phrases to the flag and going out of his way to keep shi'ites from freely practicing their religion. Saddam kept 90% of iraq in absolute poverty because they weren't sunnis. sound like secular socialism to you?

as for me, I was born in the middle east, I have family in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Comparing on regime to another is what keeps the middle east from getting better. My father ran a revolutionary cell with hundreds under his command for an underground movement supporting the Ba'ath party when they were taking power in syrai. back when he was 18. so I know of what I speak.

[Urban Rubble]

The Saddam's government was to the left of many autocracies in the Middle East. How about that scumbag monarch Saudi prince? The Saudi government is just as bad, or worse than the Taleban (remember we got bombarded by propaganda against the Taleban, funny we don't hear much about the Saudis).

So because these other leaders were scumbags that makes Saddam more favorable ? No leader should be commended for not being as bad as the other people around him.


You make the choice. On television they were interviewing Iraqis who, even now that Saddam is "beat" still support him fiercely.

And we all know if a few people support him then he must be O.K. Forget those state sanctioned rapes murders and tortures, Ahmed from down the street still likes him. You don't think people supported Hitler ?


You see things from an idealists prospective.

I know, wishing for a country to be rid of Arab sadists and American Imperialists is so fucking idealistic.


Saddam was progressive compared to others in that region, actually, the U.S. supported dictators in that region make Saddam look like a saint (except for maybe the Libyans who are somewhat progressive).

Why do you keep repeating yourself ? This is the second time you've said it in the post and I've seen it in at least 5 others. Just because there are other assholes leading neighboring regions does not excuse the crimes he committed. There were alot of sick bastards in power in South America when Pinochet was in Chile, so was he also O.K ?


Actually the Ba'Ath parties in the mideast rallied behind Saddam when he was being taken out of power by Bush, I don't think they disliked him.

Yes, the smart ones did. The realized that when he came back to power he would slaughter anyone who supported his ousting. Which he did.


Saddam was intelligent in forging relations with the imperialists.

You would never say that about any other person who worked with the U.S government. Unless of course the U.S attacked them, then their crimes are forgotten.


He was in a tight situation during the Iran-Iraq war (which was fought in part to keep Iraq secular), it was either have Emperor Reagan solely support Iran, or get some weapons from the U.S.

Do you really think that if Saddam hadn't bought chemical weapons from the U.S to massacre Iranians then the U.S would have soley supported Iran ? That is nonsense.


Again I'm not defending him ideologically

You are completely defending him.

[Bolshevika]

saddam was fanatically obsessed with stalin's methods, the purging of the party to consolidate power is taken directly from stalin. the personality cult, the palace guard, the secret police, etc... etc...

I see your misconception of Stalin's ideas. Stalin did not want the personality cult, party members and the Russian workers did. They felt he was a "father figure", like Saddam. Why? Because he was. He gave Soviet peoples a life they had never seen in their history, looked after the Soviet peoples, and put them before everything.

I suggest you read a book on Stalin by people who have seen it with their own eyes. Forgot the author, I believe it's Anna Louis Strong.

Che Guevara (someone you seem to like) executed fellow guerrillas he felt were a threat to the movement, does Saddam admire Che? Does that make Saddam a "Guevaraist"? No. It is called politics, in which the ends justify the means. This is a realistic approach to government, in an age of imperialism, humans can be treacherous and sell out their comrades to the imperialists. It is the only way to fight corruption and infiltration (a common tactic employed by imperialists).

However, if you compare the policies of real Stalin supporters, like Hoxha and Che, you see Hoxha and Che compared to Saddam are night and day. Saddam was in fact selfish on some occasions, whilst Stalin and Hoxha and Che put the people over everything.


when it comes to the ba'ath parties, none supported Saddam except for the Iraqi one, as far as I know. if not, then I know absolutely without a shadow of a doubt, the only other ruling Ba'ath party stood against him. Syria was very pissed at Saddam and his purging of communists. The syrian government may not have been completely friendly to communists, but they run a coalition government with them and keep them as long as they behave like everyone else. Saddam didn't even kill them for speaking out, he killed them for being communists.

Asad is simply a rival of Saddam, but Bush recently 'warned' Assad about helping out former Iraqi Ba'Athists. However, the Lebanon Ba'Ath party were in support of Saddam, and many, many demonstrations in the Arab world and even in Russia had people holding portraits of Saddam.

I am not aware of Saddam killing them simply for being communists.


saddam may have been a little secular, but once again fell out with the main ally of the Iraqi Ba'ath party, Syria, when he abandoned the Ba'ath party's traditional secularism, passing laws for alcohol and the like, adding islamic phrases to the flag and going out of his way to keep shi'ites from freely practicing their religion. Saddam kept 90% of iraq in absolute poverty because they weren't sunnis. sound like secular socialism to you?

Well, the Syrian government supported Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, so of course Saddam opposed them.

Saddam didn't "keep" anyone in poverty, sanctions against Iraq did. This is not Saddam's fault, he has had little time to rebuild his nation, because everytime he rebuilds it, it gets destroyed again! Of course Iraq is poor, in fact, I know an aide worker who visited Iraq's poorest areas, and said it was extremely tragic, most people who were malnourished were children and many people had different kinds of cancer from uranium bombs the American's dropped in Gulf War 1. We musn't hold this against Saddam, we must hold this against the imperialists who constantly bomb and destroy the Iraqi cities and non-weaponry. Everytime the imperialists "accidently" bombed a food factory or something the Iraqi people need they would lie and say Saddam put weapons in them to "hide" them.

I don't think he really cared about whether you were a Sunni or Shi'ite. I mean, there were even Christians of high ranking in the Iraqi government. The only people who caused trouble are the Kurds, who are radical seperatists.

Urban Rubble


So because these other leaders were scumbags that makes Saddam more favorable ? No leader should be commended for not being as bad as the other people around him.

It certainly does. The other leaders in that region simply tell you the political climate and material conditions of the Middle East and what is the best we can hope for. Unfortunately, Saddam seems to be amongst the most progressive in the Middle East.



And we all know if a few people support him then he must be O.K. Forget those state sanctioned rapes murders and tortures, Ahmed from down the street still likes him. You don't think people supported Hitler ?

I bet you didn't even know about all this until George W. Bush wanted to declare war on them, but hey, I don't blame you.

