In Reply to Comrade RedStar [Archive]

redstar2000

29th February 2004, 16:38

Our stance should not be for the imperialist forces to pull out, but for the Iraqi people to organise as a mass and kick them out.

Yes, that would be nice.

As it happens, the Islamic fundamentalists appear to be leading the resistance to the occupation forces...so whether the imperialists withdraw or are kicked out or some combination of the two, a fundamentalist victory seems certain in the not-too-distant future.

As I noted, the arrival of the imperialists in Iraq has made things worse...and the longer they stay, the worse things will get.

I do not see how you could possibly object to this conclusion.

To pull out now without a clearly organised mass would be disastrous, and would lead to another Iran.

So now you are in favor of continuing imperialist occupation of Iraq? "At least for a while"?

Do you recall what Lenin had to say about supporting "your own" imperialist ruling class?

There's more than one way to do that, you know.

(And by the way, "another Iran" looks inevitable for Iraq at this point.)

What is needed is for a clear marxist [sic] LEADERSHIP to take hold, and organise the masses, this is the only way.

In the case of Iraq, you may as well call for "a clear Martian LEADERSHIP" -- there's as much chance of one as there is of the other.

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

Having little in the way of political argument to contest my views, I see that you are playing "the age card" with as much energy as you can muster.

There's probably a pretty good chance that I have no more than two or three years to live...though, of course, we never know, do we?

I daresay you won't be the only one "dancing in the streets" at my demise. Considering the intellectual quality of my "opposition", I'll take that as a "compliment".

Ignorance always rejoices at the death of knowledge.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Valkyrie

29th February 2004, 16:49

Wow, that's nasty, Kez. If you live L-O-N-G enough, it will make one rather Old, i guess. and that would apply to you too. Ha! Just you wait!!!! HOWEVER, there is an Art to attaining old age. Thus not everyone makes it... so you can attribute that honor to Redstar, the Sage of Yore.. who probably read the the whole entire Marxist body of work before your parents even traded the obnoxious seed that resulted in your disfavor.

Ernestocheguevara

29th February 2004, 17:05

The war was wrong END OF!!!

What should have happened was that the Iraqi people should have overthrown there dictator themselves, imperialist intervention could have aided this but of course that was not on the U$ or £ritains agenda was it! No! Oil and the control of it was all it was about!

PS I'm a trotskyist fuckwit too so bring it on bad boy!!!

MiniOswald

29th February 2004, 17:13

right behind you there ernestocheguevara we could have funded rebels but that wouldn't have helped us now would it, I mean it's not like back in the 70's with the Soviets in Afganistan U.$ and £ritain had something to gain then.
And now Iraq's going to pot, I just saw on the news Kurds in the north are rallying for an independant states, the neighbours are pissed, people are coming in from the neighbouring countries to back their religious group each claiming Iraq is theirs.
This could turn into a full blown civil war and in the middle of it all are poor british troops getting knocked off one by one.
You want somewhere to invade in the middle east, invade Israel and blow their zionist arses of the planet!

Ernestocheguevara

29th February 2004, 17:17

Aside from all the deaths of innocent civilians and troops which is a fucking travesty!! The billons spent on occupation could be used alot better at home instead of introducing top-up-fees and PFI's!! The NHS is shagged and as for everything in the private sector! I Fuckin' despair I truly do! What is the matter with Labour? Regain them Yeah right!!!! :blink:

Don't Change Your Name

29th February 2004, 18:19

Honestly, an Iraqui revolution against the invaders will not be very good. If it's "radical" enough, yanks could use that to say that those are "communist totalitarian anti-democratic terrorists" and will claim that "this is how they thank us for liberating them" (sic), so they will have a good argument to impose a pro-$ dictator that will later become another "terrorist threat" and this will happen again.

Urban Rubble

29th February 2004, 20:33

This post shows one thing: That Kez/Tav is a little **** incapable of a real discussion. Anticipating the death of an old man ? That's great, what a nice little 14 year old you must be. What a ****.

redstar2000

1st March 2004, 00:16

This could turn into a full blown civil war and in the middle of it all are poor British troops getting knocked off one by one.

Yes, the death of even one "poor" mercenary (professional killer for British imperialism) is a tragedy of epic proportions.

No doubt we should shut down the board for a "day of international mourning". :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

The Children of the Revolution

1st March 2004, 01:17

This post shows one thing: That Kez/Tav is a little **** incapable of a real discussion. Anticipating the death of an old man ? That's great, what a nice little 14 year old you must be. What a ****.

The above lines show one thing: That Urban Rubble is a little **** incapable of constructing a real argument. So he randomly insults "comrades" in the hope that someone will agree and boost his fragile ego. That's great, what a foul little 12 year old you must be. Tit.

As it happens, the Islamic fundamentalists appear to be leading the resistance to the occupation forces...so whether the imperialists withdraw or are kicked out or some combination of the two, a fundamentalist victory seems certain in the not-too-distant future.

I agree. A fundamentalist victory does seem likely, and it will be a victory supported by the majority of the people. Iraq, and most of the Islamic world, will remain hostile to Communism for a long time - there is little chance of funding rebellion amongst the people. Even if a Marxist "state" were to be set up, the fundamentalists would simply switch targets - and attack it just as harshly as a secular dictatorship.

I was against the War from the outset, and I remain opposed to the occupation... Unfortunately it must continue, at least for a while. There is no infrastructure at all, no order. (I know, we bombed it all flat - I'm not trying to excuse this at all!) Anarchy is not desirable at this time, and will result in needless carnage. What is clear to me is that the occupying forces must leave as soon as is reasonably possible, and leave the governing of Iraq to Iraqis - whether they are likely to turn their backs to America or not.

Fidel Castro

1st March 2004, 01:45

This post shows one thing: That Kez/Tav is a little **** incapable of a real discussion. Anticipating the death of an old man ? That's great, what a nice little 14 year old you must be. What a ****.

This was a legitimate discussion and there was no need for this. Stuff like this can and should get someone into the cess-pit of restricted members, alongside the cappies, Stalinists and general morons.

redstar2000

1st March 2004, 02:55

I was against the War from the outset, and I remain opposed to the occupation... Unfortunately it must continue, at least for a while.

Another defender of imperialism speaks.

Back in the 1960s, American bourgeois liberals had the same line: "the war in Vietnam is cruel and wrong, but we can't just withdraw because it will lead to anarchy and even a bloodbath."

The longer America stayed, of course, the greater the bloodbath...ending with two or three million Vietnamese deaths.

Even today, there are kids still suffering from the genetic effects of "Agent Orange" -- the toxic chemical that America dropped on rural civilians in Vietnam.

No matter what happens, things will be better when the occupation forces leave or are compelled to withdraw. That has always been the case!

Realistically, of course, the United States and the United Kingdom have no intention of withdrawing...ever! The occupation is intended to be permanent.

The fake "sovereignty" they intend to put into place in Iraq will be about as "sovereign" as Slovakia or Croatia under the Nazis.

Or, for that matter, the "Government of the Republic of South Vietnam"...remember them?

This was a legitimate discussion...

Perhaps...but I don't think we've ever had a thread before where someone was labeled "senile" in the title of the thread itself.

Not to mention the rather gleeful anticipation of the death of a named member of the board.

It establishes an interesting precedent. If there are people on the board that I really detest (and there are!), will it be ok for me to start threads like "Username the Moron -- Another Example of His Grotesque Stupidity"?

Does that suggest a "legitimate discussion" to you?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Urban Rubble

1st March 2004, 03:44

Hmmm. So Kez calls RedStar senile and old man, then wishes for his death, and you guys are *****ing at me ? Nice to see there's no personal agenda there. This discussion was rendered pointless before you even came in with Kez's insult in the title.

Ian

1st March 2004, 04:17

Kez... seriously dude... you call me immature? And all your post was about was how only a marxist leadership can liberate Iraq (sounds kind of defeatist and unlikely to me, perhaps that's why many call the 'theory' of permanent revolution, the theory of permanent defeat), and how Redstar is old...

You're much more mature than me Kez :rolleyes:

Kez

1st March 2004, 07:44

ah, i forgot i made this post.

Anyway, now im back

"As it happens, the Islamic fundamentalists appear to be leading the resistance to the occupation forces...so whether the imperialists withdraw or are kicked out or some combination of the two, a fundamentalist victory seems certain in the not-too-distant future."
-What kind of an argument is that? It seems here in Britain the capitalists are winning, using your argument, maybe we should just give up really, coz theyre leading the masses here.
-I never said it was easy, socialist revolution never is really, hence why its called "the struggle", and not "emptying the piss bag of an old fart"

"As I noted, the arrival of the imperialists in Iraq has made things worse...and the longer they stay, the worse things will get."
-Well done kojack, your talents are being wasted on this board, theres crime on the streets you should be solving...of course the longer they stay the worse its gonna be, thats why its even more important to get a marxist leadership capable of leading iraq to SMASH imperialism.

"So now you are in favor of continuing imperialist occupation of Iraq? "At least for a while"?"
-No, as ive stated im for the removal of the imperialist occupation by force, not some shitty hope that they would magically dissapear.

"(And by the way, "another Iran" looks inevitable for Iraq at this point.)"
-This isnt helped by people arguing against a marxist leadership in iraq to fight imperialist capital.

"In the case of Iraq, you may as well call for "a clear Martian LEADERSHIP" -- there's as much chance of one as there is of the other."
-Do you even know the traditions of the iraqi communist parties, and what bases they have in iraq? no, so shut the fuck up

"I daresay you won't be the only one "dancing in the streets" at my demise. Considering the intellectual quality of my "opposition", I'll take that as a "compliment"."
- I wouldnt dance, coz i couldnt give a flying fuck.

"Ignorance always rejoices at the death of knowledge."
-how modest

Comrade Ernesto,
Chill man, we dont need the slogans of the SP 24/7 mate :) i guess the SP's stance and our own are pretty similair concerning iraq. what are your views on British soldiers? workers in uniform or obstacles to revolution full stop? because the kids being killed in iraq are from working class areas, while the ruling class hold comfy generals seats.
Your second post i very much agree with, and demonstrates perfectly the contradictions of capitalism

El Infiltr(A)do,
your scenario is a possibility, but so what? should we stop fighting for workers liberation in iraq? i think what you show is that what is needed is a clear, principled leadership, making it difficult for capitalist propaganda to smear a workers democracy in iraq.

Good to see Redstar laughing at the expense of working class soldiers getting killed in iraq. Instead of that you should close your muppet face cake hole, and see what you can do about agitation in the army, when your talkin about the military, if not, then shut the fuck up about it.

Children of the revolution,
that is a very petit bourgeoise outlook. You think a capitalist economy will be better and more efficient than a command economy? infrustructure will come at a great cost for iraqis, ie from their oil, if it were a workers democracy this would not be the case

As for the case of arab world not being able to take on communism, this is not an unbreakable tradition, and is down to religion, not some sort of arab gene that is the cause. In fact, in places like lebanon, syria etc workers are much more militant than in many places in europe.

Anyway, i dont think ive ever wished for REdStars death, thats just a lie, i just wish he would shut the fuck up when he doesnt know jack shit.

The Children of the Revolution

1st March 2004, 10:54

No matter what happens, things will be better when the occupation forces leave or are compelled to withdraw. That has always been the case!

No, it hasn't. Firstly though, I am shocked that a man with your "intelligence" could possibly manage to compare Iraq with Vietnam - just the differences in the scale of the conflict are quite blatant. Now I am no "defender of imperialiam" as you claim, but please at least consider British and French colonialism in Africa, and the consequences Imperialism had there...

"We" (The British) should not have been there, no. BUT, when "we" were, some semblance of law and order was maintained, there was an infrastructure, of sorts, and peace reigned. And when the colonial powers withdraw? Bloody Civil Wars, corrupt governments, armed rebels taking to the streets... Chaos. And NOT in the favourable sense of the word.

Realistically, of course, the United States and the United Kingdom have no intention of withdrawing...ever! The occupation is intended to be permanent.

I don't think so. I don't think they are quite this bad - no need to maintain a physical occupation when you effectively run the country anyway through ECONOMIC force.

If there are people on the board that I really detest (and there are!)

Whoo! Is this me? Have I finally made it on to a "Death List" of someone's?? :P

Don't worry comrade, I forgive you...

that is a very petit bourgeoise outlook. You think a capitalist economy will be better and more efficient than a command economy? infrustructure will come at a great cost for iraqis, ie from their oil, if it were a workers democracy this would not be the case

You fail to understand the complex nature of Islamic thought - it is absolutely and entirely anti-state. A command economy is, for them, unthinkable. Unfortunately Iraq will have to sell its oil, yes. But it would do in any case, only perhaps on more generous terms...

redstar2000

1st March 2004, 12:48

Well, perhaps this will be an interesting thread after all -- how often does one get to see a Trotskyist-Christian Coalition in Defense of British Imperialism? :lol:

...of course the longer they [the imperialists] stay the worse it's gonna be, thats why it's even more important to get a marxist leadership capable of leading Iraq to SMASH imperialism.

However, until then...?

And remember, when Kez says "marxist leadership", he doesn't mean just any old Trotskyist sect...he means a sect that agrees with his sect about everything!

I put the chances of that happening in Iraq about equal to the chances of George W. Bush converting to Islam. Or me!

Thus his verbal "opposition" in "principle" turns into a de facto endorsement of indefinite British occupation of Iraq...and that means American occupation as well, of course, since the British imperialists have neither the wealth nor the troops to occupy Iraq by themselves.

No, as I've stated I'm for the removal of the imperialist occupation by force, not some shitty hope that they would magically disappear.

Such "force" to be wielded by some magically appearing Trotskyist sect that will lead Iraq to liberation. :lol:

Until then...it's "God Save the Queen!"

Do you even know the traditions of the Iraqi communist parties, and what bases they have in Iraq? No, so shut the fuck up

Traditions? Bases? Why didn't you elaborate on this point? Why didn't you tell us of your great "marxist" hope in Iraq...one that has successfully eluded all public attention up to this point!

Because, as always, you were blowing smoke out of your ass.

There is no significant "marxist" presence in Iraq at this time and there's not likely to be any for a decade or more! Probably more.

When one does emerge, it will most likely be Maoist, not Trotskyist...so you'll have still another "excuse" to continue your support of "your own" ruling class.

Good to see Redstar laughing at the expense of working class soldiers getting killed in Iraq.

Good to see Kez mourning the fate of scabs instead of the Iraqi civilians they cheerfully murder.

