War on Iraq [Archive]

Bolshevika

14th January 2004, 02:42

popular Islamic tyranny

Where is the proof of this? Yes, during the 90's Saddam proclaimed himself a Muslim and took steps towards making himself look like a good muslim, but this in no way affected laws placed on Iraq. The reason Saddam did this was to prevent Iran-style Islamic theocrats from revolting in Iraq, Saddam even fought a war with Iran to stop Islamic theocracy to spread into the middle east.

So really, there is no truth to this. Saddam was truly progressive in regards to the general Iraqi population compared to others in the Middle East and especially compared to what King George II has in store for the Iraqi people.

J. guevara: You are suffering from neo-con/tory bastard propagandists who have influenced young leftists. Do not believe their lies J, George W. Bush is far more of a butcher than Saddam. This is a tactic he uses to justify this illegal war. He is attempting to do the same with Chavez in Venezuela and Cuba, he does the democracy sing and dance and claims to be "liberating" someone (liberating the army of rich pro-capitalist clique Americans that is).

Anyone here that was a leftist during the 80's will tell you that the United States wasn't very interested in the "Freedom" in Iraq.

Saddam isn't perfect, but he is a much greater man than Bush will ever be. Saddam worked his way to power through degrading activities and many years of working up from a dirt poor family, unlike Bush who got into power because his daddy bribed schools and his brother rigged the elections.

El Brujo

14th January 2004, 03:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 10:29 AM
I am opposed to capitalism and imperialism and all the common rhetoric that flows through this board, but i have to admit that I think if as a side effect of the war Saddam Hussein and his regime is destroyed I must support the war. I recognize that Iraq is in no way being "liberated" but how can I oppose the destruction of a tyrant.
So basically, you are supporting the imperialist tyrant over the nationalist "tyrant." I am aware that Saddam wasn't the best leader in the world, but Iraq as well as the international community were much better off with him as the leader than some US-backed puppet who will make the country another addition to the neo-conservative world empire. Please educate yourself on matters with alternative sources and not the mainstrem (Fox News, CNN, etc.). Ill recomend you the following:

http://www.lalkar.org/
http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml
http://english.aljazeera.net
http://www.gnn.tv
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.iraqwar.ru/

Y2A

14th January 2004, 03:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 03:42 AM
Where is the proof of this? Yes, during the 90's Saddam proclaimed himself a Muslim and took steps towards making himself look like a good muslim, but this in no way affected laws placed on Iraq. The reason Saddam did this was to prevent Iran-style Islamic theocrats from revolting in Iraq, Saddam even fought a war with Iran to stop Islamic theocracy to spread into the middle east.

So really, there is no truth to this. Saddam was truly progressive in regards to the general Iraqi population compared to others in the Middle East and especially compared to what King George II has in store for the Iraqi people.
Wait a second, so you support Saddam's progressive attitude towards government and fighting of Islamic theocracy from Iran and the shi'ites, but think the support brought by the U.S, France, Germany, etc... brought to him during the 80's was wrong?

revolutionindia

14th January 2004, 03:49

What about all the innocent iraqis killed bush liberated
their souls
from their bodies i guess

ComradeRed

14th January 2004, 04:21

it's the classic dilemma of old oppression or new oppression. im against all wars, period. think about it, every war had one cause in common: money, someone is always after money.

Comrade Ceausescu

14th January 2004, 04:43

Oh, j.guevara,you cannot be a communist and support the war in Iraq.Its madness.

Hawker

14th January 2004, 05:29

Originally posted by MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr+Jan 14 2004, 03:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr @ Jan 14 2004, 03:32 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 11:14 PM

Comrade [email protected] 14 2004, 02:44 AM
Sigh.This war was about oil and money.Not "freedom".Anyway,Saddam was the most progressive ruler in the Middle East.
Yes but he was a tyrannt and a despot.
Better a tyrant and a despot who treats everyone relatively fairly then a popular Islamic tyranny. [/b]
True,it's better to live under a dictatorship than under a theocracy

Y2A

14th January 2004, 06:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 05:21 AM
it's the classic dilemma of old oppression or new oppression. im against all wars, period. think about it, every war had one cause in common: money, someone is always after money.
What??? Pacifist thinking is ignorant at best. Of course all wars have something to do with the interests of nations but sometimes it is neccessary. So we should have just let Hitler slaughter the jews because you are to self-centered and believe it is admirable not to fight because there were some people that were eventually going to profit from it? That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. I could understand if you said that the majority of wars are unneccssary and can be avoided but this pacifist thinking makes no logical sense.

Y2A

14th January 2004, 06:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 06:29 AM
True,it's better to live under a dictatorship than under a theocracy
Is this not the "lesser of two evils" thinking that the vast majority of communist are against? And is this not hypocritical due to the fact that many communist claim that aid from the U.S to the Ba'athist reguime during this period was wrong even though you yourself are saying that living under Saddam is better then living under a Taliban-like theocracy?

Comrade Ceausescu

14th January 2004, 06:26

What??? Pacifist thinking is ignorant at best. Of course all wars have something to do with the interests of nations but sometimes it is neccessary. So we should have just let Hitler slaughter the jews because you are to self-centered and believe it is admirable not to fight because there were some people that were eventually going to profit from it? That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. I could understand if you said that the majority of wars are unneccssary and can be avoided but this pacifist thinking makes no logical sense.

I was about to say the same thing.That is a ridculous statement.I am against war in most cases,but I am not a pacifist.

redstar2000

14th January 2004, 09:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 09:29 PM
I am opposed to capitalism and imperialism and all the common rhetoric that flows through this board, but I have to admit that I think if as a side effect of the war Saddam Hussein and his regime is destroyed I must support the war. I recognize that Iraq is in no way being "liberated" but how can I oppose the destruction of a tyrant?
This post sounds like it was written in January of 2003.

In any event, you got your wish. The war was fought, the tryant was overthrown and captured by the aggressors, and Iraq is presently the latest--and rather restive--province of the American Empire.