I meant the majority of Iraqis support him in non-Kurdish/Shi-Ite areas. The reason for tension between Sunnies and the rest is not something Saddam is to blame about, it is a problem that has been going on for many years.



I know, wishing for a country to be rid of Arab sadists and American Imperialists is so fucking idealistic.

If you scientifically analyze Iraq's situation, you will see that it is. However, I don't think you have bothered?


You would never say that about any other person who worked with the U.S government. Unless of course the U.S attacked them, then their crimes are forgotten.

As a communist, I hold solidarity with all victims of imperialism.



Do you really think that if Saddam hadn't bought chemical weapons from the U.S to massacre Iranians then the U.S would have soley supported Iran ? That is nonsense.

I don't get this question.

And finally, I do not support him ideologically. I am simply defending him against Bush lies.

[Guest1]

This is a realistic approach to government, in an age of imperialism, humans can be treacherous and sell out their comrades to the imperialists. It is the only way to fight corruption and infiltration (a common tactic employed by imperialists).

I already explained, it was not to defend the revolution, it was to defeat it. Saddam was hired by the CIA, he was the one infiltrating the revolution. To succeed in taking over the party, he had to clear it not of infiltrators, but anyone who supported the revolution. He massacred the Socialists in the party, and took control of the country with the backing of the US.

You're blind.


Asad is simply a rival of Saddam, but Bush recently 'warned' Assad about helping out former Iraqi Ba'Athists. However, the Lebanon Ba'Ath party were in support of Saddam, and many, many demonstrations in the Arab world and even in Russia had people holding portraits of Saddam.

Assad is not simply a rival of Saddam, Bashar Al Assad stood against this war on Iraq, as did every Ba'ath party, but they have always stood against Saddam. Hafez Al Assad, who was ruling Syria during the first gulf war, supported Iran and Kuwait because he saw an American infiltrator, paid by the CIA, come to power in Iraq and defeat the Socialist revolution there. He then saw this infiltrator, traitor, get paid to attack Iran.


I am not aware of Saddam killing them simply for being communists.

That's cause you know nothing about Iraq's history, which you might learn a bit of had you read the article.


saddam may have been a little secular, but once again fell out with the main ally of the Iraqi Ba'ath party, Syria, when he abandoned the Ba'ath party's traditional secularism, passing laws for alcohol and the like, adding islamic phrases to the flag and going out of his way to keep shi'ites from freely practicing their religion. Saddam kept 90% of iraq in absolute poverty because they weren't sunnis. sound like secular socialism to you?

Well, the Syrian government supported Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, so of course Saddam opposed them.

You completely ignored my response! I was trying to tell you that secularism is a reason to support the Ba'ath party, but Saddam completely got rid of everything that Ba'ath stood for. Including secularism. I was just saying that Syria didn't support him because of that.


Saddam didn't "keep" anyone in poverty, sanctions against Iraq did. This is not Saddam's fault, he has had little time to rebuild his nation, because everytime he rebuilds it, it gets destroyed again! Of course Iraq is poor, in fact, I know an aide worker who visited Iraq's poorest areas, and said it was extremely tragic, most people who were malnourished were children and many people had different kinds of cancer from uranium bombs the American's dropped in Gulf War 1. We musn't hold this against Saddam, we must hold this against the imperialists who constantly bomb and destroy the Iraqi cities and non-weaponry. Everytime the imperialists "accidently" bombed a food factory or something the Iraqi people need they would lie and say Saddam put weapons in them to "hide" them.

I don't support the US, or the sanctions, which definitely hurt Iraq quite a bit, but my family in Iraq was Sunni, and I can tell you Saddam kept people in poverty to make sure the Sunnis who he surrounded himself with were rich and happy. We must hold this against all the imperialists, you're right, which is why Saddam should earn nothing but scorn from you, along with Bush.


I don't think he really cared about whether you were a Sunni or Shi'ite. I mean, there were even Christians of high ranking in the Iraqi government. The only people who caused trouble are the Kurds, who are radical seperatists.

He did, Christians were generally treated with the same preference as Sunnis. And of course the only people who caused trouble were the kurds, the leading Kurdish Worker's Party was Communist. Then again, it was justified to slaughter them, right Bolshevika? The Shi'ites weren't allowed to build mosques, were completely discriminated against, open your fucking eyes.


It certainly does. The other leaders in that region simply tell you the political climate and material conditions of the Middle East and what is the best we can hope for. Unfortunately, Saddam seems to be amongst the most progressive in the Middle East.

Saddam was not fucking progressive. I agree the middle east is not the most open place on earth, but even a right-wing monarchy like Jordan is more progressive. Saddam's regime is as bad, with a much lower standard of living, more executions and more robbing of the people.


I meant the majority of Iraqis support him in non-Kurdish/Shi-Ite areas. The reason for tension between Sunnies and the rest is not something Saddam is to blame about, it is a problem that has been going on for many years.

That's funny, the majority of people supported him except for the 90% who aren't Sunnis. It started before Saddam, but he institutionalized it to his advantage.



I know, wishing for a country to be rid of Arab sadists and American Imperialists is so fucking idealistic.

If you scientifically analyze Iraq's situation, you will see that it is. However, I don't think you have bothered?

you're so entrenched in the western mindset. "arabs aren't ready for democracy, they're still stuck in the tribal bloodshed". they said that after the Lebanese civil war. Lebanon is slowly working its way away from the racial bloodshed that outside interference caused. Lebanon is slowly working its way away from tyrannical rule. Scientifically analyze... fucking hell, such a cold phrase. It almost makes you forget that we're talking about deaths here.

You know nothing about Iraq, you're still in a dream world where Saddam is some sort of saviour. The problem is, Arabs don't agree. You're just another white westerner speaking for us Arabs, telling us you know what's good for us, and what's the better of two evils. We're past that now, we don't need your fucking better of two evils. We know neither is good for us, and we're gonna create our own alternative.

That's why the resistance goes on. Colonialism is dead.

[Bolshevika]

I already explained, it was not to defend the revolution, it was to defeat it. Saddam was hired by the CIA, he was the one infiltrating the revolution. To succeed in taking over the party, he had to clear it not of infiltrators, but anyone who supported the revolution. He massacred the Socialists in the party, and took control of the country with the backing of the US.