Is Kez the first known case of "Colonel Blimp Trotskyism"? Or is it an epidemic?

I just wish he would shut the fuck up when he doesn't know jack shit.

If wishes were knowledge, then intellectual beggars would have something to say besides "shut the fuck up".

And now for Kez's "godly" partner in crime...

Firstly though, I am shocked that a man with your "intelligence" could possibly manage to compare Iraq with Vietnam - just the differences in the scale of the conflict are quite blatant.

Yes they are...now.

America's involvement in Vietnam began in 1947 with the dispatch of 400 U.S. mercenaries...it took a long time before it became a "major conflict".

Perhaps you think the Iraqis will just learn to accept their new masters. :lol:

Now I am no "defender of imperialism" as you claim, but please at least consider British and French colonialism in Africa, and the consequences Imperialism had there...

Yes, you are a defender of imperialism. The consequences of British and French (and other European) colonialism were uniformly catastrophic.

There is simply no way to tell how long it will take Africa to recover from your "civilizing" and "Christianizing" mission...one can only hope another century will be sufficient. But who knows?

To be fair, the Muslims always practiced slavery on a small scale...as did African tribes themselves. But it took the French and especially the British to show the world how to do it on a truly magnificent scale.

Because British slave traders (with financing from the leading British financial institutions) made slavery enormously profitable to African slave traders, you set in motion the tribal conflicts that continue to tear Africa apart today!

BUT, when "we" were [there], some semblance of law and order was maintained, there was an infrastructure, of sorts, and peace reigned.

Not to mention lots of churches and lots of missionaries.

Missing the "white man's burden", are you?

Think Iraq will give you "another chance"?

I'm not sure there are words in the English language strong enough to characterize your imperial arrogance...but give me a chance and I'll try to think of some.

I don't think so. I don't think they are quite this bad - no need to maintain a physical occupation when you effectively run the country anyway through ECONOMIC force.

There are already permanent U.S. military bases in "Saudi" Arabia and also in one of the Gulf emirates, and mention has already been made of a permanent U.S. military base in Iraq. Not to mention that a major U.S. fleet is permanently stationed in the Persian Gulf.

Yes, they are "that bad" and worse...not that I expect you will grasp that.

In fact, you won't see it as "bad" at all...just "maintaining law and order", blah, blah, blah.

Trotskyism and Christianity, marching shoulder to shoulder in defense of your own imperialist ruling class.

Does that surprise anyone?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

The Feral Underclass

1st March 2004, 14:14

For once I agree with Urban Rubble...what you said is sick and you should be ashamed of yourself. What kind of a person says something like that...it shows a lot about you....

Just because you're unable to form any kind of intelligable attack on redstars opinions, baring in mind he is older than you and has a lot more experience to back him up, dosn't mean you can resort to such disgusting tactics. This is someones friend...someones partner...someones relative you're talking about...you really are a fuckwit, threw and threw...

You're a coward plain and simple...and a stupid coward at that!

The Feral Underclass

1st March 2004, 14:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 02:45 AM

This post shows one thing: That Kez/Tav is a little **** incapable of a real discussion. Anticipating the death of an old man ? That's great, what a nice little 14 year old you must be. What a ****.

This was a legitimate discussion and there was no need for this. Stuff like this can and should get someone into the cess-pit of restricted members, alongside the cappies, Stalinists and general morons.
What kez said was unacceptable, and it is that kind of language that should be made restrict worthy...Urban Rubble has a right, as do I and anyone else to view our opinions against what he said...are you saying it is acceptable to say what Kez said...if you do then you can also go fuck yourself!

The Feral Underclass

1st March 2004, 14:29

I THINK THERE'S AN ABUNDANCE OF STUPIDITY IN THIS THREAD AND A LACK OF HUMANITY...COTR YOU'RE JUST A **** AND KEZ YOU'RE A FUCKING ****...EVERYTIME I READ THIS THREAD I FIND MORE AND MORE BULLSHIT FROM YOU TWO FUCKNUTS...

THE PROBLEM WITH YOU PEOPLE IS YOU THINK YOU'RE REALLY CLEVER...YOU THINK YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY...BUT REALLY, REDSTAR, WHO PROBABLY DID READ THE ENTIRE BODY OF MARXIST LITERETURE BEFORE YOU WERE CONCIEVED IS JUST LAUGHING AT YOU...YOU'RE BOTH PATHETIC...YOU SIT BEHIND YOUR COMPUTER SCREENS WOLLOWING IN A POOL OF SELF IMPORTANCE WHEN REALLY YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE REAL WORLD...YOU SOUND AS IF THE MOST DIFFICULT THING IN YOUR LIFE IS WHETHER OR NOT YOUR MOMMY HAS COOKED YOUR DINNER...

TRY GOING OUT INTO THE REAL WORLD AND LIVING A LITTLE...GO AND SEE WHAT THE REAL WORLD IS ACTUALLY LIKE INSTEAD OF BELIEVING THAT YOUR RIGHTOUSNESS IS THE ANSWER TO THE WORLDS PROBLEMS...GOD DAMN IT, YOU DONT EVEN KNOW WHAT THE WORLDS PROBLEMS ARE...YOU SIT ON THIS INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD TYPING BIG WORDS BUT YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN...YOU HAVE ABSOLUTLY NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT...AND WHAT WILL THE ANSWER BE...YOU'LL IGNORE THIS, YOU'LL GIVE IT BACK, ATTEMPTING TO JUSTIFY YOUR PATHETIC EXISTENCES. YOU'LL SIT, ONCE AGAIN, THINKING YOU'RE RIGHT, THINKING IM JUST SOME RANTING ANARCHIST FUCK AND YOU WONT LEARN...YOU JUST WONT GET IT...WELL WHEN WILL YOU LEARN...WHEN SOMEONE AROUND YOU DIES OF OLD AGE, OR WHEN YOU HAVE TO WATCH AN HIV VICTIM SUFFER...WHAT WILL IT TAKE FOR YOU TO BOTH GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR ASSES AND WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!

THE PROBLEM WITH YOU PEOPLE IS THAT YOU CAN'T IMAGINE OR COMREHEND THAT YOU MIGHT BE WRONG. YOU COULD NEVER, FOR ONE MINUTE BELIEVE THAT REDSTAR OR ANYONE ELSE COULD BE RIGHT...YOU'D RATHER RESULT TO SAYING STUPID AND HURTFUL THINGS THAN EVEN THINK THAT SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT BE RIGHT..THAT'S YOUR FUCKING DOWNFALL...BECAUSE WHILE YOU SIT BELIEVEING YOU'RE RIGHT THE REST OF THE WORLD IS PASSING YOU BY AND LAUGHING AT YOU!

YOU'RE NOT IMPORTANT...YOU'RE NOT SIGNIFICANT, YOUR STUPID, IGNORANT, NAIVE LITTLE CHILDREN WHO CAN NOT EVEN BEGIN TO CONCEPTUALIZE THE SUFFERING IN THE WORLD...YOU LIVE IN YOUR MIDDLE CLASS LIVES PRETENDING TO FIGHT FOR THE WORKERS, PRETENDING TOI FIGHT FOR THE OPPRESSED...WELL YOU'RE NOT FOOLING ANYONE AND YOU JUST LOOK FUCKING PATHETIC...

I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU PEOPLE IN THE REAL WORLD...I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU SURVIVE ON YOUR OWN...I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU COPE WITH POVERTY OR WITH HIV...YOU PEOPLE MAKE ME SO ANGRY, BECAUSE WITH ALL YOUR TALKING AND ALL YOUR THEORIZING...FOR ALL YOUR BULLSHIT YOU HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER...NOTHING AT ALL EXCEPT VENOM...GOD, I ONLY HOPE YOU NEVER HAVE TO SUFFER BECAUSE THEN YOUR LITTLE BUBBLE WILL TRULY BURST AND YOU'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT REALITY IN ALL IT'S GLORY AND YOU'LL SHIT YOURSELF WITH FEAR....GROW UP...GET OUT INTO THE WORLD AND DO SOMETHING...INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT IT YOU FUCKERS!!!

Urban Rubble

1st March 2004, 14:56

Wow. Well I guess that just about wraps it up.

Kez

1st March 2004, 15:14

pfft, first the anarchist ruin the first international, then they ruin this thread, when will their actions cease....

ah well,

back to the point in question, RedStar, i was actually expeecting a decent reply from you, other than your trot bashing bollocks for which i have no time for, i answered each of your arguments point for point, to which you reply with your own like comedy store.

If you wish me to clarify any points i have stated, please ask and i will do so so that we can carry this discussion on in a marxist manner, ie one based on fact.

I look forward to your queries.

"And remember, when Kez says "marxist leadership", he doesn't mean just any old Trotskyist sect...he means a sect that agrees with his sect about everything!"
-See, why do you have to say this when you know its not true? Ive argued many times for a united front, but argued against a popular front, i'd expect you to try and smash me in discussion with some real basis, not bollocks.

You go on to state that i somehow endorse British Imperialism... :( i mean, theres no basis for me to argue back, coz its simply untrue, and slightly frustrating coming from someone like you. I think your a tosser, not an idiot, id expeect better from you :)

"Good to see Kez mourning the fate of scabs instead of the Iraqi civilians they cheerfully murder. "
-Neither have i mourned, neither have i not made point after point in arguments about how many civilians the imperialist forces have murdered. again, why do you bother sayin such shite?

Anyway, i look forward to answering your points on my stance, and after that, i shall do the same for your stance.

The Feral Underclass

1st March 2004, 15:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 04:14 PM
pfft, first the anarchist ruin the first international, then they ruin this thread, when will their actions cease....
How on earth did you come to that conclusion..i take it you read what i put...how in gods name did the first international come into it...

I'd also like to hear how you think the anarchists ruined the first international....it was Marx who had it moved to America making it impossible for anyone to attend the meetings...he did that because of the anarchists so I suppose you can conclude that indirectly the anarchists were to blame...or you could conclude that Marx was as bitter and as venemous as you and did it out of spite because he couldn't bare the competition...or, just like you, he couldnt admit when he was wrong!

The Feral Underclass

1st March 2004, 15:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 04:14 PM
Anyway, i look forward to answering your points on my stance, and after that, i shall do the same for your stance.
Who do you think you are?

Scottish_Militant

1st March 2004, 16:43

The Children of the Revolution

1st March 2004, 17:10

Hahaha!! T.(w)A.T. is getting all angry!! I've never read such a load of arse!! Do us all a favour and fuck off to Africa, or wherever the hell it is you're going... You insult me for theorising?? What was Marx, what was Lenin, what was Trotsky?? They were theoreticians!! And damn good ones too...

REDSTAR ... PROBABLY DID READ THE ENTIRE BODY OF MARXIST LITERETURE BEFORE YOU WERE CONCIEVED

Well yes, of course he did. He's old, remember? (Sorry to be so blunt)

YOU SOUND AS IF THE MOST DIFFICULT THING IN YOUR LIFE IS WHETHER OR NOT YOUR MOMMY HAS COOKED YOUR DINNER...

Haha, this is wonderful stuff!! I am a student, I don't eat cooked food!! Pot Noodles all the way!!

YOU'LL SIT, ONCE AGAIN, THINKING YOU'RE RIGHT, THINKING IM JUST SOME RANTING ANARCHIST FUCK...

Wow. A rare moment of insight!! Congratulations!!

FOR ALL YOUR BULLSHIT YOU HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER...NOTHING AT ALL EXCEPT VENOM...

Says the twat who has just written a mini-essay filled with spite and hatred. Go screw yourself. Do you think that in order to be a revolutionary, you should be poor? ALL the best revolutionaries were born into the middle classes!!

you really are a fuckwit, threw and threw...

And we, in the middle classes, can spell! That's "through and through", sir. I don't usually (although I have) resort to pettiness - but since your tirade I feel that anything is justified! Wanker.

You didn't even deserve a reply.

America's involvement in Vietnam began in 1947 with the dispatch of 400 U.S. mercenaries...it took a long time before it became a "major conflict".

I know this. But the public didn't stand for it then; they certainly won't now. There is a massive difference in scale, not to mention the fact that the "coalition" occupy the entire country rather than just isolated areas. Iraq is a small Vietnam at best...

you set in motion the tribal conflicts that continue to tear Africa apart today!

No. They were there already. This is a popular misconception in the West - the idea that Africa was all peaceful and lovely before the white destroyers came. It was not! Of course this doesn't give us the right to invade, far from it - but it does mean that Britain cannot be held entirely responsible for the modern conflicts in the region.

There is simply no way to tell how long it will take Africa to recover from your "civilizing" and "Christianizing" mission...one can only hope another century will be sufficient. But who knows?

What are you on about? You want them to remove the infrastructure that was created? The schools and hospitals that were built? You are more crazy than I thought...

There are already permanent U.S. military bases in "Saudi" Arabia and also in one of the Gulf emirates, and mention has already been made of a permanent U.S. military base in Iraq. Not to mention that a major U.S. fleet is permanently stationed in the Persian Gulf.

There are American Air bases in the UK - therefore we are a colony under Imperialist repression / occupation? Hmmm, news to me...

I'm not sure there are words in the English language strong enough to characterize your imperial arrogance...but give me a chance and I'll try to think of some.

Yet again, this is you imposing an argument on me. I am no defender of Imperialism, I simply present the facts. Which you then interpret as my beliefs, my political philosophy. This is sheer lunacy.

If I was to say: "Hitler solved the employment problem, amongst others, in Germany", would you construe this as support for Nazism? No doubt you would...

Ernestocheguevara

1st March 2004, 17:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 08:44 AM
Comrade Ernesto,
Chill man, we dont need the slogans of the SP 24/7 mate :) i guess the SP's stance and our own are pretty similair concerning iraq. what are your views on British soldiers? workers in uniform or obstacles to revolution full stop? because the kids being killed in iraq are from working class areas, while the ruling class hold comfy generals seats.
Your second post i very much agree with, and demonstrates perfectly the contradictions of capitalism

Hmmn Kez buddy! I'm gonna find it hard to agree with a Grantite!! :D Yesour stance concerning Iraq is too similar but then I guess it has to be, in the end of the day both Taffee and Grant are from the same school,of course they differ alot now but there you go!
It's fair to say that, soldiers are both mate, workers in uniform doing there job with the fear of a court martial for dis-obeying orders, and a serious obstacle to revolution. They are really just robots sent by the establishment to perpetuate the capitalist system, you won't find many SAS or U$ marines with revolutionary thoughts in there head they are forced to protect a country and a political system that I daresay some of them hate they are mostly bereft of feeling or emotion and many are driven into deep depression ( I have seen it in my brother so don't start telling me I watched 'Full Metal Jacket' one too many times or that I have no idea what I'm on about) killing innocent kids even from working class back grounds mean as much to them as me connecting a light switch (I'm an electrician) it's just a job.