Happy?

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

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

Invader Zim

14th January 2004, 09:48

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 14 2004, 10:25 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (redstar2000 @ Jan 14 2004, 10:25 AM)
[email protected] 13 2004, 09:29 PM
I am opposed to capitalism and imperialism and all the common rhetoric that flows through this board, but I have to admit that I think if as a side effect of the war Saddam Hussein and his regime is destroyed I must support the war. I recognize that Iraq is in no way being "liberated" but how can I oppose the destruction of a tyrant?
This post sounds like it was written in January of 2003.

In any event, you got your wish. The war was fought, the tryant was overthrown and captured by the aggressors, and Iraq is presently the latest--and rather restive--province of the American Empire.

Happy?

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

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas [/b]
Hmm, I doubt that many right minded people support the occupation of Iraq, with the exception of Neo cons from web sites such as protest warrior and conservativex.

You obviously fail to distinguish between the war and the occupation, they are different.

LSD

14th January 2004, 11:03

You obviously fail to distinguish between the war and the occupation, they are different.

It isn't as much of a distinction as you might think

The war had to lead to an occupation, and the US was quite open in that they planned to occupy it

Well before the war, anyone could have told you that the US was going to stay in Iraq for a while....

So really, anyone who supported the war, supported the occupation.

j.guevara

14th January 2004, 16:56

everyone who called me out, (which i hoped you would do , cause i felt strange that the Iraq thing wasnt pissing me off like i felt it should) i have never claimed to be a communist, i understand Bush is a tyrant, I have not been brainwashed by Fox news, and i still think that 'id rather be under the tyrnny of Bush than Saddam Hussein. And maybe there is a better chance for a popular revolt if Bush and his puppets rule the country.

j.guevara

14th January 2004, 16:58

I find it interesting that the people who seem to really take offence to my statement and seem to put a nice spin on Saddam's despotism have Lenin and Stalin pics under their names. If you love dictators your words mean nothing to me.

The Feral Underclass

14th January 2004, 17:18

j.guevara

as a side effect of the war Saddam Hussein and his regime is destroyed

And now the US plutocracy control iraq. You can not support the war for this reason. The war was for imperialist gain and therefore should be opposed. It is irrelevant whether or not saddam was removed from power. This war was never about that. Yes saddam was a bad man, but so is tony blair and george bush, there is no point here. The war was a conquest of might and any war that aims to push this colonial agenda must be opposed. This is exactly what they want you to believe.

Comrade Ceausescu

Anyway,Saddam was the most progressive ruler in the Middle East.

What's your point?

Oh, j.guevara,you cannot be a communist and support the war in Iraq.Its madness.

And Ceausescu was I suppose?

Y2A

course all wars have something to do with the interests of nations but sometimes it is neccessary.

And what was so necessary about the Iraq war?

So we should have just let Hitler slaughter the jews because you are to self-centered and believe it is admirable not to fight because there were some people that were eventually going to profit from it?

Chruchill new about Auswitz and did nothing about it! The second world war was not about liberating europe, otherwise why did they sign over czechoslovakia. If the moral conviction was to stop Nazism why did they not go to the Poles help just as they promised? Why did the british break the arms embargo in 1936 by supplying hitler with battle ships. If the west felt it so necessary to stop hitler why did America only join when there interests had been threatened. The war was two years in when the US joined. This war was not about stopping nazism, the west were completely content to have hitler in europe, it was about securing interests in the world. Don't be so naive.

Invader Zim

14th January 2004, 17:47

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 14 2004, 12:03 PM

You obviously fail to distinguish between the war and the occupation, they are different.

It isn't as much of a distinction as you might think

The war had to lead to an occupation, and the US was quite open in that they planned to occupy it

Well before the war, anyone could have told you that the US was going to stay in Iraq for a while....

So really, anyone who supported the war, supported the occupation.
No correction the war had to do nothing, the war could have been a failure, the US could have actually set up a government which would have lead Iraq into a better future, which I belive it will, because anything is better than a fascist dictator, and those who seek to defend this man are like Nazi's who defend Hitler, ignorant and misguided.

Of course I have/had little faith in America to do what I personally wish with Iraq, but what I expect they will do is ghet out ASAP, as the longer they leave it the more they will get bogged down. I predict they will put a lame government in place that will collapse within a year, and the Iraqi people will have their own government.

Well before the war, anyone could have told you that the US was going to stay in Iraq for a while....

And? usually invading armies do, its called stabalisation of a country.

So really, anyone who supported the war, supported the occupation.

Foolish logic, because by the same token I could say anyone who didn't support the war supported Fascism.

Bugger off and think of something else.

Invader Zim

14th January 2004, 17:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 05:58 PM
I find it interesting that the people who seem to really take offence to my statement and seem to put a nice spin on Saddam's despotism have Lenin and Stalin pics under their names. If you love dictators your words mean nothing to me.
Trust me mate you have no idea, wait till the "big boys" start to enter this thread with their hypocritical rhetoric and misplaced morals.

Comrade Ceausescu

14th January 2004, 19:53

What's your point?

What my point is that if we are going by the 'Saddam was a tyrant' logic, then he would be one of the last countries we would go to war with in the Middle East because he was one of the most progressive. So that whole 'freedom from tyranny' dosen't work,else we would have wiped out the Saudi's years ago.

And Ceausescu was I suppose?
What are you trying to say?Stick to the topic or don't comment at all.

Y2A

14th January 2004, 20:23

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 14 2004, 06:18 PM
Y2A

course all wars have something to do with the interests of nations but sometimes it is neccessary.

And what was so necessary about the Iraq war?

So we should have just let Hitler slaughter the jews because you are to self-centered and believe it is admirable not to fight because there were some people that were eventually going to profit from it?