Ok, I'll give you this. There is no way to prove this or debunk it. I do not think Saddam was hired by the CIA, he may have been supported by them and carried out hits for them, but as certainly not their puppet.



Assad is not simply a rival of Saddam, Bashar Al Assad stood against this war on Iraq, as did every Ba'ath party, but they have always stood against Saddam. Hafez Al Assad, who was ruling Syria during the first gulf war, supported Iran and Kuwait because he saw an American infiltrator, paid by the CIA, come to power in Iraq and defeat the Socialist revolution there. He then saw this infiltrator, traitor, get paid to attack Iran.

I have the same opinion of Assad as Saddam, but he is just as "bad" as Saddam, and neither was socialist.

The Iran-Iraq war had little to do with the United States (they simply armed both sides in the middle of the war). The war was started by a border dispute and Assad launching a coup against Saddam. In fact if anything, it is the Syrian government that is a traitor, Syria is one of the only Middle Eastern countries the United States has full trade with.

The reason Syria recently has been hesitant in supporting their brothers in Iraq is because it would jeopardize ties with the imperialists. Here is a quote by Assad: "Saddam Hussein is now taking his rightful place alongside Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Ceausescu [hehe, I hope CheGuevara717 sees this about Ceausescu] in the pantheon of failed, brutal dictators."

They are all opportunists, that's why they don't support Saddam.



You completely ignored my response! I was trying to tell you that secularism is a reason to support the Ba'ath party, but Saddam completely got rid of everything that Ba'ath stood for. Including secularism. I was just saying that Syria didn't support him because of that.

Syria didn't and doesn't support Saddam, well, just look at the paragraph above.



I don't support the US, or the sanctions, which definitely hurt Iraq quite a bit, but my family in Iraq was Sunni, and I can tell you Saddam kept people in poverty to make sure the Sunnis who he surrounded himself with were rich and happy. We must hold this against all the imperialists, you're right, which is why Saddam should earn nothing but scorn from you, along with Bush.


One of the members I met at an anti-war protest last year was a journalist during the late 1980's in Iraq and said Iraq was a regular Middle Eastern city. That Saddam's cruelty is horribly exagerrated and Saddam has been betrayed by plenty of opportunists even when keeping his nation sovereign against the imperialists.

I keep saying this but you do not listen, I am not a Saddam fan, I am simply saying he was the best for Iraq because he brought stability to Iraq. Now, instead of skirmishes with the Kurds and Sunnis, we will see an all out civil war.

Also, Saddam did a lot of good for the Arab world. He has strong support in places like Sri Lanka and Palestine for helping the people there. That is where all the support from him in Iraq and pro-Saddam independence fighters come from. Some believe they owe Saddam there lives for building schools and lives.


He did, Christians were generally treated with the same preference as Sunnis. And of course the only people who caused trouble were the kurds, the leading Kurdish Worker's Party was Communist. Then again, it was justified to slaughter them, right Bolshevika? The Shi'ites weren't allowed to build mosques, were completely discriminated against, open your fucking eyes.

The seperatists that tried to break away from Saddam were not mainly communists, they were religious or racists.

Saddam was a religious idiot, yes, but he didn't go around executing people like other Islamic leaders, he didn't force women to wear a certain type of clothing, and gave women more freedom than most Arab nations. Now again, remember, I am being realistic and speaking of things that are possible in Iraq and taking the most progressive stance on the subject. The chances of a new Iraqi leader being secular are very small. And if he is secular, he will be some oil company executive like Karzai.

Let's make a bet here. I bet that the communist party will never have much power in Iraq, you bet that they have a 'chance'. Do you really believe anyone but some religious zealot worse than Saddam or a capitalist pro-imperialist oligarch will hold power in Iraq? Do you even think the "elections" (if there are any) will be valid? I do not .


Saddam was not fucking progressive. I agree the middle east is not the most open place on earth, but even a right-wing monarchy like Jordan is more progressive. Saddam's regime is as bad, with a much lower standard of living, more executions and more robbing of the people.

The Jordanian king executes homosexuals on a regular basis, Saddam did not.

During the 90's Iraq did have a poor standard of living, but that is because they were being starved by the aggressors.

You also haven't taken into consideration that Iraq hasn't really had a period to build itself. They haven't gone more than a few years without a war or bombing raids. Even during the mid-90's Bill Clinton was bombing Iraq.



you're so entrenched in the western mindset. "arabs aren't ready for democracy, they're still stuck in the tribal bloodshed". they said that after the Lebanese civil war. Lebanon is slowly working its way away from the racial bloodshed that outside interference caused. Lebanon is slowly working its way away from tyrannical rule. Scientifically analyze... fucking hell, such a cold phrase. It almost makes you forget that we're talking about deaths here.

The western mindset is "thE IRAQI PEOPLE LOVE THE LIBERATORS! YAY FOR BUSH", not what I feel. And I think a bourgeois parliamentary system would not work in Iraq and would be overthrown within five years of its existence.

I understand about the suffering of the Iraqi peoples, but this is not Saddam's fault as much as it is the blockades and wars' fault, wars that Saddam did not provoke, but simply retaliated in.

The reason I scientifically analyze the political climate in Iraq is because I am a realist and a dialectical materialist, not a sentimentalist (although I am extremely sentimentalistic, as are all communists, I also use my brain as much as my heart) and have come to the conclusion that Saddam was the best that could happen to Iraq. Even though he was brutal to some degree, his brutality is exagerrated by Bush, just like in North Korea and Cuba Bush exaggerrates. Bush's war has failed so he resorts to "Saddam was evil and we had to fight for justice and freedom".

Bush has killed more Iraqi civilians at a much faster rate than Saddam. Imagine if Bush was in power for as much time as Saddam has been? Well, we would've had 3 nuclear holocausts by now.



You know nothing about Iraq, you're still in a dream world where Saddam is some sort of saviour. The problem is, Arabs don't agree. You're just another white westerner speaking for us Arabs, telling us you know what's good for us, and what's the better of two evils. We're past that now, we don't need your fucking better of two evils. We know neither is good for us, and we're gonna create our own alternative.