Thankyou for your compliment I REALLY feel I must cherish that one!! :D :D
And not a hack in sight LOL.

Kez

1st March 2004, 18:37

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Mar 1 2004, 04:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Anarchist Tension @ Mar 1 2004, 04:20 PM)
[email protected] 1 2004, 04:14 PM
pfft, first the anarchist ruin the first international, then they ruin this thread, when will their actions cease....
How on earth did you come to that conclusion..i take it you read what i put...how in gods name did the first international come into it... [/b]
nah, i didnt read that shit, dont care much for your talk

The generation of anarchists you represent has made a complete mockery of the true anarchist heroes who fought for the working class in the earlier periods of the 20th century.

Ernesto, where you from mate? maybe we could have a discussion over a coffee or a beer or summit.
Anyway, lets see what comrade RedStar has to say...

Ernestocheguevara

1st March 2004, 19:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 07:37 PM
Ernesto, where you from mate? maybe we could have a discussion over a coffee or a beer or summit.
Anyway, lets see what comrade RedStar has to say...
Land of the free home of the weird mate!!
I would not keep throwing caution to the wind (that's all of you) having read thru the rules in IO you could be restricted or banned for your thoughtless comments and general *****iness this is not a debate anymore it is a slanging match.

Soviet power supreme

1st March 2004, 19:45

Trots,as always, fails to understand the reality.There are no real marxist movement in Iraq and the trot movement is even smaller.So puny.The islamic revolution is ahead and perhaps the kurdistan is formed in north.

Then these trots go and defend the british imperialism.

Marvelous

Marxist-Leninist are banned or restricted and yet these imperialists gets to shout here.

The Children of the Revolution

1st March 2004, 20:10

Trots,as always, fails to understand the reality.There are no real marxist movement in Iraq and the trot movement is even smaller.So puny.

Then these trots go and defend the british imperialism.

You are a total prat. Read the whole thread, not just the last three posts...

I quote myself: "A fundamentalist victory does seem likely, and it will be a victory supported by the majority of the people. Iraq, and most of the Islamic world, will remain hostile to Communism for a long time - there is little chance of funding rebellion amongst the people. Even if a Marxist "state" were to be set up, the fundamentalists would simply switch targets - and attack it just as harshly as a secular dictatorship.

There was a semi-serious discussion here before T.(w)A.T. came and ruined it - I agree, you know. There is no real Marxist movement in Iraq! I find it laughable that you accuse a "trot" of defending Imperialism too! I expect you couldn't think of anything to say, so you repeated what was said before, yes? Get a grip.

Soviet power supreme

1st March 2004, 20:23

I expect you couldn't think of anything to say, so you repeated what was said before, yes? Get a grip

But I did.

I will quote myself

trot movement is even smaller.So puny.

The thing about marxist movement in Iraq was directed to Kez.

Kez

1st March 2004, 20:47

dear me,

Well, let me tell you this, there are significant numbers of socialists and communists in iraq today, not all party members of course.

The issue over whether there are or arent is irrelevant, we should be fighting to build up such a movement, so as to be able to kick out the imperialist forces

***
Kez here, signing off for BBC, defender of British Imperialism

Soviet power supreme

1st March 2004, 21:02

we should be fighting to build up such a movement, so as to be able to kick out the imperialist forces

How?

Kez

1st March 2004, 22:17

by sittin on our arses on che-lives

Comrade Yars

1st March 2004, 22:29

......... :o

redstar2000

1st March 2004, 22:38

No. They were there already. This is a popular misconception in the West - the idea that Africa was all peaceful and lovely before the white destroyers came. It was not! Of course this doesn't give us the right to invade, far from it - but it does mean that Britain cannot be held entirely responsible for the modern conflicts in the region.

No, the French, the Germans, the Belgians and even the Americans (in Liberia) can also claim a share of the "credit". But the "British lion" gets the "lion's share" of the "credit".

It is quite true that Africa was not the "garden of Eden" prior to western imperialism. Tribes fought with each other. They took slaves for their own use or to sell to Muslim slave traders (something that is still going on by the way).

But it was, for the most part, small stuff. It took the British to make slavery a global "industry"...that is the real heritage of your "glorious empire".

You turned Africa into a reasonable approximation of "HELL"...with your "Jesus" blessing the entire enterprise, of course.

And since much mention has been made of Iraq, let us not overlook the British responsibility for that toilet bowl.

"Iraq" was created by and operated by the British Empire from 1920 to 1958! Just like any other "business".

And you get the "credit" for Israel as well...every murdered Palestinian of today owes her/his death ultimately to your "Balfour Declaration"...remember that one?

"His Majesty's Government looks with favor upon the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine". The fact that a bunch of other people already lived there was "irrelevant".

If anyone wonders at the scope and magnitude of American imperial barbarism, remember: Americans were taught by the world-class experts!

There are American Air bases in the UK - therefore we are a colony under Imperialist repression / occupation?

No, you are not repressed at all...you are willing and eager "junior partners" of U.S. imperialism. You get to "strut" on the world stage again.

Your "prime minister" has his head buried in George W. Bush's lap. The military bases are just to make sure it stays there.

If I was to say: "Hitler solved the employment problem, amongst others, in Germany", would you construe this as support for Nazism? No doubt you would...

I certainly would, as would any rational person, if you used that as an excuse for supporting Hitler's remaining in power.

Because that's what both you and Kez have done here. Kez says the British "can't withdraw" until there's a "real marxist opposition" to throw them out -- that should be good for three to five decades of continued British occupation. You say that the British must remain to "preserve order", avoid "anarchy" and a "bloodbath", etc. That too should serve as a "good excuse" for many decades...if not forever.

Both of you claim to "oppose" imperialism "in principle"...and both of you support it in practice.

Kez, of course, adds insult to injury...lamenting the fate of British mercenaries (war criminals) in the occupation. As for the dead (non-Trotskyist) "wogs"...fuck 'em.

The real heart of this thread is this: Kez doesn't think the Iraqis will be "fit" to run their own affairs until they convert to Trotskyism. And TCOTR doesn't think the Iraqis will be "fit" to run their own affairs until they convert to Christianity!

Both of you are totally disgusting...and belong in Opposing Ideologies.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Don't Change Your Name

2nd March 2004, 00:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 08:44 AM
El Infiltr(A)do,
your scenario is a possibility, but so what? should we stop fighting for workers liberation in iraq? i think what you show is that what is needed is a clear, principled leadership, making it difficult for capitalist propaganda to smear a workers democracy in iraq.
A "leadership" will only make things worse. Leadership means that they will have a face which will be used for the $s to talk about a new "dictatorship". I think they need revolutionaries not leaders.

The Children of the Revolution

2nd March 2004, 01:27

But it was, for the most part, small stuff. It took the British to make slavery a global "industry"...that is the real heritage of your "glorious empire".

Again, this is a question of scale. The British Imperialists were, of course, at fault. They escalated the problems of tribal conflict - by developing the countries they occupied! There were hideous crimes committed, yes, but there was also much progress in infrastructure and, dare I say it, political and economic freedoms. The British brough with them guns... But also (after a time) democracy, and development. Look at any African ex-colony, they all had the beginnings of democracy in place before the British left.

This does not atone for our being there in the first place... But deserves a mention, nevertheless.

Your "prime minister" has his head buried in George W. Bush's lap. The military bases are just to make sure it stays there.

What is the difference between this and other countries with an American presence? Israel, for example? You can't have it both ways, that doesn't make any sense!

You say that the British must remain to "preserve order", avoid "anarchy" and a "bloodbath", etc. That too should serve as a "good excuse" for many decades...if not forever.

Don't be ridiculous. I simply stated that the occupying force should remain for the time being. To withdraw now would indeed lead to chaos - which no-one can suggest is in the best interests of the Iraqi people! The army is providing Iraq with a temporary police force and helping to train new (Iraqi) recruits. They are also helping with the co-ordination of humanitarian aid. Now I know this is largely needed because of their previous acions - again, I say I was against the War from the outset - but it cannot be condemned now. Indeed I find it laudable.

And TCOTR doesn't think the Iraqis will be "fit" to run their own affairs until they convert to Christianity!

Do find ONE reference to this to back up your statement and I will agree! (Perhaps) Otherwise stop mindlessly repeating yourself, please. You're causing a scene. And making a fool of yourself.

redstar2000

2nd March 2004, 02:40

I simply stated that the occupying force should remain for the time being. To withdraw now would indeed lead to chaos - which no-one can suggest is in the best interests of the Iraqi people! The army is providing Iraq with a temporary police force and helping to train new (Iraqi) recruits.

Aaawwww...that's really swell!

Did you say something about making a fool of yourself, fool?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

praxis1966

2nd March 2004, 05:20

Again, this is a question of scale. The British Imperialists were, of course, at fault. They escalated the problems of tribal conflict - by developing the countries they occupied! There were hideous crimes committed, yes, but there was also much progress in infrastructure and, dare I say it, political and economic freedoms. The British brough with them guns... But also (after a time) democracy, and development. Look at any African ex-colony, they all had the beginnings of democracy in place before the British left.

This does not atone for our being there in the first place... But deserves a mention, nevertheless.

Uhh, dude, I hate to tell you this, but the British never "left" anywhere in Africa willfully. They were driven out by armed anti-colonial revolutionaries. If in fact they did leave anyplace of their own accord, it was only after having raped the country of its natural resources, or at least ensuring that they would retain control of them.

pandora

2nd March 2004, 06:44

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 1 2004, 02:17 AM
[QUOTE]

I agree. A fundamentalist victory does seem likely, and it will be a victory supported by the majority of the people. Iraq, and most of the Islamic world, will remain hostile to Communism for a long time - there is little chance of funding rebellion amongst the people. Even if a Marxist "state" were to be set up, the fundamentalists would simply switch targets - and attack it just as harshly as a secular dictatorship.

I was against the War from the outset, and I remain opposed to the occupation... Unfortunately it must continue, at least for a while. There is no infrastructure at all, no order. (I know, we bombed it all flat - I'm not trying to excuse this at all!)
This is crap, if we cared half a damn for anyone in Iraq we could subsidize every adult in the country for $2 a head, rebuild the universities and hospitals that we bombed and get the f out Marshall stylee, but with our usual racist ideology, we have to teach them a. how to be euro/white
b. how to be good capitalists and and bow down to the foot of oppression c. by keeping most of the country unemployed, who had jobs prior but we stopped all that with the government we're making those who were independent look and feel desperate, this is why people are hanging out in mosques who used to work all day.

We want a fundamentalist state so they will be good dictators and the corrupt bastards on top will keep all free will buried under brutal tyranny. Otherwise, we'd let the country go back to work and reconstruct their government without having to ask our permission, under our brutal heel the fundamentalist populations have grown as the population seeks its spiritual opiate to oblivate all feeling of once being a person with aims and desire, small buisness supporting a family.

We don't want everyone being paid with the freaking oil revenue from their own country to go to school or work in social services or rebuild the country themselves because that would give them pride
Instead England and the US and whatever other countries were stupid enough to sell their young for corporate greed are paying shitloads of money to keep a brutal occupation force in place, while meanwhile the freaking corporations steal the oil fields of this country blind without giving anything back to the Iraqi people or the nations that are paying for this war
You want to hear some real shit, and this is where Clark and his ilk got in. They ain't even paying the freakin troops, a ships captain told me, who never feels sorry for the troops cause they ask for it, that he took 10 boys on board a night and fed them because they didn't have any food except old army rations and bad water.
Oh yeah they had the latest equipment, military contracts$, ching
But no supplies, what a bunch of shit, go join up!
You think it's an accident they're increasing job export out of the occupying countries right now? NO they want your ass to enlist, and they'll try to force you through unpaid unemployment, especially techies.
All right I'm done ranting

Invader Zim

2nd March 2004, 07:42

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 1 2004, 04:44 AM
Hmmm. So Kez calls RedStar senile and old man, then wishes for his death, and you guys are *****ing at me ? Nice to see there's no personal agenda there. This discussion was rendered pointless before you even came in with Kez's insult in the title.
Well thats a bit unfair, somewhere I have a txt file I saved of a conversation where I believe it was redstar hoped I joined the army and got shot.

Bit harsh to pick on Kez for saying something similar.

The Children of the Revolution

2nd March 2004, 13:17

Did you say something about making a fool of yourself, fool?

How is this foolish? Pray share your "wisdom" with the rest of us...

They were driven out by armed anti-colonial revolutionaries. If in fact they did leave anyplace of their own accord, it was only after having raped the country of its natural resources, or at least ensuring that they would retain control of them.

They were "encouraged" out of many colonies, yes. But in many other cases, it was largely voluntary. One of the conditions of America helping the Brits in WWII was that Britain should surrender her claim to the Empire. The US was all in favour of "self-determination". And the Brits, in most cases, complied. Again, this doesn't excuse the original invasion...

We want a fundamentalist state so they will be good dictators and the corrupt bastards on top will keep all free will buried under brutal tyranny.

I couldn't really understand the rest of your post... But as for this - it's nonsense! No Islamic fundamentalist leader would dream of supporting Western exploitation or influence! This is what they have been combatting for the past few decades or so!

And I hate to tell you this, but fundamentalist religious leadership is actually quite popular in the Middle East... See it, in part, as a rejection of the West, and perhaps you'll stop this "ranting" and start talking some sense! :P

Soviet power supreme

2nd March 2004, 14:43

by sittin on our arses on che-lives

Um yes.I expected that you dont have any ideas.

I doubt that you live in Iraq so there is no way you can help Iraqi people to oraganise themselfs under marxist leadership.Now you dont want the imperialists to pull their troops back.Now understand that that is the only thing that you can do in order to help the Iraqi people.Be a part of a movement to pull your countrys imperialist troops back if you live in such country.

The longer the occupation lasts, the more Iraq is been robbed off from oil and other resources and companys.

Kez

2nd March 2004, 15:04

someone please explain to me the positive outcome of imperialist forces coming out of iraq baring in mind it will create a power vacuum, and at this moment in time it is the islamic nutcases who would assume power. These nutcases are the shites, who are the worst of the worst. wheres the logic, maybe its coz some people have fetish with arab women wearing hejabs and you'd like to see them forced to wear one???