Chruchill new about Auswitz and did nothing about it! The second world war was not about liberating europe, otherwise why did they sign over czechoslovakia. If the moral conviction was to stop Nazism why did they not go to the Poles help just as they promised? Why did the british break the arms embargo in 1936 by supplying hitler with battle ships. If the west felt it so necessary to stop hitler why did America only join when there interests had been threatened. The war was two years in when the US joined. This war was not about stopping nazism, the west were completely content to have hitler in europe, it was about securing interests in the world. Don't be so naive.
I said nothing about the war in Iraq and pacifism, I talked about wars in general. And the fact that WW2 was not completely about liberating europe is besides the point. The point is that dispite the fact that it was probably more about the interests of the nations involved good things did come of it and you may find it hard to believe but some of the soldiers that fought in that war did not have American intersests in mind :o

Bolshevika

14th January 2004, 20:36

I too do not see how any leftist can support the unprovoked imperialist aggression against Iraq.

Invader Zim

14th January 2004, 21:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 09:36 PM
I too do not see how any leftist can support the unprovoked imperialist aggression against Iraq.
Define unprovoked. As in Saddam did nothing to the USA or Saddam killed loads of Kurds, Shi'a, communists, etc, but appart from commiting cimes against humanity as a whole, didn't do anything provoke attack?

Pete

14th January 2004, 21:14

Those things happened 15 years ago, and they were none about at the time and nothign was done. The excuse is poor, and time has made it irrelevant. They had the power to act then, but didn't.

LuZhiming

14th January 2004, 21:17

Saddam the most progressive leader in the Middle East? This is a joke. There are Sultans in the Middle East more progressive than Saddam's regime.(Such as Qaboos bin Said) I would even say Qaddaffi is more progressive than Saddam. Not to forget Lebanon and Qatar, which are much more progressive than Iraq. Give me a break.

Define unprovoked. As in Saddam did nothing to the USA or Saddam killed loads of Kurds, Shi'a, communists, etc, but appart from commiting cimes against humanity as a whole, didn't do anything provoke attack?

Are you really serious with this? Many of those Kurds were killed with U.S. weapons, and Communists were with U.S. support and hope. And let us not forget about the Kurds in Turkey, who were slaughtered with U.S. arms often for just identifying themselves as Kurds.

Bolshevika

14th January 2004, 21:19

Saddam killed loads of Kurds, Shi'a, communists, etc, but appart from commiting cimes against humanity as a whole, didn't do anything provoke attack?

There is not much logic behind the claim that the UK and USA actually care in the slightest about the human rights situation in Iraq.

George W. Bush has killed loads of Iraq and Afghan children, should someone invade America ? Of course not. So who the hell are Bush and Blair, who are in the trashcan as Bin Laden and other terrorists, to denounce someone for "human rights abuses", especially when right after they go and give the Saudi's a political bj?

Y2A

14th January 2004, 21:33

(Hawker @ Jan 14 2004, 06:29 AM)
True,it's better to live under a dictatorship than under a theocracy

Is this not the "lesser of two evils" thinking that the vast majority of communist are against? And is this not hypocritical due to the fact that many communist claim that aid from the U.S to the Ba'athist reguime during this period was wrong even though you yourself are saying that living under Saddam is better then living under a Taliban-like theocracy?

(Bolshevika @ Jan 14 2004, 03:42 AM)
Where is the proof of this? Yes, during the 90's Saddam proclaimed himself a Muslim and took steps towards making himself look like a good muslim, but this in no way affected laws placed on Iraq. The reason Saddam did this was to prevent Iran-style Islamic theocrats from revolting in Iraq, Saddam even fought a war with Iran to stop Islamic theocracy to spread into the middle east.

So really, there is no truth to this. Saddam was truly progressive in regards to the general Iraqi population compared to others in the Middle East and especially compared to what King George II has in store for the Iraqi people.

Wait a second, so you support Saddam's progressive attitude towards government and fighting of Islamic theocracy from Iran and the shi'ites, but think the support brought by the U.S, France, Germany, etc... brought to him during the 80's was wrong?

Respond to my posts please. You guys say that Iraq would have been better off with Hussien rather then an Islamic theocracy but at the same time are critizing the U.S for it's support to Hussien. Explain this reasoning.

Invader Zim

14th January 2004, 22:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 10:19 PM

Saddam killed loads of Kurds, Shi'a, communists, etc, but appart from commiting cimes against humanity as a whole, didn't do anything provoke attack?

There is not much logic behind the claim that the UK and USA actually care in the slightest about the human rights situation in Iraq.

George W. Bush has killed loads of Iraq and Afghan children, should someone invade America ? Of course not. So who the hell are Bush and Blair, who are in the trashcan as Bin Laden and other terrorists, to denounce someone for "human rights abuses", especially when right after they go and give the Saudi's a political bj?
yeah but you never asked if I liked the USA you asked how a leftist could support this war, and I answered you.

And this is not about George Bush or america, I know they are hypocritical, but if Hitler came back for a second go at wiping out the jews would you complain if the hypocritical americans kicked his ass?

Actually as your a Stalinist you dont have to answer that one...

Those things happened 15 years ago, and they were none about at the time and nothign was done. The excuse is poor, and time has made it irrelevant.

No pete they were happening right up until saddam was ousted, to let him remain a day longer is a crime in its self.

And whats this irrelevant crap? Tell me just because the holocaust happened 60 years ago thats irrelevant? Have you quite thought that comment through?

Invader Zim

14th January 2004, 22:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 10:17 PM

Define unprovoked. As in Saddam did nothing to the USA or Saddam killed loads of Kurds, Shi'a, communists, etc, but appart from commiting cimes against humanity as a whole, didn't do anything provoke attack?

Are you really serious with this? Many of those Kurds were killed with U.S. weapons, and Communists were with U.S. support and hope. And let us not forget about the Kurds in Turkey, who were slaughtered with U.S. arms often for just identifying themselves as Kurds.
Loads of jews were killed With british technology and American loans, does that mean that Nazi germany should have been imune from invasion?

So your logic is.

"saddam killed 100,000's, but thats OK because the yanks sold them the guns and gas, and to attack him would be hypocritical."