Yes, and what the hell is this alternative? Parliamentary bourgeois democracy? I'd like to know and see if it would work in Iraq, because right now, it's pretty hopeless and it's making Saddam look good. The people of Iraq may be happy Saddam is gone now, but they do not know what awaits them: a future of wage slavery and exploitation of their resources.

[Urban Rubble]

Whatever, I give up. This will be my last post on the subject. Go ahead and support a man who openly murdered communists. Funny how the only response you have to that is "I haven't heard about it". I cannot believe you can call yourself a Socialist yet show solidarity with a man who worked with the CIA and killed communists. Those 2 things right there are reason to despise this man.


You say you support all victims of Imperialism. So let me give you a hypothetical situation. Say there was a fascist dictatorship in Africa. Now, this country had all the horrible charecteristics of Fascism, people were suffering. Say the U.S wanted their land and decided to invade and take it, would you support this (imaginary) fascist dictator ? After all, he would be a "victim of Imperialism".

I can't understand how you ignore someone's crimes simply because he was a victim of Imperialism.

[Guest1]

urban rubble, I think I'm gonna give up too now :P

ok, syria does not have full trade with the US, dumbass. I go there every summer pretty much, Pepsi and Coke are banned and they make their own. Products from the US are mostly not allowed except for specialty products such as computers and computer parts.

and even if you had been right about that (which you aren't), it would definitely, under no circumstances, be the only country in the middle east with it.

what about Israel? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? UAE? Jordan? Lebanon? Kuwait?

it's actually one of the few that doesn't

As for Assad, I'm not saying he is, or his father was in the end, a Socialist. But the revolution in Syria was distinctly Socialist. It may no longer be Socialist, but it failed through the usuall failures of strong-armed Socialism, the developement of a party elite that give up on Socialism. The revolution just faded away. Rather than Saddam's way, where the revolution was drowned in blood. Syria never went out and slaughtered everyone who still believes in the revolution. Believe me, there are alot of those, enough that it doesn't matter what Assad's personal view on Saddam is, the party hates him.

Assad (the father) is no angel, he slaughtered 20 000 in the 70's in his own "war on terror". If you wanted to defend that, it would be debatable. This slaughter is not. These were not 20 000 rebel fundamentalist muslims. these were thousands of communists.

great defense of the revolution there.

[Bolshevika]

ok, syria does not have full trade with the US, dumbass. I go there every summer pretty much, Pepsi and Coke are banned and they make their own. Products from the US are mostly not allowed except for specialty products such as computers and computer parts.

Actually, yes Syria does have full trade with the United States, and your Assad is giving Bush a political blowjob in regards to "the war on terror" and all other imperialist actions:
"He [Assad] also went out of his way to be as agreeable as he could with our basic assumptions about fighting terrorism and the importance of working together,"
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/arch...2/15/2003079674 (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2003/12/15/2003079674)

Here are some slightly old figures that I assume are still in place (from 2001) http://www.intracen.org/tradstat/sitc3-3d/ir760.htm

If you're going to insult me, atleast know what you are talking about. Simply because some soft drinks are banned in Syria doesn't mean anything, because the U.S. companies heavily "invest" in Syrian resource exploitation and economy.



what about Israel? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? UAE? Jordan? Lebanon? Kuwait?

Yes, I meant amongst the few. All those nations you listed are oil rich (with a few exceptions), and Israel I do not consider a real Arab nation. Syria does have open trade with the United States.

The rest of what you wrote is simply repeating what you have said already. I believe you have a bias against Saddam because you have been to Syria and have listened to Syrian government anti-Saddam publications.

Urban Rubble

I was definetly confused on who to support when speaking of the Taleban, because they were really abusive, however Saddam is different.

The United States attacked a defenseless, sovereign nation that did nothing, for its resources. This is atrocious. The reason I have solidarity with people that have been victimized by the imperialists because it could be anyone. Imperialists target any ideology, even capitalist ones at times, in the name of monetary gain, so I believe we must fight this on all fronts, especially if the leader they are ousting is progressive, or even more progressive than not.

We've heard the lies about Chavez, about Fidel, and Saddam is no different. The imperialists constantly exagerrate or misrepresent events to excuse their arbitrary invasions. It is a tactic to convince the masses they are going in to "help" people.

How would you feel if you had a socialist government and the United States invaded it for no reason?

[cubist]

personally its all fucking wrong and its our job to change it,

[Urban Rubble]

I was definetly confused on who to support when speaking of the Taleban, because they were really abusive, however Saddam is different.

Ahhhh, there it is. There is your problem. You think you have to "pick a side". Why ? Why can't you realize that both sides are fucked up and wash your hands of the whole thing ? That is not usually a good way to go about things, but in this case it is necessary. One evil fascist attacking another. The people we should be supporting is the Iraqi people, not their old murderous dictator and not their new one.



The United States attacked a defenseless, sovereign nation that did nothing, for its resources

You say you realize the evil things Saddam did, yet you still say Iraq "did nothing" ? Again I ask, what about working with the CIA, killing communists and state sanctioned rapes tortures and murder ? Or is this all "Western propaganda" ?


The reason I have solidarity with people that have been victimized by the imperialists because it could be anyone.

I have solidarity with the Iraqi people too, just not with their sadist dictator. Do you not understand these people were victims of Saddam before the U.S came in ?


Imperialists target any ideology, even capitalist ones at times, in the name of monetary gain

Which brings me to another point : Saddam is a Capitalist. Correct me if I am wrong, but are Capitalists the enemy of Socialists ?


We've heard the lies about Chavez, about Fidel, and Saddam is no different

So now he is on the same level as Castro ? You're insane. I've told you before, I understand Saddam's crimes have been exageratted, but they still happened on some level. Do you actually believe the hundreds of thousands of defectors and the thousands of people who have seen his crimes first hand are lying ? Crimes like this cannot just be made up and accepted by the entire world, they can be exagerated.


How would you feel if you had a socialist government and the United States invaded it for no reason?

Are you serious with this shit ? So now Iraq is Socialist ? You know that I would be outraged if the U.S attacked a Socialist nation, just like I am outraged when they attacked Capitalist Iraq. I am not saying the attacks are not an outrage, just that the leader of the country they attacked is a sadist nutjob.

This is exactly what I've been saying, by posting this hypothetical situation you have proven one thing: That any government which the United States attacks gets your support regardless of if the man in power is horrible. You only support Saddam because he was attacked by the U.S and you fucking know it.