RedStar, your argument has no logic
You support a capitalist state banning headscarves, yet you support a situation which would lead to a islamic capitalist state banning not wearing headscarves? this is what happens when you have no principles and are jumping around everywhere and dont have a solid argumetn to stand on

"The real heart of this thread is this: Kez doesn't think the Iraqis will be "fit" to run their own affairs until they convert to Trotskyism. And TCOTR doesn't think the Iraqis will be "fit" to run their own affairs until they convert to Christianity!"
- Nah, i said we should fight for a socialist iraq. No mention of whether they were fit to run it or not. Ive also argued and mentioned once already that a unnited front was a good possibility in iraq.

infact, i challenge to state where you got "Kez doesn't think the Iraqis will be "fit" to run their own affairs until they convert to Trotskyism" from, and if you cannot do so, you'll take that statement back and state you were wrong and apologise.

I await for you to take this statement back and make an apology
You make utter bollocks up when your stuck in a corner

guerrillaradio

2nd March 2004, 16:26

This is ridiculous. What are you gaining from this??

Kez

2nd March 2004, 16:39

just trying to show that this guy is an idiot. I wouldnt usually bother, but he posts too often for me to ignore, and if people see he is full of shit, they will read his posts but not take it for granted. that is what is to gain.

More importantly however, is the spread of what i believe is the correct position, ie the support for a socialist iraq, and not allow power to fall into the hands of capitalists, whether they be in the form or american capital, or under the robes of islam.

guerrillaradio

2nd March 2004, 22:47

Kamo you're wrong if you believe throwing insults is necessary within the framework of a "political debate". They negate your argument as a whole. If you wanna create some kinda "progressive Marxist uprising", or whatever jargon you use, against Redstar, do it rationally in argument.

Kez

2nd March 2004, 22:53

well i agree GR,
Your very correct, and its unfortunate sometimes i lose the meaning of political debates on this forum when its very difficult to keep your cool when so many different views are coming in, which in my opinion are utterly bollocks. For example if it was just SP comrades, then i could debate all day long, but when we have non marxists posting garbage, its hard to sift thru without becoming frustated

however, this is no excuse, and i will try to take on your advice which i always use in real life when meeting people.
I just resent the arrogance of RedStar, which for me creates a barrier to quality discussion. However i will try to put more effort in

thnx for advice

I hope redstar also takes the advice, and doesnt use personal insults such as "Trotskyist Fuckwit" against me or other trotskyists.

thank you

redstar2000

2nd March 2004, 23:18

...somewhere I have a text file I saved of a conversation where I believe it was redstar hoped I joined the army and got shot.

Then why don't you post it?

As it happens, I do recall urging you to implement your support of U.S. and British imperialism in Iraq by "joining up".

You got such a huge thrill out of the "victorious" war that I thought it appropriate that you should personally take part.

I still think that would be a good idea, Colonel Blimp. Go show the "wogs" how "tough" a real Englishman is!

Lackey!

One of the conditions of America helping the Brits in WWII was that Britain should surrender her claim to the Empire.

Ha Ha Ha! What is this from, the Imaginary "History" Channel? I know, you've been studying with Colonel Blimp...who has many similarly strange versions of "history" -- like his contention that the British Empire was "nasty but necessary".

You two should get along great; he says he's an atheist but don't let that put you off...his atheism is as fake as his leftism, like yours.

Someone please explain to me the positive outcome of imperialist forces coming out of Iraq bearing in mind it will create a power vacuum, and at this moment in time it is the Islamic nutcases who would assume power.

Immediate withdrawal of the imperialist forces from Iraq would be correctly perceived around the world as a serious defeat for U.S. imperialism and its lackeys.

It would encourage stronger resistance everywhere...and could even conceivably create a domestic crisis in U.S. politics.

The "new left" in the U.S. (in the 1960s) began as a liberal civil rights movement...what radicalized it was the resistance of the Vietnamese.

If the Iraqi resistance -- no matter who is running it -- really succeeds in making the occupation untenable, the fallout in the U.S. (and the U.K.) will be enormously beneficial for us. (Even you Trotskyist sectarians will gain some new members...poor sods.)

You know what your problem is, Kez? You are "imagining" yourself & your pathetic sect "in power" in the U.K....and "how" you would "deal" with the problem of Islamic fundamentalism in a country that "you" were "occupying".

Guess what? The Iraqis are quite capable of dealing with Islamic fundamentalism in their own time and by their own methods.

They don't need you and your sect to tell them how to run their country! Nor do they need Blair's mercenaries to "protect" them from "disorder" and "anarchy".

As was clearly demonstrated in Iran by the American-imposed and maintained monarchy, the longer the imperialists run a place, the more they fuck things up! The worse things are after they finally leave or are forced out.

If the imperialists leave or are forced out, the most likely outcome inside Iraq is that the Islamic fundamentalists will fall to fighting among themselves...an excellent way of alienating most Iraqis from Islamic fundamentalism altogether!

But as long as the imperialists remain, all the strains of Islamic fundamentalism will be strengthened and gain the support of more Iraqis.

In fact, I challenge to state where you got "Kez doesn't think the Iraqis will be "fit" to run their own affairs until they convert to Trotskyism" from, and if you cannot do so, you'll take that statement back and state you were wrong and apologise.

That view is obviously inherent in the logic of your first post to this thread. If you think that the imperialists "can't withdraw" because it will lead to a "fundamentalist-run" Iraq -- something you clearly don't approve of -- than that's the same thing as saying that the Iraqis are "unfit" to run their own country because they'd make a choice you don't like!

And your statement about "marxist leadership" -- code for "Trotskyist-run" party -- being required to drive out the imperialists is the same thing as saying that only when Iraqis become Trotskyist will they at last "earn the right" to run their own country.

So you get no "apology" from me...not now and not ever. In practice, you have sided with "your own" ruling class against its victims.

(Just as it logically follows, by the way, that for TCOTR -- who believes Christianity is the "true faith" -- the "wogs" can never really be trusted to run things on their own until they "see the light" and substitute "Jesus" for the "false prophet Muhammad". He can't say that in plain and honest words because he's well aware that would earn him an express ticket to Opposing Ideologies...but it's implicit in his whole line of argument. He thinks it's a "good thing" that the British are training new Iraqi cops, for example. No doubt they use the instruction manuals from Northern Ireland!)

RedStar, your argument has no logic.
You support a capitalist state banning headscarves, yet you support a situation which would lead to a Islamic capitalist state banning not wearing headscarves? This is what happens when you have no principles and are jumping around everywhere and don't have a solid argument to stand on.

Not exactly. It's "what happens" whenever I enter into controversy with people who are unable to either read with comprehension or follow a logical argument (even their own!).

I support the French National Assembly ban on religious displays in French public schools because I think it is a small step in the right direction -- removing religion from public life.

I support the expulsion/withdrawal of U.S. and British mercenaries from Iraq because it will give any proto-secular forces there room to stand on! As things are now, they are hopelessly squeezed between the imperialists and the fundamentalists...there are no other alternatives there now!

Only after the imperialists are gone will the small secular groups begin to find some room to stand and fight...without being tarred with the brush of collaboration with imperialism.

This has been actually taking place in Iran in recent years. The Iranian fundamentalists are still trying to play the "American lackey" card against the secularists...but with diminishing effect.

It is almost certainly what will happen in Iraq...but not until the imperialists are gone.

Just trying to show that this guy is an idiot. I wouldn't usually bother, but he posts too often for me to ignore, and if people see he is full of shit, they will read his posts but not take it for granted. That is what is to gain.

Yes, I gathered as much from the title you chose for this thread.

But all you've really demonstrated is how to support your own ruling class with a few scraps and tatters of Trotskyist rhetoric.

Frankly, I think even Trotsky would be embarrassed by your ineptitude.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Invader Zim

2nd March 2004, 23:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 12:18 AM

...somewhere I have a text file I saved of a conversation where I believe it was redstar hoped I joined the army and got shot.

Then why don't you post it?

As it happens, I do recall urging you to implement your support of U.S. and British imperialism in Iraq by "joining up".

You got such a huge thrill out of the "victorious" war that I thought it appropriate that you should personally take part.

I still think that would be a good idea, Go show the "wogs" how "tough" a real Englishman is!

Lackey!

Then why don't you post it?

Unfortunatly I have the problem of being unable to find it, which suggests that I have deleted it, I believe that Moskitto may have a copy anyway, so all is not lost... I hope.

As it happens, I do recall urging you to implement your support of U.S. and British imperialism in Iraq by "joining up".

There we go then, cheers for proving my point, however I note you neglect to mention that you wished I my untimely death to a bullet.

You got such a huge thrill out of the "victorious" war that I thought it appropriate that you should personally take part.

You have moved from the relms of half truths to downright lies, I never have and I doubt ever will make such statements. You are a liar.

I still think that would be a good idea,

great.

Colonel Blimp

:rolleyes:

Go show the "wogs"

Please do not confuse your own views of other races and cultures with mine.

how "tough" a real Englishman is!

... but i'm not english.

Lackey!

You back on that, I thought you had moved on to enema, well obviously consistancy isn't one of your strong points.

Morpheus

3rd March 2004, 01:41

RedStar said:

the Islamic fundamentalists appear to be leading the resistance to the occupation forces

That's the impression the capitalist media likes to give (Islamists + "Saddam remnants") but the resistance is actually a whole bunch of different groups with different ideologies. Western Media never reports the names of the groups involved in the war, here's a partial list:

Active Religious Seminary
Al-Faruq Brigades
Al-Anbar Armed Brigades
Black Banner Organization
Al-Sadr's Group
Armed Vanguards of Mohammad's Second Army
Black Banner Organization
Hasad al-Muqawamah al-'Iraqiyah
Harvest of the Iraqi Resistance
Iraqi National Islamic Resistance
Iraqi Resistance Brigades
al-Anbar Armed Brigades of Iraq's Revolutionaries
Islamic Armed Group of al-Qaida, Fallujah branch
Jihad Cells
Iraqi Communist Party-Al Cadre
Liberating Iraq's Army
Mujahideen Battalions of the Salafi Group of Iraq
Muslim Fighters of the Victorious Sect (aka, Mujaheddin of the Victorious Sect)
Muslim Youth
Nasserites
National Iraqi Commandos Front
Salafist Jihad Group
Snake Party
Sons of Islam
Wakefulness and Holy War
White Flags
General Command of the Armed Forces, Resistance and Liberation in Iraq
Patriotic Front
General Secretariat for the Liberation of Democratic Iraq
Political Media Organ of the Ba‘ath Party (Jihaz al-Iilam al-Siasi lil hizb al-Baath)
Popular Resistance for the Liberation of Iraq
Saddam's Fedayeen
Unification Front for the Liberation of Iraq

As you can see just by looking at the names there are a variety of different groups fighting the US. Some are Baathist loyalists, some are fundamentalists and some are anti-Saddam nationalists. The Nasserists are obviously named after Nasser, who was a Pan-Arab Nationalist and state socialist. General Secretariat for the Liberation of Democratic Iraq is a leftist anti-Saddam group. In addition there are non-guerilla groups engaged in resistance, such as the worker-communist party, labor unions and various civil society groups. There are also anarchists in Iraq, but I don't know what kind of activity they're involved in.

There is no significant "marxist" presence in Iraq at this time and there's not likely to be any for a decade or more! Probably more.

The Iraqi Communist Party is one of the largest parties in Iraq. It is also collaborating with the Imperialists and has seats on the Imperialist governing council. A faction of the ICP got pissed at this and broke off, forming the Iraqi Communist Party Al-Cadre which is fighting in the guerilla war against the occupiers. One would think that Kez would get behind Al-Cadre, if he really thinks the Marxists should lead the rebellion.

Children of the Revolution:

"We" (The British) should not have been there, no. BUT, when "we" were, some semblance of law and order was maintained, there was an infrastructure, of sorts, and peace reigned. And when the colonial powers withdraw? Bloody Civil Wars, corrupt governments, armed rebels taking to the streets... Chaos. And NOT in the favourable sense of the word.

Someone's been reading too much imperialist propaganda. Peace didn't reign under colonialism, there were lots of wars, massive famines and countless genocides all over. Tens of millions of people were murdered, more than the Nazi holocaust. In many countries famines decreased after formal colonialism ended. And the "third world" has more infrastructure now than it did under colonialism. Most of the civil wars, etc. are the result of the fact that colonialism never completely ended, it just changed to neocolonialism. Capitalist media portrays this as "choas" to cover the fact that it's the result of Western meddling in their affairs. It doesn't matter anyway, Westerners have no right to tell the rest of the world what to do. White people need to stop thinking they know what's best for everyone else.

in many other cases, it was largely voluntary

"Voluntary" in the sense that they set up UK-US puppet governments that insured Western countries would continue to control most of the economy, ie. neocolonialism.

To withdraw now would indeed lead to chaos - which no-one can suggest is in the best interests of the Iraqi people!

The people in Iraq seem to think it's in their own best interests. They don't want you there. What makes you think you know their interests better then they do?

No Islamic fundamentalist leader would dream of supporting Western exploitation or influence

What planet are you from? Saudi Arabia is an american client state, and it's fundamentalist. The US backed Islamic Fundamentalists against the USSR in Afghanistan. Clinton supported Islamic Fundamentalists in Bosnia to help rip apart Yugoslavia. Some fundamentalists will support the west, others will not. Some switch between the two, like Bin Laden.

Kez

someone please explain to me the positive outcome of imperialist forces coming out of iraq baring in mind it will create a power vacuum, and at this moment in time it is the islamic nutcases who would assume power. These nutcases are the shites, who are the worst of the worst.

You don't know that will happen. And even if it did, Iraq wouldn't be any worse off than it is today, under the dictatorship of Paul Bremer. If it went the way of Iran then Iraqis would control their own rescources and their own country. Over time this would open up the possibilities for moving in a leftword direction, as in Iran. And even if it didn't, it would deal a major blow to US imperialism and make the US less likely to conquer other countries.

i said we should fight for a socialist iraq

Then you should support the Iraqi Communist Party Al-Cadre and/or the developing workers' movement, both of which want the US/UK out.

If you support continuing the war/occupation why don't you go join the military? How can you demand that others risk their lives when you are not willing to do so?

redstar2000

3rd March 2004, 02:26

Western Media never reports the names of the groups involved in the war, here's a partial list...

Interesting. Many of the names suggest an Islamic fundamentalist orientation, but who knows? (Could the "Black Banner Organization" be anarchist? And what do you suppose the "Snake Party" represents?)