Great logic, I can see you guys go far. really. :rolleyes:

LuZhiming

14th January 2004, 22:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 11:17 PM
Loads of jews were killed With british technology and American loans, does that mean that Nazi germany should have been imune from invasion?

So your logic is.

"saddam killed 100,000's, but thats OK because the yanks sold them the guns and gas, and to attack him would be hypocritical."

Great logic, I can see you guys go far. really. :rolleyes:
Now you're twisting my words. I never said that makes what Saddam did ok, but it certainly refutes the idea of some sort of humanitarian intervention. And you seem to forget that Hitler actually was a threat, much unlike Saddam Hussein. There is little reason to believe Iraq will be better of under a U.S. puppet anyway. Yawn.

Comrade Ceausescu

14th January 2004, 22:34

Enigma how can you take yourself seriously?If we went around throwing out every person who has committed human rights abuses,then we'd be going to war with the world.Until we clean up our fucking act,why don't you shut the fuck up about other people's?I don't like this term,but its like the pot calling the kettle black.Quadaffi sucks by the way.He's a sellout.He couldn't manage his economy at all with all the sanctions,but Saddam could,and could have respectable education and women's rights.

LSD

14th January 2004, 22:46

Enigma:

No correction the war had to do nothing, the war could have been a failure, the US could have actually set up a government which would have lead Iraq into a better future, which I belive it will, because anything is better than a fascist dictator, and those who seek to defend this man are like Nazi's who defend Hitler, ignorant and misguided.

Of course I have/had little faith in America to do what I personally wish with Iraq, but what I expect they will do is ghet out ASAP, as the longer they leave it the more they will get bogged down. I predict they will put a lame government in place that will collapse within a year, and the Iraqi people will have their own government.

Fine, believe what you will.

But the point is you accepted before the war began, that the US would occupy Iraq.

Whether or not you think it is ultimately for the best, you must acknoweledge that by supporting the war, you supported the results which you knew were to occur.

And? usually invading armies do, its called stabalisation of a country.

Right, so you knew it would occur, it's what "usually invading armies do."

So you don't deny that you knew the US would occupy, thereby you de facto supported that occupation, regardless of if you believe that it will ultimately collapse into a better future, you support that occupation, it is "better than a fascist dictator."

Now, I'm not disagreeing with the premise per say, but to deny you support the occupation is hypocrytical.

Define unprovoked. As in Saddam did nothing to the USA or Saddam killed loads of Kurds, Shi'a, communists, etc, but appart from commiting cimes against humanity as a whole, didn't do anything provoke attack?

Look, here's the point. Saddam was an asshole, is an asshole, will probably always be an asshole, but there are much BIGGER assholes who have done a whole lot more, and commited many more crimes than him that are still out there commiting. Most of them are on the US payroll, just like Saddam used to be. So the war wasn't humanitarian.

Who bennefitted from the war?

Iraqis?
The people of Iraq went from Baathist fascism, to American fascism, and down the road they'll probably end up with religious fascism. so.....not them.

US?
The US gets a nice new sattelite, a geostrategic advantage, a whole shitload of natural resources (read: oil) and a campaign boost for Mr. Bush Jr.

Oh, and let's not forget that the war violates the spirit of international law and the fundamental contract of foreign relations, destabalizes the region, polarizes the world, scares the shit out of already unstable places like the DPRK, and just inspires more terrorism against everyone. In a word: bad.

The all-knowing Y2A:

Is this not the "lesser of two evils" thinking that the vast majority of communist are against? And is this not hypocritical due to the fact that many communist claim that aid from the U.S to the Ba'athist reguime during this period was wrong even though you yourself are saying that living under Saddam is better then living under a Taliban-like theocracy?

I can't speak for the "majority of communists" but the world is not black and white.

The fact that a religious theocracy is bad, does not mean that a fascist dictatorship is not.

Funding the regime in Iraq was wrong because of the actions of that regime, the fact that someone else was doing worse things is irrelevent.

redstar2000

14th January 2004, 23:28

You obviously fail to distinguish between the war and the occupation, they are different.

Looks about the same to me...except that the Iraqis seem to be fighting more effectively as a resistance than they did under Hussein.

It seems quite hypocritical for those who supported the war to balk at the occupation that followed.

What did you think was going to happen...a "love-in"? :lol:

...the US could have actually set up a government which would have led Iraq into a better future, which I believe it will...

You "believe" that U.S. imperialism will set up a "government" that will lead Iraq into a "better future".

If faith can "move mountains", then yours is sufficient to transfer the Himalayas to Arizona!

...it's called stabilisation of a country.

Nice euphemism. The real word is conquest.

Foolish logic, because by the same token, I could say anyone who didn't support the war supported Fascism.

Something you have said on many occasions...why are you being so "polite" now?

Conscience bothering you?

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

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

LuZhiming

14th January 2004, 23:34

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 14 2004, 11:34 PM
Quadaffi sucks by the way.He's a sellout.He couldn't manage his economy at all with all the sanctions,but Saddam could,and could have respectable education and women's rights.
Frankly, Iraq was one of the richest countries in the Middle East, Libya wasn't. And how exactly was Saddam's economy good anyway? It was about a third of Kuwait's. Not that I blame that on him, but I don't see your point here.

Hawker

15th January 2004, 00:05

Originally posted by Y2A+Jan 14 2004, 07:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Y2A @ Jan 14 2004, 07:19 AM)
[email protected] 14 2004, 06:29 AM
True,it's better to live under a dictatorship than under a theocracy
Is this not the "lesser of two evils" thinking that the vast majority of communist are against? And is this not hypocritical due to the fact that many communist claim that aid from the U.S to the Ba'athist reguime during this period was wrong even though you yourself are saying that living under Saddam is better then living under a Taliban-like theocracy? [/b]
True Saddam is like the Taliban but when your ruled under Saddam all you have to keep is your loyalty to live,to the Taliban you have to keep with tradition in order to live.So which is worst,be loyal always to a dictator or be forced to do things you don't want to.