[redstar2000]

You say you support all victims of Imperialism. So let me give you a hypothetical situation. Say there was a fascist dictatorship in Africa. Now, this country had all the horrible characteristics of Fascism, people were suffering. Say the U.S wanted their land and decided to invade and take it, would you support this (imaginary) fascist dictator ? After all, he would be a "victim of Imperialism".

An interesting scenario and an obvious parallel to Iraq,

Let's make it even more interesting...

Suppose, to the shock of a stunned world, the "African fascist" inflicted a humiliating defeat on the American invaders? Filled their beaches with dead Marines, sunk several warships, shot down more than 100 planes, etc.? A military catastrophe for U.S. imperialism!

What happens then?

Confusion and dismay in the camp of the imperialists? Outrage from Congress? Talk of impeachment? Sarcastic editorials in the Wall Street Journal? A sudden wave of unemployment for many Washington, DC "pundits"? Shocking shifts in public opinion polls? Noam Chomsky for Congress?

Historically, whenever the U.S. overthrows a "bad guy", the replacement is usually worse. Not always, of course, but nearly so.

As I understand it, the American quisling "government" in Iraq is headed by a convicted felon (something to do with money, I would guess). It seems that Bush & Company want something there that "looks like" a western parliamentary system on paper but that will, in fact, be "reliably servile" to U.S. interests--possibly quite like the regime imposed on Cuba after the Spanish-American War. Military occupation will continue "indefinitely" into the future. There is already some speculation that the new Iraqi "government" will be compelled to sign a "peace treaty" and "trade agreement" with Israel.

This is the context in which struggle will take place within Iraq and among Iraqis...a simmering "civil war" of many sides.

Thus, the odious local tyrant is history...but what of the post-Hussein era? I don't think Iraq is going to be a very pleasant place to live.

And the global tyrant is stronger than ever. Is there anyone that takes "comfort" in that?

Why?

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]

Thus, the odious local tyrant is history...but what of the post-Hussein era? I don't think Iraq is going to be a very pleasant place to live.

And the global tyrant is stronger than ever. Is there anyone that takes "comfort" in that?

This is the whole point I am trying to make. Saddam was horrible, the war was a disgrace, but I don't see why some people cannot realize that everything is not so black and white. Bush is evil, we all know that, but Saddam was as well. There is your proverbial "grey area". Of course we don't want Iraq ruled by U.S interests, but that should not mean that we want Iraq ruled by a sadistic dictator. I would think a Socialist would hope for a third solution.

[Bolshevika]

Urban Rubble : What do you propose for a third solution? I'd like to hear it, and please make it something plausible. I think Redstar may agree with me that a communist revolution in Iraq is impossible.

[elijahcraig]

For a Socialist, REVOLUTION should be the ONLY solution.

[redstar2000]

Upon further reflection, I wonder if what will actually happen is the de facto partition of Iraq...a Kurdish north, Sunni center, and Shia south.

The situation would seem to lend itself to fundamentalist warlord-ism...and as long as those guys were willing to "respect American interests", who cares about the "territorial integrity" of "Iraq"?

Historically, "Iraq" is a fiction anyway--something dreamed up by British and French imperialists after World War I.

If one fiction is replaced by another, who would care?

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

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

[Guest1]

something wrong here... I agree with elijah :blink:

:)

as for bolshevika, I believe my contacts with ministers in the syrian government gives me a little bit more insight into syria's positions and economic relations. but since you don't believe me, I'll give you the picture below.

[Guest1]

now somehow the word "embargo" doesn't enter into my definition of "full trade".

but anyways, I'm not defending Assad, I'm only telling you you're wrong here.

What I don't understand is why you think we have to support one or the other. There is a third way and it is socialism, whether you like it or not, the communist party in Iraq is quite popular. fight for the revolution, even if it looks bleak. why would you stand with one or the other between two fascists just because you think communism is unlikely to happen in Iraq?

in fact, if you get discouraged so easily because of the improbability of communism any time soon, why the fuck are you a communist?

[Bolshevika]

Listen Che y Marijuana, the debate is tired out and we just keep saying the same things (U.S. has embargoes on Afghanistan?)

I don't get "discouraged" easily, I just don't dream up bullshit and pretend that its going to happen. I am a Marxist, a scientist, and scientifically speaking it would be impossible for a genuine communist revolution to break out in Iraq.

Thinking there will be a communist revolution in Iraq is sheer idealism

[Urban Rubble]

Thinking there will be a communist revolution in Iraq is sheer idealism

Thinking it's impossible is defeatism.

I am not saying that a Socialist revolution in Iraq is likely, it, of course, is not. All I am saying is that sometimes you don't have to "pick a side". I don't understand why you feel that you must choose one or the other, you do not have to. Even if a Socialist revolution is unlikely, even impossible, you don't have to support one sadist over the other. I don't understand why you feel the need to be so black and white.


I am a Marxist, a scientist, and scientifically speaking it would be impossible for a genuine communist revolution to break out in Iraq.

That is the same kind of bullshit many Mexican "Marxists" said to Fidel and Che when they proposed a revolution in Cuba. They had a "force" of 18 men and a shitty boat. They ended up overthrowing a semi powerful regime that was very close with the U.S. Do you think that was seen as possible ?

Surely even you can admit that the climate for revolution is far more appealing in Iraq presently than it was in Cuba in the 50's. Can you not ? If not, can you at least admit that the Cuban revolution was every bit as unlikely as one in Iraq ?

Understand, I don't think a revolution in Iraq has a chance right now. But, in a few years when the occupation has died down a bit, what is wrong with hoping for a revolution ? Idealist ? Of course, everything about Marxism is idealistic. We are idealists by nature if we are Marxists.

[Bolshevika]

Thinking it's impossible is defeatism.

Thinking it is possible is failing to analyze Iraq's political climate


I am not saying that a Socialist revolution in Iraq is likely, it, of course, is not. All I am saying is that sometimes you don't have to "pick a side". I don't understand why you feel that you must choose one or the other, you do not have to. Even if a Socialist revolution is unlikely, even impossible, you don't have to support one sadist over the other. I don't understand why you feel the need to be so black and white.

Actually, in certain conflicts, when there are only two sides, it is black and white. If you are realistic this particular situation is black and white.