Also, I recall seeing a similar list of parties on the ballot in various states of the U.S. -- it was surprisingly long, even though the vast majority of them had no significant support.

My impression is that what passes for "marxist" in Iraq is actually very mildly social-democratic...though it's always possible that there are real Marxists there and we just don't know about them. The collaboration of the Iraqi "Communist Party" with the occupation forces is a death sentence of course...once you've been publicly identified as a quisling, the stink takes decades to wear off...if ever.

One would think that Kez would get behind Al-Cadre, if he really thinks the Marxists should lead the rebellion.

But are they Trotskyist??? :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Kez

3rd March 2004, 08:53

RedStar,

I am frankly disgusted by your inability to read posts and carry on a mature discussion.
You seem you love the fact you can twist your own conclucions from others posts
Your suggestion that i wanted trotskyism to take over iraq was the final straw, when twice on this thread alone ive suggested a united front.

I think its pretty clear that you are unable to debate properly, and lower yourself to other means to boost your deflated ego.

I cant keep up with fighting against your falsifications, it seems you have too much time, since you only go to pick up your pensions daily and thats its anyway, so no surprise you have so much time to make utter bollocks up. bravo.

As a note for this moderators of this board, i think its hilarious how RedStar can EXPLICITLY hope for one persons death (Enigma) its ok, but when i made a comment that suggested hes old enough to die (without my help) ive been booted from the commie club. Well done Malte, youve fullfilled your wish of getting rid of me, clap clap, please look for when my last post in commie club was, try somewhere in december, coz thats how important commie club is to me.....ooooh the punishment.

Malte, i would also like to know why you didnt reply to my 2 PM's concerning this hypocracy.
Id also urge anyone with access to commie club to vote against my expulsion to OI, not to help me, but stick one up against those who want to use force rather than debate against members.

I hope the hypocracy point is raised in the commie club thread poll, which is being won in my favour against expulsion to OI.

redstar2000

3rd March 2004, 10:55

I am frankly disgusted by your inability to read posts and carry on a mature discussion.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Your idea of a "mature discussion" presumably being a tiresome lament to Malte about the "shabby way" you've been treated because of your pro-imperialist views.

Why not just think of it all as part of "the white man's burden"?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

The Feral Underclass

3rd March 2004, 11:26

The Children of the Revolution

What's interesting is you didnt attempt to deny any of it...i wonder why that is.

Hahaha!! T.(w)A.T. is getting all angry!

Yes...unfortunatly when constantly coming up against fuck nuts like you I do tend to get a little annoyed, especially when they're so fucking stupid!

I've never read such a load of arse!!

Truth hurt does it!

Do us all a favour and fuck off to Africa, or wherever the hell it is you're going

All in good time...yes, you're right (for once) it is Africa I am going to...to actually do something with my life...unlike some people I could mention....no doubt you will still be here in 6 months time, spewing the same bullshit as before...looser!

What was Marx, what was Lenin, what was Trotsky?? They were theoreticians!! And damn good ones too...

:lol: You're not Marx, nor are you Lenin or Trotsky and none of your theorizing comes any where near damn good, my god, it dosnt come close to understandable let alone anything else....your just some dick head that sits on his cum stained swivel chair pretending to be Marx, Lenin and Trotsky...fantasizing about leading the masses...pathetic!

Says the twat who has just written a mini-essay filled with spite and hatred

And your point is...was any of it untrue...I have no spite towards you, I have better things to do, and I don't hate you i pitty you. I hoped that maybe what I said would ring around your hollow skull so you would at least have the chance to stop being you...obviously that didnt happen...never mind...it's your life.

Do you think that in order to be a revolutionary, you should be poor?

No I dont.

And we, in the middle classes, can spell! That's "through and through"

Yes, you're right it is petty...but what can you expect from someone like you....not much else really.

but since your tirade I feel that anything is justified!

Plausable deniability.......

Wanker.

I dont mind being a wanker...at least I dont have to be you!

Scottish_Militant

3rd March 2004, 11:45

There seems to be a great 'my Dad is harder than your Dad' argument here :rolleyes:

SittingBull47

3rd March 2004, 12:27

Invader Zim

3rd March 2004, 13:12

The continuation of the US/UK occupation is IMO a counterproductive, I think that if the US and UK were to pull out now severe problems with the infrastructure of the country, but they [the Iraqi people] I am sure will solve the problems rapidly, far more rapidly than with a civil war with the pro-US regime. If the US stay it is inevitable, they are going to impose a regime which has strong ties with Washington, contrary to the majority of the Iraqi people's wishes. The people of Iraq can never be given a government which they will be happy with, they must choose their own, America cannot and will not ever let them, not with the oil resources in Iraq.

The only logical outcome of a continued occupation is a civil war in which many more will die. That’s the only outcome I can see occurring, at least if the Iraqi's are given a choice to form their own government, the chances of civil war are reduced. However I doubt anyone is Naive enough to think that the possibility of a power vacuum is remote, but as I see it, that will occur anyway at some point, with or without American occupation.

No withdrawal seems to be the best course of actions for all sides... except the US/UK.

Kez

3rd March 2004, 13:32

yes redstar, i am pro imperialist that is why my stance is that iraqi people should boot them out. my mistake oh wise one.

The Children of the Revolution

3rd March 2004, 13:47

Well, where to start?

I'll concentrate on the important stuff. The meaningful stuff. TwAT, that excludes your entire post.
Apart from the following:

And your point is...was any of it untrue...I have no spite towards you, I have better things to do, and I don't hate you i pitty you. I hoped that maybe what I said would ring around your hollow skull so you would at least have the chance to stop being you...obviously that didnt happen...never mind...it's your life.

Yes, it was untrue. If you have better things to do, why not say "fuck off" and leave it at that? But no, you wrote a mini-essay (I can see you now, a look of pure concentration and effort on your pathetic face, trying to find synonyms for "fuck" and the like... AND trying in vain to turn the CAPS lock off...) devoted to nothing but spite and foul language. I happen to like being me, I like it a lot. It is indeed my life, not yours - thank the Lord.

I pity (that's p-i-t-y, the second "t" was quite un-necessary...) you, in actual fact. Let's leave it at that.

RedStar, you disappoint me. 'Kez' was spot on:

You seem you love the fact you can twist your own conclucions from others posts

I think its pretty clear that you are unable to debate properly, and lower yourself to other means to boost your deflated ego.

I cant keep up with fighting against your falsifications, it seems you have too much time, since you only go to pick up your pensions daily and thats its anyway, so no surprise you have so much time to make utter bollocks up. bravo.

I find it saddening that such a "respected" and "venerable" chap such as yourself resorts to:

"What is this from, the Imaginary History Channel?"

rather than providing any kind of argument to counter mine. This was the main topic of discussion when Churchill and Roosevelt met aboard a ship in the Atlantic prior to American "involvement" in the War. I seem to remember another thread in which you stated the superiority of the Red Army and it's demolition of the Poles in the early 1920's - you were wrong then, and you are wrong now. The RedStar school of historical thought is largely conjecture anyhow.

He [me] thinks it's a "good thing" that the British are training new Iraqi cops, for example.

Yes. Yes, I do. What is wrong with this? The cops are not there to oppress, but to maintain a degree of law and order! This is essential to the safety of Iraqis; it is for this reason that they are being trained! Do you think they are training the next 'Gestapo' or something?

Peace didn't reign under colonialism, there were lots of wars, massive famines and countless genocides all over.

Any particular examples you want to share with us?

And the "third world" has more infrastructure now than it did under colonialism.

It had NONE before colonialism! I am not trying to excuse the process, as I say countless times, but it need not cause such widespread guilt amongst Britons today!

"Voluntary" in the sense that they set up UK-US puppet governments that insured Western countries would continue to control most of the economy, ie. neocolonialism.

Simply untrue. Yes, many British governers were left in place in several former colonies... This was during the period of transition when their expertise was valuable. After that, they left.

Look at India, for example.

Saudi Arabia is an american client state, and it's fundamentalist.

Not in the true sense of the word. Islamic fundamentalists (as studied by myself) despise Saudi Arabia too. Bin Laden, I should think, was using the West rather than supporting it!

The people in Iraq seem to think it's in their own best interests. They don't want you there. What makes you think you know their interests better then they do?

I think they see the alternative in an unrealistic way, that's all. Naturally, I want the US/UK out eventually - as soon as possible, in fact. It isn't possible yet, though. There are far too many factions wanting to get at each others throats and nothing in place to stop this. Do you deny this?

The Feral Underclass

3rd March 2004, 14:06

I'll concentrate on the important stuff. The meaningful stuff.

It's quite easy to dismiss it all isn't it. As I predicted you would. It means you don't have to deal with the fact I am right and you are wrong. It's psychology, and you're like an open book...easy to read!

Yes, it was untrue.

No it wasn't and you no it...that's why you are so bitter about it now...I touched a nerve...

If you have better things to do, why not say "fuck off" and leave it at that?

A desire to see people correct their mistakes I suppose...we can live in hope.

I can see you now, a look of pure concentration and effort on your pathetic face, trying to find synonyms for "fuck" and the like... AND trying in vain to turn the CAPS lock off...)

If this is an attempt at wit, you failed...I imagine your use to failure by now...you and your small penis must be very lonly...

devoted to nothing but spite and foul language.

Why should I respect someone I have nothing but contempt for. I am sorry if my bad language offended your middle class christian sensabilities :rolleyes: .........Prick!

I happen to like being me

You'd have to say that wouldn't you...?

I like it a lot

A little over the top isnt it...it's just not believable...if you'd said "sometimes" I would have thought you were telling the truth...Now I no you're lieing.

It is indeed my life, not yours - thank the Lord.

Thank the lord indeed....i'll remember, when your sat in that grubby old chair typing on che-lives, wishing you meant something to someone and I'm in africa, helping people and doing something useful, ...how your life definatly isnt mine

I pity (that's p-i-t-y, the second "t" was quite un-necessary...) you, in actual fact. Let's leave it at that.

Oh please...you sound like a six year old....not far off I would imagine...let's face it..you dont pity me, you just wish you do...

Sabocat

3rd March 2004, 14:06

The Iraqi people are welcome to start a peaceful protest with the intent of removing forces. If they were to start a violent riot, however, that would create even more problems for them. A true sign of independence is the ability to handle a situation in a civilized way.

Translation = The slaves should smile while being whipped by their masters.

They're welcome to start a peaceful protest? How generous of you. Maybe they should seek a permit to protest from Paul Bremer himself. Name one instance where colonial occupation has retreated in the face of peaceful protest. It's simply amazing to read all the posts supporting occupation of Iraq and those enamored with authority.

Invader Zim

3rd March 2004, 14:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 03:06 PM
Name one instance where colonial occupation has retreated in the face of peaceful protest.

A silly question I think because their is one obvious answer, which you seem to have overlooked (possibly two), where peaceful protest has defeated colonialism.

Firstly India, Ghandi used peaceful protest to basically kick the British imperialists out.

Secondly, in Vietnam the media coverage and peaceful protest against the war is often credited by many historians as being the most important in the withdrawl of US troops, higher even than Military failure.

Kez

3rd March 2004, 14:26

Originally posted by Enigma+Mar 3 2004, 03:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Mar 3 2004, 03:17 PM)
[email protected] 3 2004, 03:06 PM
Name one instance where colonial occupation has retreated in the face of peaceful protest.

A silly question I think because their is one obvious answer, which you seem to have overlooked (possibly two), where peaceful protest has defeated colonialism.

Firstly India, Ghandi used peaceful protest to basically kick the British imperialists out.

Secondly, in Vietnam the media coverage and peaceful protest against the war is often credited by many historians as being the most important in the withdrawl of US troops, higher even than Military failure. [/b]
yeah but it was the fact that guerillas were smashing imperialists that the media could show military should be brought out.

Anyway, back to an underlying point.

How can redstar explicitly say he would like to see enigma shot dead and not be punished, yet ive been booted from commie club and face a poll for me to be sent to OI for saying when he was dead id dance on his grave??

I want this question answered by the moderators.

The Feral Underclass

3rd March 2004, 14:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 03:26 PM
How can redstar explicitly say he would like to see enigma shot dead and not be punished, yet ive been booted from commie club and face a poll for me to be sent to OI for saying when he was dead id dance on his grave??

I want this question answered by the moderators.
Maybe it's because nobody likes you and everyone likes redstar.

The Feral Underclass

3rd March 2004, 14:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 03:17 PM
Firstly India, Ghandi used peaceful protest to basically kick the British imperialists out.
Gandhi's tactics did not "kick" the British out of India. A mixture of bordom and international pressure did...I find it hard to believe, if not completely rediculas to assume that some old poncy middle class pacifist lawyer-come messiah dressed in a white cloth could effectivly remove such a gigantic military and economic power such as the British at that time.

If the British ruling class had really wanted to keep hold of India they would have, and they wouldn't have been stopped by the threat of non-violent action :rolleyes:

Sabocat

3rd March 2004, 14:37

Firstly India, Ghandi used peaceful protest to basically kick the British imperialists out.

I didn't forget India. I just don't technically call it peaceful protesting when thousands are slaughtered while passively resisting. Also, I don't thing England would have left even then if there were the resources available that are available in Iraq.

Secondly, in Vietnam the media coverage and peaceful protest against the war is often credited by many historians as being the most important in the withdrawl of US troops, higher even than Military failure.

Again, I wouldn't necessarily call all the protesting of the war in Vietnam peaceful. 4 demonstrators were shot dead on a college campus, there was rioting happening everywhere. Bombing of statues and government buildings, etc. The government withdrew troops from Vietnam because of mass desertions, sabotaging, "fragging of officers", and because there was a serious threat of the ruling class losing control here. They withdrew them to save their own skins.

guerrillaradio

3rd March 2004, 14:56

The only post of worth on this thread has been Morpheus'. Thank you Morpheus, do you have a link for that?? It's absolutely fascinating...

redstar2000

3rd March 2004, 15:43

A true sign of independence is the ability to handle a situation in a civilized way.

Yes...sort of like the way George & Tony have "handled" the Iraqis from the beginning.

With such "civilized ways", who needs barbarism?

This was the main topic of discussion when Churchill and Roosevelt met aboard a ship in the Atlantic prior to American "involvement" in the War.

No it wasn't. The "main topic of discussion" was a deal whereby America traded some obsolete battleships to England in exchange for some obsolete naval bases.