Pete

15th January 2004, 00:12

No pete they were happening right up until saddam was ousted, to let him remain a day longer is a crime in its self.

And whats this irrelevant crap? Tell me just because the holocaust happened 60 years ago thats irrelevant? Have you quite thought that comment through?

I thought my comment through, I doubt that you thought about it though. These killings cannot be used by America or Britian to claim moral high ground or as justification for their invasion since it was British and American weapons and support that allowed them to occur. They are trying to claim this highground and justify their actions using it, which if you think about it, makes them look incredibly foolish. It was the American hand at play that allowed them to go on, and also allowed many Kurds to be killed in Turkey, yet the protest has come far to late. If they really wanted to do anything they should have acted 15 years ago. Also, if they wanted to over throw Saddam for these 'evil things' they could have done so just over a decade ago. But they didn't and allowed the atrocities to continue. Now they expect us to accept the arguement that Saddam is evil because he did these things therefor we, the supporters of this man at the time, should go and get rid of him is idioitic. Yes they happened, yes it is tragic, but it is just as tragic the way the Anglo-American alliance is using them for their own gains, when they did nothing at the time.

I thought I made that clear. Just because they use a 'change of course' doctrine to disassociate themselves form these events, does not give them immunity to blame or 'moral tarnish.' I would think you are intelligent enough to see that.

How many people died because of the blockade of water purifiers? Children of curable diseases? Come now, that is not Saddam. Yes he was a bastard, but America and Britian are not blame free.

The holocaust has nothing to do with this. Don't bring it up.

Alright, there is some frustration in this post. Take it as me hitting my head against the wall.

-Pete

Bolshevika

15th January 2004, 00:12

By the western bourgeois "philosophical" standards, Saddam is not a dictator, due to the fact that he had an election where people could vote: "Saddam: yes or no".

He did not steal the elections like Bush did, although there was a trick to it.

Comrade Ceausescu

15th January 2004, 02:13

Frankly, Iraq was one of the richest countries in the Middle East, Libya wasn't. And how exactly was Saddam's economy good anyway? It was about a third of Kuwait's. Not that I blame that on him, but I don't see your point here.

Iraq had a great economy for a country with all those sanctions against it.Duh Kuwait is gonna have a much better economy because they don't have tons of sanctions against them.

The Feral Underclass

15th January 2004, 06:08

Comrade Ceausescu

What my point is that if we are going by the 'Saddam was a tyrant' logic, then he would be one of the last countries we would go to war with in the Middle East because he was one of the most progressive. So that whole 'freedom from tyranny' dosen't work,else we would have wiped out the Saudi's years ago.

What a stupid point! So what you're saying is, if the US hadnt attacked Iraq for a oil etc they wouldn't have attacked to free iraq from saddam because saddam was apparently "progressive." :blink:

What are you trying to say?Stick to the topic or don't comment at all.

Unfortunatly this isn't stalinist russia or ceausescuist romania so I can say what I want where I want. The point I was making was with a name like yours you do not have a right to define communism. If anyone isnt a communist around here it's you.

Y2A

15th January 2004, 08:56

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 14 2004, 11:46 PM
The all-knowing Y2A:

Is this not the "lesser of two evils" thinking that the vast majority of communist are against? And is this not hypocritical due to the fact that many communist claim that aid from the U.S to the Ba'athist reguime during this period was wrong even though you yourself are saying that living under Saddam is better then living under a Taliban-like theocracy?

I can't speak for the "majority of communists" but the world is not black and white.

The fact that a religious theocracy is bad, does not mean that a fascist dictatorship is not.

Funding the regime in Iraq was wrong because of the actions of that regime, the fact that someone else was doing worse things is irrelevent.
Of course the world is not black and white, that is my whole point. I just find it remarkable that so many of you are actually saying that if Iran would have won the war and turned Iraq into a state run under sharia law it would have been even worse then it was under Iraq yet at the same time say the U.S is wrong for the actions it took. Lets face it, the options at the time were either side with Iraq or let Islamic fundamentalism take over the middle east and have everyone living under a taliban like reguime. The only problem is that you communist do not understand that and just try to find anything to blame the U.S on. I won't say I agree 100% with the foreign policy of the U.S but I do understand why support for Iraq was given at the time.

Invader Zim

15th January 2004, 11:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 12:28 AM

You obviously fail to distinguish between the war and the occupation, they are different.

Looks about the same to me...except that the Iraqis seem to be fighting more effectively as a resistance than they did under Hussein.

It seems quite hypocritical for those who supported the war to balk at the occupation that followed.

What did you think was going to happen...a "love-in"? :lol:

...the US could have actually set up a government which would have led Iraq into a better future, which I believe it will...

You "believe" that U.S. imperialism will set up a "government" that will lead Iraq into a "better future".

If faith can "move mountains", then yours is sufficient to transfer the Himalayas to Arizona!

...it's called stabilisation of a country.

Nice euphemism. The real word is conquest.

Foolish logic, because by the same token, I could say anyone who didn't support the war supported Fascism.

Something you have said on many occasions...why are you being so "polite" now?

Conscience bothering you?

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

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Looks about the same to me...except that the Iraqis seem to be fighting more effectively as a resistance than they did under Hussein.

Thankfuly what it looks like to "you" means nothing. The occupation is not the same as the invasion, and the US has a moral duty as the occping state to treat the Iraqi people with respect. (However considering the media attention on the war, I foolishly thought that perhaps the US would forfil its obligations, sadly It appears I was nieve.) In the war the US had no such obligation.

The US had a moral obligation IMO to remove Hussein, just as every nation with a trace of humanity did, the US has no long term "need" to remain in Iraq, another differance.

I could go on at length to explain the differances between the war and the occupation, but I'm sure you get the idea.

It seems quite hypocritical for those who supported the war to balk at the occupation that followed.