That is the same kind of bullshit many Mexican "Marxists" said to Fidel and Che when they proposed a revolution in Cuba. They had a "force" of 18 men and a shitty boat. They ended up overthrowing a semi powerful regime that was very close with the U.S. Do you think that was seen as possible ?

Um, the 26th of July movement didn't really begin to be authentically Marxist-Leninist until a few years after the end of the revolution. Authentic communists were in fact minorities in the guerrilla group.


Surely even you can admit that the climate for revolution is far more appealing in Iraq presently than it was in Cuba in the 50's. Can you not ? If not, can you at least admit that the Cuban revolution was every bit as unlikely as one in Iraq ?

Not in a million years!

Every country in Latin America is fertile for revolution, extremely fertile actually, because they are exploited by neo-liberal capitalists in the most evident way. Iraq is not, for cultural reasons and religious turmoil, fertile for revolution at all. Not now, not until all the contradictions that prevent a workers revolution are done away with, and the Americans will not do away with them because they are only interested in Iraq's natural resources.

Saddam did many things for his people that the capitalists will not do. This is why I support him over the imperialists.



Understand, I don't think a revolution in Iraq has a chance right now. But, in a few years when the occupation has died down a bit, what is wrong with hoping for a revolution ? Idealist ? Of course, everything about Marxism is idealistic. We are idealists by nature if we are Marxists.

This is just wrong. The western media promotes this bullshit constantly. Marxists are not idealists, in fact Marxists are the exact anti-thesis of idealism.

What is wrong with hoping for revolution in Iraq? You are only helping the imperialists, because they laugh at your idea of a revolution. Even President Bush probably realizes a communist revolution in Iraq is impossible.

The military occupation may "die down" but the economic and cultural imperialism will not!

[Guest1]

re:embargo: obviously that policy hasn't been updated since the fall of afghanistan or iraq.

materialists we are, but we are fighting for an ideal, thus we are idealists.

whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is up to you.


Iraq is not, for cultural reasons and religious turmoil, fertile for revolution at all. Not now, not until all the contradictions that prevent a workers revolution are done away with, and the Americans will not do away with them because they are only interested in Iraq's natural resources.

jesus man, for someone who touts marx, you really seem to be misguided about marxism. I seem to recall that the ruling class brings revolution upon itself, by it own greed.

the more arrogant they get, the more the workers will wake up. considering there's already chaos, and communist party membership is through the roof, I would say now is a good time to organize in iraq, which is what they are doing. see, unlike you, communists in iraq aren't wasting their time waiting for the revolution, sitting on their pretty asses saying it's a waste of time to work for an alternative. no, they know it'll take a long time, but they're working hard.

People like you are called armchair socialists, a cancer of apathy and cynicism that infects the movement.

[Urban Rubble]

Thinking it is possible is failing to analyze Iraq's political climate

Again, analyze Cuba's political climate in the 50's.


Actually, in certain conflicts, when there are only two sides, it is black and white. If you are realistic this particular situation is black and white.

It is not to the point where you have to choose one or the other. Not choosing one or the other in this situation is not going to affect it at all.


Um, the 26th of July movement didn't really begin to be authentically Marxist-Leninist until a few years after the end of the revolution. Authentic communists were in fact minorities in the guerrilla group.

Um, that isn't the point. The point is, many Mexican Marxists were recruited to join them on the Granma, most of them laughed at the idea of a revolution in Cuba. It has nothing to do with whether the revolution was Marxist or not. The point is that many people who had analyzed the situation thought revolution to be an impossibility.


Every country in Latin America is fertile for revolution, extremely fertile actually, because they are exploited by neo-liberal capitalists in the most evident way.

You see, if you are going to make a blanket statement like this, you have to have some facts to back it up. Explain how every country in Latin America is more fertile than another. Explain how Latin America is more exploited by Capitalism than say.... Asia.


Not now, not until all the contradictions that prevent a workers revolution are done away with, and the Americans will not do away with them because they are only interested in Iraq's natural resources.

What contradictions would these be ? Again, you have to have some facts to back things up. I know what your answer would probably be, but still, if you are saying things like that you should back them up.


Saddam did many things for his people that the capitalists will not do. This is why I support him over the imperialists.

I agree. He overtly used torture murder and rape as a political tactic. Not even the most Capitalistic Western nations would be so stupid. He also gassed his own people. Again, no western Capitalist nation would be that stupid. What did Saddam do to help his people the Capitalists won't ?


This is just wrong. The western media promotes this bullshit constantly. Marxists are not idealists, in fact Marxists are the exact anti-thesis of idealism.

WHAT ??? Are you serious ? You don't think that hoping for a Socialist society in the world at this point is Idealistic ? Everything about being a Marxist in this day and age in idealistic. Explain how it isn't. Is it likely that Marxism will spread throughout the world right now ? No. So hoping for that is idealistic.


What is wrong with hoping for revolution in Iraq? You are only helping the imperialists, because they laugh at your idea of a revolution. Even President Bush probably realizes a communist revolution in Iraq is impossible.

Explain to me in detail how me hoping for a Socialist revolution in Iraq is helping the Imperialists. I would love to hear it. I am aiding them in no way whatsoever.


The military occupation may "die down" but the economic and cultural imperialism will not!

Much like that cultural and economic Imperialism that gripped Cuba in the 50's ? These things can be overcome, defeatism will only hinder us. What happened to being a radical ? It amazes me that someone calling themself a Marxist would accept a "lesser evil". Do I need to list some quotes of Lenin critisizing this kind of attitude ?

[redstar2000]

Part of the problem in this discussion is that even an "a-political" Iraqi has far greater knowledge of what the real material situation is there than any of us do.

Thus, almost anything we say about the possibilities there "hangs in the air"...with little or no roots in understanding the concrete possibilities.

We did have one Iraqi here for a while--"Republican Guard"--and it might be instructive to go back and look up his posts. He was from a family that supported Hussein...and, for all we know, might be active in the resistance to the occupation right now.

I think it is something of "an armchair exercise" to discuss "who we would support if we were in Iraq or if we were Iraqis". We don't know enough to make sense of the situation.

There are apparently two "communist parties" in Iraq; one of them is actively collaborating with the occupation and the other, presumably, is involved in some form of resistance activity.