Historians mostly agree, I think, that Roosevelt wanted to be "in the war" fairly early on...but faced stiff domestic opposition.

Even after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. did not declare war on Germany until after Germany declared war on the U.S.

As for "giving up the empire", Churchill himself declared towards the end of World War II that he had "not become prime minister in order to preside over the dissolution of the British Empire".

It is true that Roosevelt privately expressed reservations (shortly before his death) about helping the French re-take their "possessions" in IndoChina.

Truman and Eisenhower had no problem with that at all.

Do you think they are training the next 'Gestapo' or something?

What the bloody hell else would an imperialist country do?

Oh, I know...train them to be just like the famous English bobbies in 1930s English murder mysteries.

"Ere now, wots all this." :lol:

Naturally, I want the US/UK out eventually - as soon as possible, in fact. It isn't possible yet, though. There are far too many factions wanting to get at each other's throats and nothing in place to stop this.

Yes, these people must be "civilized" first...taught the English version of "tolerance" as set forth in Northern Ireland.

Firstly India, Gandhi used peaceful protest to basically kick the British imperialists out.

I'll say one thing for that old faker, er, fakir, he sure had one hell of a public relations manager.

The fact of the matter is that both the Labor Government of that time and the British public in general were sick of war...and were no more inclined to support any further military adventures in India than they were in Greece, Palestine, or (I believe) Burma -- all places from which British forces were withdrawn in 1947-48.

Gandhi didn't "win" India's independence from England...the British were simply exhausted and could no longer spare the resources to hold onto it. What good was Gandhi's non-violence in the 1930s while England was still a "world power"?

Try zero.

Secondly, in Vietnam the media coverage and peaceful protest against the war is often credited by many historians as being the most important in the withdrawal of US troops, higher even than military failure.

Yeah, I've read the "historians" you're referring to...the ones that whine "we never lost a battle -- the liberal media stabbed us in the back".

The anti-war movement in the 1960s (in which I was a participant by the way) played an important role...there's no doubt about that. But it was the stubborn resistance of the Vietnamese that defeated U.S. imperialism. Indeed, America's own conscript army was so demoralized that it began to refuse to engage the enemy and actually approached mutiny.

The American ruling class "cut its losses" and withdrew...something that may happen again in Iraq.

In seven to ten years!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Invader Zim

3rd March 2004, 16:40

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Mar 3 2004, 03:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Anarchist Tension @ Mar 3 2004, 03:33 PM)
[email protected] 3 2004, 03:17 PM
Firstly India, Ghandi used peaceful protest to basically kick the British imperialists out.
Gandhi's tactics did not "kick" the British out of India. A mixture of bordom and international pressure did...I find it hard to believe, if not completely rediculas to assume that some old poncy middle class pacifist lawyer-come messiah dressed in a white cloth could effectivly remove such a gigantic military and economic power such as the British at that time.

If the British ruling class had really wanted to keep hold of India they would have, and they wouldn't have been stopped by the threat of non-violent action :rolleyes: [/b]
Gandhi's tactics did not "kick" the British out of India.

No they just had a complete change of heart did they? Did Jesus come down and tell them that they were naughty boys and that god would "spank" them? Please.

A mixture of bordom

Ohh bordom, the British got fed up of having the largest empire on earth and all the economic and political advantages it brings, so what It could just have a harder challenge? :rolleyes:

and international pressure

Internation pressure? You have to be joking, thats nearly as funny as the "bordom" rubbish. The British empire never has given a flying fuck about what other people thought of them, money ruled the empire and the empire made Britains money, The USA, The USSR, Japan, France were the only other major powers at the time and they were all doing it, so I doubt that the British gave a rats ass. No the only real argument apart from the one I have mentioned is that the British ran out of money... bordom... LOL.

I find it hard to believe, if not completely rediculas to assume that some old poncy middle class pacifist lawyer-come messiah dressed in a white cloth could effectivly remove such a gigantic military and economic power such as the British at that time.

Yet they this vast power were willing to give in because they got bored? And you find the guy in the white cloth hard to believe? Jesus.

If the British ruling class had really wanted to keep hold of India they would have, and they wouldn't have been stopped by the threat of non-violent action

But international pressure, IE a bunch of other nations making half assed critisisms of the Empire but not to much, because they weren't going to piss off one of the largest trading countries in the world, would make a differance.

Yeah right, maybe when pigs fly.

I just don't technically call it peaceful protesting when thousands are slaughtered while passively resisting.

Well the protesting was peaceful, unfortunatly the British were not.

4 demonstrators were shot dead on a college campus, there was rioting happening everywhere. Bombing of statues and government buildings, etc. The government withdrew troops from Vietnam because of mass desertions, sabotaging, "fragging of officers", and because there was a serious threat of the ruling class losing control here.

Yeah but how many peaceful rallies were their to go with them? I'm sure that these were considerably more frequent.

Yeah, I've read the "historians" you're referring to...the ones that whine "we never lost a battle -- the liberal media stabbed us in the back".

Indeed some of them probably do.

Gandhi didn't "win" India's independence from England...the British were simply exhausted and could no longer spare the resources to hold onto it.

Fair point.

Comrade Yars

3rd March 2004, 20:40

For my own curiosity's sake... how old are you RedStar?

redstar2000

3rd March 2004, 23:35

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 3 2004, 04:40 PM
For my own curiosity's sake... how old are you RedStar?
Does it really matter?

Very well, I am 62. :(

This thread hasn't made me feel any younger! :o

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

3rd March 2004, 23:40

I wanna see a pic of RedStars wrinkly mug!

redstar2000

4th March 2004, 00:42

What wrinkles?

The Children of the Revolution

4th March 2004, 02:01

<Sigh> Another pointless rant, hmmm? For such an active revolutionary, you seem to have a lot of spare time on your hands. Why don't you get off your high horse, stop preaching (!) and get a life?

"It's quite easy to dismiss it all isn't it. As I predicted you would. It means you don't have to deal with the fact I am right and you are wrong. It's psychology, and you're like an open book...easy to read!"

You correctly predicted that I couldn't be arsed to reply to your laughable ALL IN CAPITAL LETTERS post? Wow, that must have taken real effort. Very well. Just for you I will reply to this nonsense. Everyone else can ignore it, and rightly so.

"No it wasn't and you no it...that's why you are so bitter about it now...I touched a nerve..."

Ha Ha Ha!! You think I care what you say?? If you want to know my first reaction - I laughed!! Then thought about it, then laughed some more!! It still makes me chuckle. And that's "know", k-n-o-w...

"A desire to see people correct their mistakes I suppose...we can live in hope."

Correct their mistakes by calling them a "****"?? Don't ever become a psychiatrist, will you!!

"If this is an attempt at wit, you failed...I imagine your use to failure by now...you and your small penis must be very lonly..."

Ah. You have resorted to the "lets insult the size of his willy" tactic. This is common amongst thugs with low vocabularies and less brain cells than the average box of breakfast cereal. Well done. There are so many spelling mistakes and grammatical errors that I shan't bother to pick them out. Did you attend primary school?

"Why should I respect someone I have nothing but contempt for. I am sorry if my bad language offended your middle class christian sensabilities .........Prick!"

This is garbage. Why does everyone have to bring my religion into every discussion? Can you think of nothing else to say? Morons!

"You'd have to say that wouldn't you...?

A little over the top isnt it...it's just not believable...if you'd said "sometimes" I would have thought you were telling the truth...Now I no you're lieing."

No, I'm afraid it's true. I do like being me. I enjoy life, it's groovy. I used to be incredibly depressed, so I know what the "other side" is like. And I'm not going back!

"Thank the lord indeed....i'll remember, when your sat in that grubby old chair typing on che-lives, wishing you meant something to someone and I'm in africa, helping people and doing something useful, ...how your life definatly isnt mine"

Grubby old chair?? Hey, it's not so bad. Quit demeaning the chair! I find it amusing, by the way, that you slate me for posting on Che-Lives a lot... And you have over 1500 to your name! Oh, the irony...

"Oh please...you sound like a six year old....not far off I would imagine...let's face it..you dont pity me, you just wish you do..."

I pity anyone who, in their "interests" (on the profile) states: "eating....oh how I like to eat!"

Very deep, man. Profound.

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

The "main topic of discussion" was a deal whereby America traded some obsolete battleships to England in exchange for some obsolete naval bases.

The conditions to this trade included the "Empire" deal.

As for "giving up the empire", Churchill himself declared towards the end of World War II that he had "not become prime minister in order to preside over the dissolution of the British Empire".

I think he had little choice. The Nazis had us by the goolies when the "deal" was made. Besides, he was voted out soon after VE day anyway.

What the bloody hell else would an imperialist country do?

You are going too far. Yes, cops are unjust at times, they are slaves to politics in many ways... But their prime function IS to cut crime, NOT randomly oppress people!

Lardlad95

4th March 2004, 02:05

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 4 2004, 12:35 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (redstar2000 @ Mar 4 2004, 12:35 AM)
Comrade [email protected] 3 2004, 04:40 PM
For my own curiosity's sake... how old are you RedStar?
Does it really matter?

Very well, I am 62. :(

This thread hasn't made me feel any younger! :o

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas [/b]
Hey redstar I've always wondered. Are we all (che-livers) invited to your funeral?

I'm imagining that since you smoke you've got a good 4 years before your body will be worm food and you'll be reincarnated as one of the worms that eating your old body.

Seriously though, can I get an invite? I'll even make a short speech.

Stapler

4th March 2004, 02:59

It surprises me that there is so much infighting and unnecessary nastiness here. I think it is because people with strong convictions are overly argumentative, but try to stick to the topic. I beleive that the topic was, or had something to do with Iraq (just incase all the rage made you forget).

redstar2000

4th March 2004, 04:16

You are going too far. Yes, cops are unjust at times, they are slaves to politics in many ways... But their prime function IS to cut crime, NOT randomly oppress people!

No, I agree the oppression is not "random"...it's very specifically directed against a certain class and in favor of the interests of a certain other class.

I'll let you ponder which is which.

Hey redstar I've always wondered. Are we all (che-livers) invited to your funeral?

Since you'll be picking up the tab, invite whoever you like. :D

My intention is to "die broke"...since "you can't take it with you".

It surprises me that there is so much infighting and unnecessary nastiness here.

It shouldn't.

Way up in the Platonic "universe" somewhere, people politely share their views on interesting controversies.

Down here on the planet of blood and shit, there is a war going on between people who want to defend and preserve class society (in one form or another) and people who are determined to destroy it forever.

Thus the debates are a bit more "earthy" than you might have expected.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Morpheus

4th March 2004, 07:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 01:27 PM
The Iraqi people are welcome to start a peaceful protest with the intent of removing forces. If they were to start a violent riot, however, that would create even more problems for them. A true sign of independence is the ability to handle a situation in a civilized way.
The Iraqi people have already had many peacefull protests, they had them immediately after the invasion finished. Your troops shot at them. So they started shooting back. Protests didn't get your troops to leave, even though most Iraqis want you to leave. Your troops are staying so you can steal Iraq's oil. Protests didn't work, so Iraqis are entirely justified in using force to make your troops leave and stop trying to steal their oil.

Morpheus

4th March 2004, 07:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 03:26 AM
Interesting. Many of the names suggest an Islamic fundamentalist orientation, but who knows? (Could the "Black Banner Organization" be anarchist? And what do you suppose the "Snake Party" represents?)
Black banner is usually listed as "nationalist" but I haven't found much info about them. They've called for the sabotage of Iraq's oil industry, IMO.

My impression is that what passes for "marxist" in Iraq is actually very mildly social-democratic

There are several different Marxist sects in Iraq. For many this is true, but not all. I'd put the ICP to the right of the social democrats. And the Worker-Communist Party is left Bolshevik.

Kez, what do you think of the Iraqi Communist Party Al-Cadre? Do you support it?

Morpheus

4th March 2004, 07:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 03:17 PM
Firstly India, Ghandi used peaceful protest to basically kick the British imperialists out.
Which only worked because World War Two inflicted massive violence and damage on the British empire. After the United States faces that kind of fight perhaps a Ghandian strategy would work in Iraq, but not under current circumstances.

Secondly, in Vietnam the media coverage and peaceful protest against the war is often credited by many historians as being the most important in the withdrawl of US troops, higher even than Military failure.

This is a myth. Media coverage was horribly biased and pro-war. The invasion of South Vietnam wasn't even called an invasion. See Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky. The anti-war movement developed mainly because the Vietnamese resistence couldn't be defeated. In the early years of the war there was overwhelming support. It wasn't till the tet offensive that most Americans turned against it. And if the Vietnamese hadn't been fighting against the US there wouldn't have been an anti-war movement to force the US to withdraw.

Morpheus

4th March 2004, 07:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 03:56 PM
The only post of worth on this thread has been Morpheus'. Thank you Morpheus, do you have a link for that?? It's absolutely fascinating...
http://www.freearabvoice.org/
http://www.wbai.org/artman/publish/article_530.php
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/p...tch2003/751.htm (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/policywatch/policywatch2003/751.htm)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops..._insurgency.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm)
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/aug31/fp1.asp
http://www.jihadunspun.net/articles/181220.../ailatir03.html (http://www.jihadunspun.net/articles/18122003-Iraqi-Resistence/ir/ailatir03.html)
http://www.neravt.com/left/

Also, do a google search for "Iraqi Insurgency"

The Feral Underclass

4th March 2004, 09:29

The Child of the Middle Classes [and god]

Another pointless rant, hmmm?

I don't see trying to turn you into a normal functioning human as pointless.

Why don't you get off your high horse, stop preaching (!) and get a life?

Preaching!...I just thought I was pointing out the obvious...it's what everyone thinks but were to afraid to say it...fortunatly for me I wont be around much longer so why hold back?...

You correctly predicted that I couldn't be arsed to reply to your laughable ALL IN CAPITAL LETTERS post?

You could have fooled me......three posts later!!!

Ha Ha Ha!! You think I care what you say??

Yes!

If you want to know my first reaction - I laughed!!

No you didnt!

And that's "know", k-n-o-w...

Thank you!

Correct their mistakes by calling them a "****"??

You are a ****!

You have resorted to the "lets insult the size of his willy" tactic.

Let's face it, you do have a small nob!

This is common amongst thugs with low vocabularies and less brain cells than the average box of breakfast cereal. Well done

I'd rather be a thug than a snob!

are so many spelling mistakes and grammatical errors that I shan't bother to pick them out.

Lucky i'm not an english teacher or bothered then isnt it!