Actually no its not hypocritical, simply because the war was to remove a fascist dictator, the occupation has no such use. One can support the destruction of fascism but dislike what that entails. Rather like if you have canser and have kemotherapy to treat it, but that doesnt mean you have to like having your hair fall out.

What did you think was going to happen...a "love-in"?

I thought that the USA would invade wipe out Saddam, build a pipeline for oil, and then leave, having removed a fascist dictator who's human cost would be far greater than the war. I did not expect the US to stick around as long as they are, perhaps that was a little short sighted.

You "believe" that U.S. imperialism will set up a "government" that will lead Iraq into a "better future".

Try actually quoting my entire sentance as you missed out the relevant bit, and with out that relevant bit, you create a misleading impression of what I said.

Nice euphemism. The real word is conquest.

Actually no occupation is not the same as conquest, conquest is the actual action of taking a country and incorporating it into your own, the USA has and will not do that with Iraq.

Something you have said on many occasions... why are you being so "polite" now?

I only insult those who insult me, as of yet people have failed to come out with that sort of material, and until they do I will not soil this thread with petty squabbles. But of course I can not speak for others... Redstar.

:redstar2000:

Bolshevika

15th January 2004, 13:20

Anarchist Tension: Ceausescu was far more a non-revisionist man of the people than many others.

Enigma: Explain to me how in the world a supposed 'leftist' defends US imperialism? Are you a neo-con? Not to offend, but I think saying the U.S. invaded Iraq out of good will and nothing else is downright silly. The reason the Americans and British don't leave is because if they do, then the guerrilla movement will easily take power, since most Iraqi military men don't want to serve as US puppets. The Americans and British don't want the Iraqi people to have power, they want their own mouthpieces in there, like in Afghanistan where they installed the former president of an American oil company, Karzai I believe his name is. Funny how we hear little to nothing about the supposed elections they were going to have in 2003.

Maybe you will learn the true meaning of fascism when Bush's merceneries leave the country. Can you say...Shah?

j.guevara

15th January 2004, 14:46

how can you argue that Iraq had a good economy when the people lived in shit and saddam lived like a king. if i follow that logic then America has a great economy and the wealth distribution of the globe is great, hey im a right winger now!

The Feral Underclass

15th January 2004, 15:04

Y2A

And the fact that WW2 was not completely about liberating europe is besides the point.

It is precisly the point.

The point is that dispite the fact that it was probably more about the interests of the nations involved good things did come of it

You can not support a war because a consequence of it may be a good thing. The war in iraq was never about getting rid of saddam hussein the war was for geo-political and economic control of the region. It was the US implimenting its imperialist agenda and therefore should be opposed. You can not merit war based on the fact that there might be some "good" that comes of it. If a war is wrong a war is wrong.

The Feral Underclass

15th January 2004, 15:05

Bolshevika

Anarchist Tension: Ceausescu was far more a non-revisionist man of the people than many others.

It dosnt make him a communist though.

Bolshevika

15th January 2004, 15:10

It dosnt make him a communist though.

If you mean there wasn't Communism in Rumania, then you are right. However, Ceausescu was a Marxist in my opinion.

Invader Zim

15th January 2004, 16:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 02:20 PM
Anarchist Tension: Ceausescu was far more a non-revisionist man of the people than many others.

Enigma: Explain to me how in the world a supposed 'leftist' defends US imperialism? Are you a neo-con? Not to offend, but I think saying the U.S. invaded Iraq out of good will and nothing else is downright silly. The reason the Americans and British don't leave is because if they do, then the guerrilla movement will easily take power, since most Iraqi military men don't want to serve as US puppets. The Americans and British don't want the Iraqi people to have power, they want their own mouthpieces in there, like in Afghanistan where they installed the former president of an American oil company, Karzai I believe his name is. Funny how we hear little to nothing about the supposed elections they were going to have in 2003.

Maybe you will learn the true meaning of fascism when Bush's merceneries leave the country. Can you say...Shah?
Explain to me how in the world a supposed 'leftist' defends US imperialism?

Explain to me how in the world a supposed "leftist" refuses to support the removal of a fascist who has killed 100,000 if not millions of his own people?

I think that answers your question.

Are you a neo-con?

Are you a state capitalist, not to offend of course. :rolleyes:

but I think saying the U.S. invaded Iraq out of good will and nothing else is downright silly.

Yeah so do I but as I never said that, it dont mean a lot.

The reason the Americans and British don't leave is because if they do, then the guerrilla movement will easily take power,

Well the solution is obvious then. Remove the cause for their stay, then take power when they are gone.

since most Iraqi military men don't want to serve as US puppets.

Yeah the Guerrilla army is a concoction of former Saddam followers, foriegn Islamic fighters on a Jihad, and a minority of those who actually dont like the occupation. Or at least from what I read, which may be a little circumspect, of course, but I doubt it.

The Americans and British don't want the Iraqi people to have power, they want their own mouthpieces in there, like in Afghanistan where they installed the former president of an American oil company, Karzai I believe his name is.

probably, but still infinatly better than a fascist dictator who has killed 100,000 if not millions of his own people.

You just dont get it do you, the US are not going to place a worse dictator than Saddam, that is unless they find a way to ressurect Hitler or Stalin. ;)

Maybe you will learn the true meaning of fascism when Bush's merceneries leave the country.

To find the true meaning of fascism all one has to do is look at Stalins Russia.

Bolshevika

15th January 2004, 17:35

Explain to me how in the world a supposed "leftist" refuses to support the removal of a fascist who has killed 100,000 if not millions of his own people?

Would it be better if he killed infinite numbers of people that weren't his? I'm sorry, but this "Saddam killed everyone!" talk is evidently something George W. Bush tries to use in justification of an illegal and immoral war. It is taken out of context and exagerrated.

Many thousands died under Saddam (although most of them were not innocent). I suppose when you say he "killed his own people", you mean the Kurdish seperatists? Here is the context of that situation: Kurdish seperatists attempted to break away from Iraq, Saddam surpressed the revolt. The ways he surpressed it are questionable I agree, but still he did what any other leader would've done.