I suppose the latter would appeal to us the most...if, in fact, they amount to anything of substance at all.

But who knows?

Now that the supporters of Hussein--and does anyone deny that they were/are a significant proportion of the Iraqi population?--have lost their "symbolic leader", how will they evolve politically? Will they "move to the left"? Will they just disintegrate, leaving the field to competing versions of Islamic fundamentalism?

Is it possible that completely new political forces could emerge there? What material base would they represent? What class?

I read something yesterday about foreign correspondents stationed in Iraq that is relevant here: the piece said that they are all dependent on local people for their "expertise"...they hire a cabdriver or even just someone who speaks some European language and hangs out at the big hotels to give them "guidance" and "local color"...otherwise, they'd be as ignorant as we are.

They have, of course, no way to verify what their "guides" tell them...but they still have more to go on than any of us do. (Exception: if there's a member of the board fluent in Arabic who has spent time in Iraq in recent months...that would be different.)

Marxists are supposed to be "scientific"...not "idealist". What we can speak of scientifically--because we know it "inside and out"--is the nature and probable behavior of U.S. imperialism.

But I don't think we can usefully speak about what form the Iraqi resistance is likely to take in the future...or what our attitude towards it "should" be. And if we do go ahead and speak about it anyway, we should be honest with ourselves and admit that we are speculating.

There's nothing wrong with "informed" speculation...but it's not something to "draw a line in the sand" over, either. :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

[Bolshevika]

People like you are called armchair socialists, a cancer of apathy and cynicism that infects the movement.

Ouch Che y Marijuana, ouch. I think I will go pray to Stalin and contemplate on how to destroy socialism now .


It is not to the point where you have to choose one or the other. Not choosing one or the other in this situation is not going to affect it at all.

Actually, in the long run, it will. Depending on what faceoffs the imperialists have with sovereign nations will determine the future of socialism.

The more we support anti-imperialist fronts, the weaker imperialism gets.

Saddam is important because he is a progressive leader, who strikes me as somewhat humanitarian at times (doesn't necessarily make him one, but he seems to be more interested in helping his people than Bush does in helping the American people). Che Y marijuana can disagree, that's great. I have no real backround on his family, thus there can be a bias there. Al Jazeera gives a fair analysis on Saddam's Iraq.

Libya, which I also consider extremely progressive, has been targetted by George W. Bush in one of his masterpiece speeches. It shows you that the current of imperialism will be hard to stop and we must unite with all semi/real progressive forces to stop it. This case, socialists need any ally we can get, and Saddam is definetly a potential ally. I doubt he hates communists that much if he says he admires Karl Marx and Stalin (he said so on some old interview that aired last night). He is anti-fascist in the sense that he has called Mussolini and Hitler terrorists like Bush.


Um, that isn't the point. The point is, many Mexican Marxists were recruited to join them on the Granma, most of them laughed at the idea of a revolution in Cuba. It has nothing to do with whether the revolution was Marxist or not. The point is that many people who had analyzed the situation thought revolution to be an impossibility.

There is definetly a chance for revolution in Iraq, just not a communist one. Probably a religious one like in other middle Eastern countries. I assume you are 'hoping' for a Marxist revolution in Iraq.


You see, if you are going to make a blanket statement like this, you have to have some facts to back it up. Explain how every country in Latin America is more fertile than another. Explain how Latin America is more exploited by Capitalism than say.... Asia.

Some parts of Asia are extremely fertile for Peoples Revolutions, especially Nepal, where the communist party is in charge of a vast majority of the nation.

My targets for socialist revolution are Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America; here in these places is where the workers are the most oppressed from my experiences with peoples of these nationalities. You wouldn't know how easy it is to spark consciousness and revolutionary ideas amongst some of these people.

For example, last year in Argentina the bastardly capitalist Menem government decided to raise the price on train tickets and privitize certain public institutions. Usually it is working class people who have little money that take these trains and use these public institutions. Well, let me tell you what, when a few workers went in and saw the inflations of prices that used to be so much lower, they were outraged! Next thing you know, the train station was in flames! It was the most beautiful site I've ever seen.

Currently Latin America houses the largest revolutionary communist group, and countless other smaller groups. The peoples of Latin America who are educated, are all revolutionary. Usually the educated revolutionaries reach out to the rural people, or indigenous oppressed people, and immediatly win over support. The continent is going further and further left every day, and people are starting to wake up and realize the dreams of San Martin and Bolivar and Che and stand up to the imperialist oligarchs. First it was the Spaniards, now it's the Americans!

I won't say that capitalism is more exploitive in Latin America, however, I will say that the levels of workers consciousness is much higher than many other areas of the world. A tiny spark can set off a massive revolution, however unfortunately American socialists do not devote enough attention to setting that spark off. I believe we should build American socialist bases in Latin America.



I agree. He overtly used torture murder and rape as a political tactic. Not even the most Capitalistic Western nations would be so stupid. He also gassed his own people. Again, no western Capitalist nation would be that stupid. What did Saddam do to help his people the Capitalists won't ?

Do you really believe these lies? Sounds like a George W. Bush speech to me.

I agree that his soldiers raped many women, which is definetly wrong and shows the lack of discipline in the Iraqi army, however it was not used as a "political tactic".

And this utter bullshit about him gassing a random group of people is just silly. The Kurds are seperatists, who hate Saddam and all Sunnis, they tried to break away from Iraq, and Saddam surpressed it. I certainly disagree with the use of chemical weapons to surpress this, because many innocent people will get caught in the crossfire.

The Western capitalist countries have never done this? Ever hear about the atomic bombs dropped on Japan? Ever hear about American soldiers raping Korean women on the DMZ? Or the thousands of civilians needlessly killed by the United States army during Viet Nam?

capitalist apologist.


Explain to me in detail how me hoping for a Socialist revolution in Iraq is helping the Imperialists. I would love to hear it. I am aiding them in no way whatsoever.

Repeating the misrepresentation of facts, propaganda, and downright lies the bourgeois imperialists have to say about Saddam's Iraq justify the imperialist invasion of Iraq.



Much like that cultural and economic Imperialism that gripped Cuba in the 50's ? These things can be overcome, defeatism will only hinder us. What happened to being a radical ? It amazes me that someone calling themself a Marxist would accept a "lesser evil". Do I need to list some quotes of Lenin critisizing this kind of attitude ?