Why does everyone have to bring my religion into every discussion?

Because it's a vile opinion to have and it makes people sick...

you think of nothing else to say?

Fighting religion is as important as fighting capitalism.

No, I'm afraid it's true. I do like being me. I enjoy life, it's groovy.

yeah yeah whatever!

used to be incredibly depressed, so I know what the "other side" is like. And I'm not going back!

Did mommy and daddy stop your pocket money......didums!

Grubby old chair?? Hey, it's not so bad. Quit demeaning the chair! I find it amusing, by the way, that you slate me for posting on Che-Lives a lot... And you have over 1500 to your name! Oh, the irony...

No...that's not what i'm slating you for at all...

I pity anyone who, in their "interests" (on the profile) states: "eating....oh how I like to eat!"

how can eating deserve to be pitied...don't you eat, dosnt everyone eat?

Very deep, man. Profound.

You do know that this is an internet message board dont you?...Why would I want to put detail descriptions about what interests me on an internet profile. I'm not here to make friends and I wouldnt want loosers like you reading it.

Kez

4th March 2004, 16:31

Tension, get a grip of yourself mate,
you seem to think your much more important than you really are, fuck the arrogant tone mate

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, (for those who have forgotten, what should our stance be on iraq), i just kick start it again.

Imperialist Troops are now in iraq
Imperialist Capital is flowing into iraq for the gain of imperialist nation's ruling classes as shown from the below quote from socialist appeal
"In the meantime, the occupiers are busy sharing out the spoils, in the form of contracts overwhelmingly to American companies such as controversial Halliburton and Bechtel with close links to the White House. “To the victors go the spoils”, and in this case this means the United States. Up until now the British, America’s special ally, have been left out in the cold, as is everyone else. The juicy Iraqi contracts total some $14 billion and cover areas such as electricity, water, transport, and telecommunications. The bidding process is firmly in the grasp of the Americans and is being run by Admiral David Nash, the senior procurement official at the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq."
Imperialism will be there until it costs more to remain, than it does it does to pull out

Iraqi working classes consiousness is being raised by experience of imperialism, in iraq, and have learnt what it has done to neighbouring iran.
However, it is being retarded by the fanatical islamic nuts. Religion is a tool of Capitalism to hold down the masses, in this case it is Islam

What are the iraqi communist parties doing? Well, one group is collaborating with the imperialists, not standing for an independant class (our class) stance. The other is doing some activity. However, what is lackin in iraq is a clear voice for the workers and poor. Only through a workers voice can a solution be found, and that being a socialist solution
What you stand for RedStar is the stalinist "2 stage theory" that somehow we will bring in a nationalist bourgeoise, and then we will fight for workers. Same thing that happened in France in 1945, and in Iran in '79, and we now see the effects.
It is not surprising that someone who calls me a "trotskyist fuckwit" also follows a stalinist plan concerning Iraq.

What is needed is a workers state in iraq to fight capitalist interests, be it in the form of American or Islamic. Kick out the Imperialist forces and fight for a workers iraq! Power should go ONLY to the workers, not the mullahs in robes!

redstar2000

4th March 2004, 21:57

However, what is lacking in Iraq is a clear voice for the workers and poor. Only through a workers' voice can a solution be found, and that being a socialist solution.

Ok, but until then???

What happens between now and this "socialist solution" somewhere in the future?

What you stand for RedStar is the Stalinist "2 stage theory" that somehow we will bring in a nationalist bourgeoisie, and then we will fight for workers.

We? I am more than 6,000 miles from Iraq and I am not "bringing in" anything there.

You aren't either!

If Marx was right, then yes, a nationalist bourgeoisie will undoubtedly re-emerge in Iraq as the "next stage" of development for that country...after the power of the mullahs is broken, of course. That is what is happening in Iran right now.

What else would you expect?

What is needed is a workers' state in Iraq to fight capitalist interests, be it in the form of American or Islamic. Kick out the Imperialist forces and fight for a workers Iraq! Power should go ONLY to the workers, not the mullahs in robes!

But until it is realistically possible to create your "workers' state", what is the "correct position"?

Should we demand the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of imperialist troops from Iraq?

Or "should" we support the continued occupation for any reasons? If so, what are they?

And if you do support continuing the occupation, why is that not siding with your own ruling class against its victims?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Kez

4th March 2004, 23:08

right,
finally we getting somewhere.

"Ok, but until then???

What happens between now and this "socialist solution" somewhere in the future?"
-We fight for it
-What does this entail in practical means? Well, maybe we should be going over there to put our ideas across, setting up base within the masses, or if there is such an embryo, to support it financially

"...after the power of the mullahs is broken, of course. That is what is happening in Iran right now.

What else would you expect?"
-I think its a bit optimistic to suggest the mullahs power is being broken.
-IMO we should support iraqi bourgeoise against imperialism, by fighting it, then to fight the bourgeoise. Not to allow the bourgeoise to assume power in a vacuum

"Should we demand the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of imperialist troops from Iraq?"
No, we should demand the immediate kicking out of the imperialist by the workers

Or "should" we support the continued occupation for any reasons? If so, what are they?
nope

And if you do support continuing the occupation, why is that not siding with your own ruling class against its victims?"
I dont support them as i want the workers to kcik them out

guerrillaradio

4th March 2004, 23:19

I think it's fucking disgusting that the main focus of a thread about Iraq is a fellow left winger's age, and mocking of it. You should all be fuckin ashamed of yourselves. Dicks.

redstar2000

5th March 2004, 01:00

Well, maybe we should be going over there to put our ideas across, setting up base within the masses, or if there is such an embryo, to support it financially.

Obviously, I'm "too old" to undertake such an strenuous expedition.

But consider...

1. Will young radical westerners be "listened to" by Iraqi workers? Why?

2. Do any young radical westerners speak Arabic fluently?

3. How would they survive financially in that country?

4. The mullahs would certainly label them "agents of the occupation"...how would they overcome that?

5. Why wouldn't the existing resistance groups (especially the Muslim fundamentalists) simply kill them on sight? In their eyes, any dead westerner is just one step closer to driving out the imperialists.

6. How would the young westerners avoid immediate arrest and internment by the occupation authorities? They would sort of "stand out", you know. And the occupation authorities have already re-filled Hussein's prisons with tens of thousands of Iraqis being "detained" on "suspicion of resistance".

Even "just" sending financial assistance would involve serious problems.

1. Who do you want to give money to? What do you know about them? How can you trust them?

2. How will you get the money to them? You can't send it electronically. If you enter Iraq with a suitcase full of currency...you will be in some pretty serious trouble if you're caught. I'm sure there's someone you can bribe who will "smooth the way"...do you know who that is? Or how to find out who that is?

Considering all the above points, it seems to me that your perspective -- from a practical standpoint -- is a Trotskyist fantasy.

Your proposal to "fight for a workers' state" in Iraq simply means that you will issue propaganda in the U.K. and other western nations that express that point of view.

There's no practical dimension to your perspective.

It's idealist.

What I think it is realistic for western leftists to do is to raise the demand IMMEDIATE AND UNCONDITIONAL WITHDRAWAL OF ALL IMPERIALIST FORCES FROM IRAQ.

1. We live in the west and speak western languages fluently.

2. This demand is clearly in the class interests of the working class in the west...so it will at least sound plausible.

3. As the human and financial costs of the occupation climb, it will sound more plausible.

4. This demand "fits neatly" with the principle demand of the Iraqi resistance itself; it avoids the problem of "conflicting agendas".

5. It can be used to attack the inherent nature of imperialism itself...and can lead directly to a coherent attack on capitalism as a system.

6. In addition, it can also be used as an attack on the fundamentally anti-democratic nature of bourgeois democracy.

7. It can be used to embarrass bourgeois liberals -- who will be claiming that "we" "can't just withdraw" for all sorts of bullshit "reasons" ("there will be anarchy", there will be "a blood bath", the "fundamentalists will win", there will be "a humanitarian crisis", blah, blah, blah).

The lesson of the Vietnam war is clearly applicable in this situation.

Fierce resistance by the victims of imperialism plus radical opposition to imperialism on "the home front" equals defeat for imperialism.

The way forward is obvious.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Morpheus

5th March 2004, 02:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 10:57 PM
If Marx was right, then yes, a nationalist bourgeoisie will undoubtedly re-emerge in Iraq as the "next stage" of development for that country
Why should that happen? The nationalists already came to power in the '58 revolution. Baathist rule came out of it. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism is the result of imperialist intervention. Fundamentalism is a two-edged sword used against the Leninists & secular nationalists.

Kez, your'e wrong there are more than two Communist groups in Iraq. There's a whole bunch of slinters, like in any country. The West needs to stop bullying other countries around. And Westerners like you should stop demanding that Iraq adopt the government type you want and let them run their own country.

redstar2000

5th March 2004, 03:03

The nationalists already came to power in the '58 revolution. Baathist rule came out of it.

Well, let's get the "anticipated" chronology straight.

1. Imperialists install a quasi-fundamentalist quisling regime and keep their troops there.

2. Resistance (led primarily by "real" fundamentalists) force the imperialists to withdraw and the quisling regime collapses.

3. The new fundamentalist regime comes under more or less immediate attack by a bourgeois "reincarnation" of secular oppositionists. They may or may not be Baathist but they will be "like" the Baathists in many important respects. Some of them might even be Maoists.

4. The overthrow of the fundamentalists will be followed by a bourgeois nationalist regime...perhaps something resembling Turkey under Atatürk.

5. And in perhaps 50 or 100 years, Iraq will develop a modern working class capable of proletarian revolution and establishing communism.

Of course, the grubby paws of chance can contaminate this "clean" projection in many possible ways...but if things proceed in a straight-forward fashion, that's what looks most probable to me.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Kez

5th March 2004, 13:59

"And Westerners like you should stop demanding that Iraq adopt the government type you want and let them run their own country."
Im not a westerner, im a communist. Do i simply agitate in one country only and not bother with internationalism?

"1. Will young radical westerners be "listened to" by Iraqi workers? Why?"
- Why would they be young?
- Surely the cnocept of class consiousness which is raised with the advent of US imperialism will allow workers to listen to other people. Why do British workers listen to explainations about the Russian Revolution, using your argument they shouldnt as the working class seemingly isnt advanceed enough to consider opinions and arguments from outside the nation state

"2. Do any young radical westerners speak Arabic fluently?"
Completely irrelevant. If you have a base in the working class you can have all works you support and all articles you have translated. this is a very poor argument

"3. How would they survive financially in that country?"
-Hence the importance of organisation. Internationals easily pay/subsidize work in another country

"4. The mullahs would certainly label them "agents of the occupation"...how would they overcome that?"
-Through theory. If you can convince the worker of marxism, he/she will dismiss the mullah fuck, in the same way we dismiss BBC/CNN despite them calling us various names

"5. Why wouldn't the existing resistance groups (especially the Muslim fundamentalists) simply kill them on sight? In their eyes, any dead westerner is just one step closer to driving out the imperialists."
-In the same way British Trade unionis are targeted by fascists. Should the tradee unions cry and give up?

As for your own theory (shared by the SWP, well done ;))

"1. We live in the west and speak western languages fluently."
-This is your argument for calls for withdrawl? solid argument... :rolleyes:

"2. This demand is clearly in the class interests of the working class in the west...so it will at least sound plausible."
Yes, in the same way booting the soliders out would be.

"3. As the human and financial costs of the occupation climb, it will sound more plausible."
surely both these costs would increase if you supported resistance in iraq?

"4. This demand "fits neatly" with the principle demand of the Iraqi resistance itself; it avoids the problem of "conflicting agendas"."
-Explain

"5. It can be used to attack the inherent nature of imperialism itself...and can lead directly to a coherent attack on capitalism as a system."
-This is not exclusive to your call. again it should be used if the soliders were being booted out

"6. In addition, it can also be used as an attack on the fundamentally anti-democratic nature of bourgeois democracy."
-This is not exclusive to your call. again it should be used if the soliders were being booted out

7. It can be used to embarrass bourgeois liberals -- who will be claiming that "we" "can't just withdraw" for all sorts of bullshit "reasons" ("there will be anarchy", there will be "a blood bath", the "fundamentalists will win", there will be "a humanitarian crisis", blah, blah, blah)."
-Well if fundamentalists are currently in most power today, surely they would win...and you support this

Lardlad95

5th March 2004, 16:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 05:16 AM
Since you'll be picking up the tab, invite whoever you like. :D

My intention is to "die broke"...since "you can't take it with you".

Cool....I'll be sure to blast Exodus as loud as possible during the procession.

Also don't you have fam who can pay for it?

redstar2000

5th March 2004, 23:32

Dear me, this thread is veering off into "wonderland".

The idea of sending western Trotskyists to Iraq to organize a "socialist resistance" and "establish a workers' state" is so patently absurd that arguing the "details" is boring.

Why would they [the westerners] be young?

Because it is an extraordinarily strenuous thing you're asking them to "accomplish". They can't stay in the big western-style hotels and retain any credibility...they will have to live as Iraqi workers do--very badly. Generally speaking, only the young (under 25s) in the west are "fit" enough to do this.

Also, only an idealistic young Trotskyist would even begin to believe that this whole proposition is at all practical...older lefties would reject the idea out-of-hand.

Surely the concept of class consciousness which is raised with the advent of US imperialism will allow workers to listen to other people.

Not from the nation that has (temporarily) conquered them. If England were conquered and occupied by the U.S., would you be terribly interested in what American lefties had to say? Would the average English worker be?

In Baghdad, I'm told that Iraqis risk their lives every time they leave their homes...American and British mercenaries "shoot first" and ask questions afterwards, if at all.

So some young British Trotskyists show up and start "talking" about "socialist resistance"...would you believe a word they said?

Completely irrelevant. If you have a base in the working class, you can have all works you support and all articles you have translated. This is a very poor argument.

You want to send kids to Iraq that don't speak Arabic???

You want them to stand on a street-corner in Baghdad and sell newspapers or hand out leaflets in a language they don't understand???

Do you have any idea of how helpless you feel (and are!) in a country where you don't speak the language?

Hence the importance of organisation. Internationals easily pay/subsidize work in another country.

A militarily occupied country? A country on the edge of civil war? How will you even get the money to them? Are you sending an armored car on the Amman to Baghdad freeway?

Through theory. If you can convince the worker of marxism, he/she will dismiss the mullah fuck...

No doubt...which is why the "mullah fuck" will have a knife in your ribs within 24 hours of your arrival. The worker will never hear a word you say (and wouldn't understand it if he did...see above).