What did the USA do when the South tried to break away? Declare a war that killed thousands, if not millions of innocent people. If you want to talk about "killing your own people" how about the place in Waco Texas where Feds firebombed a house full of mostly innocent people?

Are you a state capitalist, not to offend of course.

What features do I have of a state capitalist? I do not believe in a profit system, I believe in unions, my goal is the emancipation of the working people, and I believe in socialism.

You on the other hand support zionist aggressors in Middle East, support USA and UK imperialism, believe the lies against Saddam, and seem to be generally anti-communist. This is only an observation, not an accusation.

Well the solution is obvious then. Remove the cause for their stay, then take power when they are gone.

Do you really think they're going to spend billions of dollars fighting a war to just leave it and make it an autonomous country? I don't,USA and UK merceneries may physically leave the country, but you can assure Washington will be pulling all the strings in Iraq.

Yeah the Guerrilla army is a concoction of former Saddam followers, foriegn Islamic fighters on a Jihad, and a minority of those who actually dont like the occupation. Or at least from what I read, which may be a little circumspect, of course, but I doubt it.

I certainly doubt it. Bush is saying that the guerrillas are "SADDAM TERRAOORESTS", however he has no proof of this. He has a motive to say this, I mean what kind of "liberators" would be accepted with such a "welcome" like the one they received in Iraq. Most of Saddam's armies were destroyed in Gulf War I and the recent one, the guerrillas are the same as those in the French resistence against the Nazis in WWII. They are battling the foreign aggressors.

probably, but still infinatly better than a fascist dictator who has killed 100,000 if not millions of his own people.

How is Saddam a "fascist"? If anything Bush is a chauvinistic fascist. Atleast Saddam doesn't give big businesses tax breaks worth billions of dollars, atleast Saddam has implemented a public health and education system, in Iraq wealth was probably distributed more equally than in America.

You just dont get it do you, the US are not going to place a worse dictator than Saddam, that is unless they find a way to ressurect Hitler or Stalin.

Another neo-conservative-type tactic is to group Stalin with people like Hitler. I'm not accusing you of anything though, I assume you live in the USA or UK?

To find the true meaning of fascism all one has to do is look at Stalins Russia.

This is just a tad bit ridiculous. I suggest you read the history of Stalin, even a bourgeois historian recognizes Russia's war against the fascist Nazi invaders.

The USSR was run by the military generals? The USSR allowed private enterprise?

Please tell me, how in the world, the USSR was fascist. I think most rational people on this board would disagree with you 100% (except for maybe the Trots and capitalists) .

Pete

15th January 2004, 17:48

Explain to me how in the world a supposed "leftist" refuses to support the removal of a fascist who has killed 100,000 if not millions of his own people?

Because most of us have atleast some of the gift known as 'foresight' that one gets from reading history. We were not blind enough to agree what the agressors were saying, and knew that was not the point. If you did, then as you said before, it was shortsighted, and not to mention apologetic (sort of like Bolshevika supporting China's imperialism for freedom's sake too)

Bolshevika

15th January 2004, 17:52

Tell me how the conquest of an resource rich country half way across the world has anything to do with taking back a country that was yours for hundreds of years?

When was Iraq the USA's? Tibet has always been part of China, simply because they assumed they were sovereign does not make them right.

Imperialism is pre emtively invading a country for geopolitical reasons/money, that is not what is happening in Tibet.

Invader Zim

15th January 2004, 18:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 06:48 PM

Explain to me how in the world a supposed "leftist" refuses to support the removal of a fascist who has killed 100,000 if not millions of his own people?

Because most of us have atleast some of the gift known as 'foresight' that one gets from reading history. We were not blind enough to agree what the agressors were saying, and knew that was not the point. If you did, then as you said before, it was shortsighted, and not to mention apologetic (sort of like Bolshevika supporting China's imperialism for freedom's sake too)
With the gift of "heinsight" I still think i'm right, the occupation at present is not nearly as bad as saddams regime. So my foresight that the occupation and invasion could not be worse than the regime, was correct.

However Its true I did not think that the occupation would be quite as "bad" as it is. (not that I ever expected it to be good.)

Invader Zim

15th January 2004, 18:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 06:52 PM
Tell me how the conquest of an resource rich country half way across the world has anything to do with taking back a country that was yours for hundreds of years?

When was Iraq the USA's? Tibet has always been part of China, simply because they assumed they were sovereign does not make them right.

Imperialism is pre emtively invading a country for geopolitical reasons/money, that is not what is happening in Tibet.
what are you chatting about?

Intifada

15th January 2004, 18:26

With the gift of "heinsight" I still think i'm right, the occupation at present is not nearly as bad as saddams regime. So my foresight that the occupation and invasion could not be worse than the regime, was correct.

sure, the iraqi people dont want saddam, but they dont want the occupation either. today thousands of iraqis marched, demanding elections. the americans wont even give them that!

However Its true I did not think that the occupation would be quite as "bad" as it is. (not that I ever expected it to be good.)

no one in the right frame of mind would want to be occupied by foreigners.

Invader Zim

15th January 2004, 18:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 07:26 PM

With the gift of "heinsight" I still think i'm right, the occupation at present is not nearly as bad as saddams regime. So my foresight that the occupation and invasion could not be worse than the regime, was correct.

sure, the iraqi people dont want saddam, but they dont want the occupation either. today thousands of iraqis marched, demanding elections. the americans wont even give them that!

However Its true I did not think that the occupation would be quite as "bad" as it is. (not that I ever expected it to be good.)

no one in the right frame of mind would want to be occupied by foreigners.
sure, the iraqi people dont want saddam,

No shit.

but they dont want the occupation either.

No shit.

the americans wont even give them that!

No shit.

Hmm I get the idea that you are: -

http://www.ianai.net/jokes/forumpix/obvious.jpg

(j/k)

Intifada

15th January 2004, 18:34

an iraqi man went up to a u$ soldier and told him to go home. the man was arrested and put in prison. the u$a are just as bad as saddam.