Again, the Cuban revolution was not Marxist at first, and the imperialists thought it would be a bourgeois revolution that would allow them to rape Cuba even more.

Marx agreed with working with "enemy of my enemy" in times of desperation. And guess what, this is a time of desperation!

[Guest1]

it is not a time of desperation at all actually.

there is an active resistance in Iraq at this moment, the majority of which as not made up of pro-saddam forcves, despite what the americans tell you. so why does it matter if we stand against saddam?

as for my family background, my entire family in the middle east, except for my father's side, are capitalist bastards who I loathe speaking to. the ones from Iraq are Sunnis who were very supportive of Saddam, once in a while I would get them to concede the country was shit outside of the rich Sunni areas of Baghdad, but they generally spoke as if Baghdad was Iraq, and Sunnis were all there was. Now they can't stop talking about a Shi'ite invasion and take over, they never had to deal with openly Shi'ite muslims, so they act as if they weren't there before.

the Sunnis, my family are all Sunnis, are the bourgeoisie of Iraq. They are upper class white america, complete with a president that pampered them.

redstar, I'm fluent in Arabic, but I haven't ever been to Iraq. I can admit I am speculating here. but I am not arrogant enough to say that I know Saddam is good enough for Iraqis that he should come back.

and urban, I think maybe the thing about capitalists not using it as a political tool is much. there have been a few. Israel does it all the time too. but, it doesn't make it ok for Saddam to do it.

[Urban Rubble]

The more we support anti-imperialist fronts, the weaker imperialism gets.

Yes, you're right, but I don't see Saddam as anti-Imperialst. Saddam is anti-American, which is great, but the man is also an Imperialist. Remember Kuwait ? And save the rhetoric about how it was "Iraq's land". That is the same bullshit Israel uses to oppress Palestine.


Saddam is important because he is a progressive leader, who strikes me as somewhat humanitarian at times (doesn't necessarily make him one, but he seems to be more interested in helping his people than Bush does in helping the American people).

You have literally made me shake my head in disbelief. I cannot believe you would say Hussein is at all humanitarian. The fact that he has used chemical weapons proves that to be un-true. Now, is he more humanitarian that Bush ? Possibly, but that is debateable and not really important.


Some parts of Asia are extremely fertile for Peoples Revolutions, especially Nepal, where the communist party is in charge of a vast majority of the nation.

My question was: How is Latin Ameica more oppressed by Capitalism ? You said it was. You did not answer, you typed a few paragraphs but I didn't see an answer. Just because Latin America is more revolutionary does not explain how they are more exploited by Capitalism.


I won't say that capitalism is more exploitive in Latin America,

You already did.


I agree that his soldiers raped many women, which is definetly wrong and shows the lack of discipline in the Iraqi army, however it was not used as a "political tactic".

I am not talking about his soldiers. I am talking about his secret police detaining political dissedents and filming them being raped. Are you aware that he used to film this shit and then send the tapes to the families as a way of silencing them ? That is a political tactic. This is not "propaganda". This is proven fact. Do you actually think the thousands and thousands of defectors who have exposed this kind of thing are all lying ?


And this utter bullshit about him gassing a random group of people is just silly. The Kurds are seperatists, who hate Saddam and all Sunnis, they tried to break away from Iraq, and Saddam surpressed it. I certainly disagree with the use of chemical weapons to surpress this, because many innocent people will get caught in the crossfire.

I didn't say a "random group of people". I said his own people, read a little closer. Yes, the Kurds were seperatists, but do you actually think killing these seperatists is O.K ? Please don't dodge this question, I really want to know, the answer will speak volumes about you. Just because people are rebelling is not a reason to murder them, especially in such a brutal fashion as chemical weapons. Regardless of innocent people being around, gas should never be used in warfare.

In a civilised world, people would not be murdered for rebelling against a government. The fact that you think it is O.K is insanity.


The Western capitalist countries have never done this? Ever hear about the atomic bombs dropped on Japan? Ever hear about American soldiers raping Korean women on the DMZ? Or the thousands of civilians needlessly killed by the United States army during Viet Nam?

Again kid, read my posts more carefully. I never said that Western countries don't do these things, I know they do. What I said is, they would not be stupid enough to do it to their own people in their own country. Don't patronize me by saying I don't know about Western nations attrocities, I do. I am simply saying that they aren't stupid enough to do it so overtly as Saddam did.


capitalist apologist.

You're such a hypocrite. You critisize me for using ad hominem yet you call me a "capitalist apologist". Once again, I am not saying Capitalist nations aren't as brutal as Hussein, I am saying that they don't do this shit to their own people.


Repeating the misrepresentation of facts, propaganda, and downright lies the bourgeois imperialists have to say about Saddam's Iraq justify the imperialist invasion of Iraq.

Listen kid, you can only take that "Western propaganda" line so far. Explain to me exactly how this volume of evidence can be simply "made up". Thousands upon thousands of defectors telling their stories about Hussein's brutality. Tons and tons of Iraqi secret police files that have detailed descriptions of rapes, tortures and murders. Mass grave sites all over Iraq. Torture rooms discovered all over Iraq. Videos of rapes and tortures sent to families of victims. Do you actually believe the U.S government fabricated all of this evidence ? Seriously, do you ? Explain exactly how you can write off this mountain of evidence as "propaganda".


Again, the Cuban revolution was not Marxist at first, and the imperialists thought it would be a bourgeois revolution that would allow them to rape Cuba even more.

Are you kidding me ? That sentence had nothing to do with what I said at all ? Are you drunk ?

I said that Mexican Marxists turned down the offer to join the revolution. These men did not know it was a Marxist revolution (although, they did know that some of the revolutionaries were Marxists) but they did know it was not a bourgeoise revolution. They didn't go because they thought it was impossibl, much like you are saying revolution in Iraq is impossible.

[elijahcraig]

Is there anybody else here who just loves being called an idealist by fourteen yr. olds who have no idea what they are talking about?

Because I fucking love it.

[Urban Rubble]

Ageist bastard !

Counter revolutionary !

Capitalist Apologist !

[Guest1]

lol, seriously, I never thought I'd see the day when me, elijah and urban would all agree on something :)