Invader Zim

15th January 2004, 18:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 07:34 PM
an iraqi man went up to a u$ soldier and told him to go home. the man was arrested and put in prison. the u$a are just as bad as saddam.
No because the yanks haven't tortured and murdered that man, then buried his body in a mass grave... like saddam used to do.

Intifada

15th January 2004, 18:49

and when the u$ knew that saddam was doing this as well as gassing iranians almost daily, what did they do? they continued supporting him and rewarded him with many american dollars.

Invader Zim

15th January 2004, 18:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 07:49 PM
and when the u$ knew that saddam was doing this as well as gassing iranians almost daily, what did they do? they continued supporting him and rewarded him with many american dollars.
and??? What has that got to do with today?

Jackshit.

Intifada

15th January 2004, 18:55

it has a lot to do with today. if it wasnt for the continuing support of saddam by the u$ maybe iraq would be better off.

in fact when the democrats tried to put a suggestion of imposing sanctions on saddam in the 80s, the reagan administration blocked the move.

before the first gulf war and u$ intervention, iraq had one of the best health systems in the world. hell, even british doctors migrated to work there.

Y2A

15th January 2004, 19:07

Yeah and if it would have not stopped Iran, the Iraqis would have been living under shira law like the Afganis. I am tired of this hypocritical bullshit. If the U.S would have not stopped Iran when it had the opportunity you would be here saying that it is the U.S fault that the Iraqis are living under the Ayatolla, or if the U.S would have supported the southern Iraqi shia uprising you would be blaming it for supporting Islamic fundamentalism. As always you just find things to blame the U.S for, it has nothing to do with the facts, but what should I expect from a 14 year old.

Invader Zim

15th January 2004, 19:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 07:55 PM
it has a lot to do with today. if it wasnt for the continuing support of saddam by the u$ maybe iraq would be better off.

in fact when the democrats tried to put a suggestion of imposing sanctions on saddam in the 80s, the reagan administration blocked the move.

before the first gulf war and u$ intervention, iraq had one of the best health systems in the world. hell, even british doctors migrated to work there.
it has a lot to do with today. if it wasnt for the continuing support of saddam by the u$ maybe iraq would be better off.

Maybe being the definitive word, speculation, isnt great.

in fact when the democrats tried to put a suggestion of imposing sanctions on saddam in the 80s, the reagan administration blocked the move.

Ohh look a hypocritical argument, weren't you saying in another thread that the sanctions were evil, etc? But now your saying that it was wrong of the US to support Saddam by not placing sanctions...

Great make your mind up.

before the first gulf war and u$ intervention, iraq had one of the best health systems in the world.

Unless you were, Kurdish or a Shi'a, in which case you had to survive chemical attack, troops destroying your village, no water supplies, no medical care, no electrisity basically complete isolation from the rest of the nation?

So you support an elitist fascist regime then?

Great, really, you changed my views, just like that... :rolleyes:

LuZhiming

15th January 2004, 19:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 08:07 PM
Yeah and if it would have not stopped Iran, the Iraqis would have been living under shira law like the Afganis. I am tired of this hypocritical bullshit. If the U.S would have not stopped Iran when it had the opportunity you would be here saying that it is the U.S fault that the Iraqis are living under the Ayatolla, or if the U.S would have supported the southern Iraqi shia uprising you would be blaming it for supporting Islamic fundamentalism. As always you just find things to blame the U.S for, it has nothing to do with the facts, but what should I expect from a 14 year old.
If you want to resort to these laughable type of 'ifs,' then the blame is completely on the U.S.: If the U.S. had never overthrown Mossadegh and put the Shah back on the throne, none of this would have happened! And this doesn't account for the U.S. secretly sending weapons to Iran beginning in 1983. Henry Kissinger used to say: "I hope they kill eachother." The policy matched his words.

Intifada

16th January 2004, 16:06

Ohh look a hypocritical argument, weren't you saying in another thread that the sanctions were evil, etc? But now your saying that it was wrong of the US to support Saddam by not placing sanctions...

i said that the sanctions placed on iraq after the first war was no good for the people of iraq. saddam should have been taken out before 2003. those sanctions only succeeded in killing more innocent people.

So you support an elitist fascist regime then?

i wasnt the one who supported bush's imperialist war. that was you.

btw well said LuZhiming

Bolshevika

16th January 2004, 16:20

Iraq would've been much worse off if the U.S.A did not support Saddam, if it wasn't for Saddam Iraq would be under Islamic fascism. The reason the Iraqis are so orderly and know of things like electricity and running water, is because of Saddam. If they were under a Taliban style regime, they would be living in a city that makes Bedrock on the Flintstones look like metropolis.

Invader Zim

16th January 2004, 16:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 05:20 PM
Iraq would've been much worse off if the U.S.A did not support Saddam, if it wasn't for Saddam Iraq would be under Islamic fascism. The reason the Iraqis are so orderly and know of things like electricity and running water, is because of Saddam. If they were under a Taliban style regime, they would be living in a city that makes Bedrock on the Flintstones look like metropolis.
So do you actually support saddam then?

j.guevara

16th January 2004, 16:33

your ideologies seemed to have blinded you to the monster that saddam is.

Bolshevika

16th January 2004, 16:44

I have a moderate opinion of Saddam, I see him as very progressive . I support him and the Fedayeen 100% against the imperialist aggressors however.

Tell me J Guevara, do you really think there was much emphasis on how Saddam is a "monster" before he invaded Kuwait (even though most of the "crimes" Bush accuses him of were done when the U.S. supported him) ? Of course there wasn't.

Just like the Iraqi people were injected with constant anti-U.S. propaganda (they are much more justified in this because they were actually being invaded) the American government injects the American people with anti-Saddam propaganda through its propaganda outlets "Foxnews", "CNN", etc. There is no justification for the war, so they pretend to be "human rights activists" and win over greens like yourself, they are liars though.