In the same way British Trade unions are targeted by fascists.

No, it's not "the same way" or anything even close to that. British fascists are right bastards, to be sure, but compared to the mullahs and their followers, the BNP is "a tea party".

You write about this stuff as if Baghdad was "a rough neighborhood" in Liverpool or something like that.

It's not. It's completely different. Any young British Trotskyists who go to Baghdad to "organize the workers" will be eaten alive! Probably the luckiest thing that could happen to them is that they'd be arrested at the airport by the occupation authorities and immediately deported.

If they actually made it into Baghdad, I wouldn't bet a dime on their lives...especially if they can't even speak the language there.

This demand "fits neatly" with the principle demand of the Iraqi resistance itself; it avoids the problem of "conflicting agendas"."
-Explain.

It's the heart of the thread, after all.

You don't support immediate withdrawal because that contradicts your wish for a "socialist solution".

You have to end up in a position of de facto support for the occupation until a "socialist solution" actually happens (or is about to happen).

Thus, your agenda directly contradicts the agenda of the entire Iraqi resistance (or nearly so)...which is immediate and unconditional withdrawal.

My perspective -- "Iraq for the Iraqis" -- avoids this problem; it's exactly what all of the currents in the Iraqi resistance agree on.

Well, if fundamentalists are currently in most power today, surely they would win...and you support this.

Better a temporary Islamic state in Iraq along with a major defeat for U.S. and British imperialism, than a practical victory for imperialism along with a Trotskyist fantasy of a "socialist solution".

:redstar2000:

PS: No, Lardlad95, I have no family to pay for a funeral, and I think such rituals are a colossal rip-off. It's actually possible that old-fashioned Muslims and Jews had/have the best idea: wrap the corpse in an old sheet, stick it in the ground, and that's it. In America, the average cost of a funeral approaches $10,000 -- and many poor families make horrendous sacrifices to pay for a "proper" funeral.

What a sad waste!

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Lardlad95

5th March 2004, 23:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 12:32 AM
PS: No, Lardlad95, I have no family to pay for a funeral, and I think such rituals are a colossal rip-off. It's actually possible that old-fashioned Muslims and Jews had/have the best idea: wrap the corpse in an old sheet, stick it in the ground, and that's it. In America, the average cost of a funeral approaches $10,000 -- and many poor families make horrendous sacrifices to pay for a "proper" funeral.

What a sad waste!

My grandmother's was 9,000 so yeah Is ee where you are going with this.

Fuck that though, my Funeral will be a grand extravaganza....or rather I'll have my family rent out a red lobster and my coffinw ill serve as a buffet table.

Seriously though I'll help out with your funeral...but I get to be in your will...I want your book collection and all of your ciggaretes.

Comrade BNS

6th March 2004, 01:34

Better a temporary Islamic state in Iraq along with a major defeat for U.S. and British imperialism, than a practical victory for imperialism along with a Trotskyist fantasy of a "socialist solution".

Are you quite sure of that Redstar? I acutally can't believe that the same Redstar who quite voraciously attacks religon, and other wholistic belief systems (with the obvious exception of communism of course!) is actually saying that an Islamic state would be better then political victory for the imperialists.

And then myself, the Islamic sympathiser saying that NO, if the "imperialists" were to withdraw immeadiately the Islamic state that would develop would be far more brutal then an Imperialist puppet state...the ideal solution would be for the Imperialists to allow completely free unibiased elections, decisions etc. for the Iraqi people....very fanciful I know, but we can only hope.

Let me tell you that if the "imperialists" were to withdraw immeadiately that
al-Fedayinh would almost certainly gain power in Iraq. And if you thought Hitler was a crazed fanatic, imagine how it would have been had the SS gained control of Germany. Same situation more or less in Iraq.

but by the same token, the US backed "new dictator" for Iraq is little better then his predecessor, perhaps only in his education. Akhmed Chalabi is a convicted criminal in Syria, on chages of embezzelment of funds from his international bank, as well as defrauding the government and the people's regional project. He unfortuantely escaped across the border into Lebanon, and fled to the US, and so as the only highly educated economist/despot willing to open up Iraqi oil immediately and recognise the state of Israel...he's the Americans best bet.... it would be an absolute travesty and crime, as well as plain disgusting to see Chalabi get power...so the only solution that I can see is to vehemently oppose Chalabi, and the occupation of Iraq...the imperialists are not going to leave immediately, but maybe with strong opposition it might hasten their retreat

Comrade BNS

redstar2000

6th March 2004, 02:41

Are you quite sure of that Redstar? I actually can't believe that the same Redstar who quite voraciously attacks religion, and other holistic belief systems (with the obvious exception of communism of course!) is actually saying that an Islamic state would be better than political victory for the imperialists.

Believe it! But remember I said temporary...because it would be.

If the imperialists are driven out by a combination of fundamentalist resistance in Iraq and strong domestic opposition within the imperialist countries, then the new "Islamic state" would come under immediate pressure from the secular forces there...and eventually, the secular forces would win.

Material conditions permit no other outcome.

And then myself, the Islamic sympathiser saying that NO, if the "imperialists" were to withdraw immediately the Islamic state that would develop would be far more brutal then an Imperialist puppet state.

Perhaps, perhaps not. In any event, that is for the Iraqis to decide...not me and not you.

And certainly not U.S. and British imperialism.

(And by the way, your use of "quote" marks around the word imperialist is inappropriate. They really are imperialists, period.)

...the ideal solution would be for the Imperialists to allow completely free unbiased elections, decisions etc. for the Iraqi people....very fanciful I know, but we can only hope.

Try buying a lottery ticket...that's a much greater possibility than your "ideal solution".

Let me tell you that if the "imperialists" were to withdraw immediately that al-Fedayinh would almost certainly gain power in Iraq. And if you thought Hitler was a crazed fanatic, imagine how it would have been had the SS gained control of Germany. Same situation more or less in Iraq.

I don't know how often this has to be repeated but Saddam Hussein was not "Hitler" and Germany is not Iraq.

My contention is that however "deep in the shit" the Iraqis find themselves, it will be worse the longer the imperialists remain.

Just ask the imperialists to stay around for 25 or 50 years...see what Iraq looks like then?!

Can you say Ecuador?

Akhmed Chalabi is a convicted criminal in Syria, on charges of embezzlement of funds from his international bank, as well as defrauding the government and the people's regional project.

Sounds like the perfect choice for the Bush regime. If he gets overthrown, there'll be a job waiting for him on Wall Street or a Texas energy corporation.

Redstar2000's hypothesis: all the world's white collar crooks eventually come to America.

It's "the land of the fee" and "the home of the knave".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Morpheus

6th March 2004, 20:02

Well, let's get the "anticipated" chronology straight.

1. Imperialists install a quasi-fundamentalist quisling regime and keep their troops there.

2. Resistance (led primarily by "real" fundamentalists) force the imperialists to withdraw and the quisling regime collapses.

3. The new fundamentalist regime comes under more or less immediate attack by a bourgeois "reincarnation" of secular oppositionists. They may or may not be Baathist but they will be "like" the Baathists in many important respects. Some of them might even be Maoists.

4. The overthrow of the fundamentalists will be followed by a bourgeois nationalist regime...perhaps something resembling Turkey under Atatürk.

5. And in perhaps 50 or 100 years, Iraq will develop a modern working class capable of proletarian revolution and establishing communism.

Of course, the grubby paws of chance can contaminate this "clean" projection in many possible ways...but if things proceed in a straight-forward fashion, that's what looks most probable to me.

I find this timeline completely unconvincing. The resistence isn't led primarily by fundamentalists, it's a coalition. An insurgent victory could just as easily result in the Baathists coming to power or some other group. And that's just in the center of the country. In the south the more popular of the Shiite clerics, such as Al-Sistani, who have organizing for free elections are moderates. If they want a theocracy at all they want "theocracy lite" not an Iranian-style state. And the Kurds aren't going to back a Shiite theocracy. Historically Iraq has been a very secular country. They could go straight to a bourgeois secular regime, no theocracy. Or something else could happen. Given that the insurgency will probably take years to win there's no real way to know what will happen once the imperialists are forced out.

In addition, Iraq already has a modern working class capable of proletarian revolution. The Baathists industrialized the country with five-year plans and other projects. It was well on it's way to becoming a "first world" nation by the start of the Gulf War, which I think is part of the reason the US attacked it. The US wanted to reassert it's hegemony and destroy a potential threat to it's power. The uprisings against Saddam at the end of the Gulf War were proletarian uprisings. In the north they formed workers' councils called Shoras. See http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senat...72/tendays.html (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7672/tendays.html) and http://geocities.com/cordobakaf/blob_kurds.html Iraq is not some peasant country. It's poor because the imperialists beat the shit out of it. Similar to Germany after WW1.

redstar2000

6th March 2004, 23:16

I remain skeptical...but perhaps you're right, Morpheus.

We'll see what happens if and when the imperialists are defeated there.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Kez

7th March 2004, 16:34

"is so patently absurd that arguing the "details" is boring."
-Nah, your boring, with your whining and bullshite, that my friend, THAT is boring.

On the question of age, this is utter bollocks, ive seen comrades much old than your ideal age of 25 having gone to Venezuela and have been very successful in establishing organisations and strengthening the workers against the reactionary forces in venezuela. All this done by people older and younger than your ideal age of 25. You muppet

"...older lefties would reject the idea out-of-hand."
nah, only old shits who have long left the movement would reject this.

"If England were conquered and occupied by the U.S., would you be terribly interested in what American lefties had to say? Would the average English worker be?"
-since when did class consious workers even care about what nation someone with the right answer is? and like ive said and youve ignored, once an organisation is formed, it will overwhelmingly be made up of iraqi's anyway, in which case, when the organisation is talking to workers, an iraqi will talk to an iraqi, overcoming such a huge obstacle that youve made it to be

"You want to send kids to Iraq that don't speak Arabic???"
-See above. Also there will be iraqi emigres willing to go back and surely they can speak arabic. But maybe as they have a slightly different accent, they will actually be shot wont they redstar....muppet

If need be finance can be taken across from neighbouring countries, this isnt even a big issue which you seem to point out time and time again like a broken old record

"No doubt...which is why the "mullah fuck" will have a knife in your ribs within 24 hours of your arrival. The worker will never hear a word you say"
-Same was true in Nazi Germany, according to you German communists should have not bothered agitating?

Another example of you talking when you have no fucking ideda what your on about is called the BNP and its followers a "tea party". Your a twat if you believe that, you dont even know who makes up the BNP.

Finally, for you diploma in muppetry you state
"You don't support immediate withdrawal because that contradicts your wish for a "socialist solution"."
-Nope, i dont support withdrawl as a single act as it means that power goes into the hands of the mullahs, and the workers gain fuck all out of it.

"You have to end up in a position of de facto support for the occupation until a "socialist solution" actually happens (or is about to happen)."
-Again, you dont even know the facts, just this weekend a womens group called for ousting of imperialist troops, these people i support. because it is the masses who are doing this, not some old fart in America and the SWP along with him.

"Thus, your agenda directly contradicts the agenda of the entire Iraqi resistance (or nearly so)...which is immediate and unconditional withdrawal."
-By calling for ousting of troops im against what iraqis want? YOU MUPPET!

Read my posts then shit out your comments

redstar2000

7th March 2004, 22:29

...just this weekend a womens group called for ousting of imperialist troops, these people I support. because it is the masses who are doing this...

I take it that means you will oppose British occupation of Iraq provided the British masses do it first.

Ok, I guess that's better than nothing.

Since the remainder of your post consists almost entirely of personal abuse, there's not much I can say except...

up yours!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Redalias

8th March 2004, 02:38

You make no goddamn sense, do you Kez?

If imperialist occupation is wrong you oppose it and call for its end. End of story.

Kez

8th March 2004, 15:09

Originally posted by redstar[email protected] 7 2004, 11:29 PM

...just this weekend a womens group called for ousting of imperialist troops, these people I support. because it is the masses who are doing this...

I take it that means you will oppose British occupation of Iraq provided the British masses do it first.

Ok, I guess that's better than nothing.

Since the remainder of your post consists almost entirely of personal abuse, there's not much I can say except...

up yours!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
wanker, it was in iraq.

and there wasnt any abuse, you just cant answer

"If imperialist occupation is wrong you oppose it and call for its end. End of story."
-Well done, clearly you are a true hero of the working class and im reactionary, that you for your brilliant analysis. Next time read my posts.

redstar2000

9th March 2004, 02:58

Wanker, it was in Iraq.

Curious. You support an Iraqi group that "calls" for the end of the occupation; but if the fundamentalist resistance actually kills occupation soldiers, you draw back.

Considering pacificism, are you?

And there wasn't any abuse, you just can't answer.

Oh?

Nah, you're boring, with your whining and bullshite, that my friend, THAT is boring.

You muppet.

Nah, only old shits who have long left the movement would reject this.

...redstar....muppet

Finally, for your diploma in muppetry...

...some old fart in America...

YOU MUPPET!

Read my posts then shit out your comments.

No abuse, eh? :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Sabocat

10th March 2004, 13:05

Yes, the U.$ and U.K should stay in Iraq. It's better for all. <_<

Iraqis tortured and killed by British troops
By Harvey Thompson

Below we publish the first part of a two-part article on allegations of brutality against civilians by British soldiers occupying Iraq. The second part will be published tomorrow.

Reports are filtering out about the brutal treatment of Iraqis by the occupying British armed forces.

The growing number of cases of alleged beatings, torture and murder of Iraqis reveal that the British Army is conducting just as dirty and brutal a war in the south of Iraq as its US counterparts are waging in the north.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has refused to release details of any investigations, except to issue the recent statement, “Any suggestion soldiers will be charged with manslaughter is pure speculation at this stage.”

* On May 15 last year, British soldiers in Basra came to the Mousa family home and told them they were looking for a neighbour who had been an officer in the Iraqi army under Saddam Hussein. While they were searching they found a Kalashnikov rifle the family keeps for protection. This is permitted under current Iraq law and is common practice with families faced with the lawlessness that has gripped society since the US/UK invasion of the country.

Abdel Jabr Mousa attempted to explain the reasons for the rifle to the soldiers. His 23-year-old son, Bashar, explained what happened:

“My father tried to explain to them, but they just started hitting him in the head with the wooden butt of the Kalashnikov.... They dragged him out of the house, bleeding from his leg. Then one of them told me to come with him. He said, ‘Give me the rest of the weapons.’ I told him there were no more.

“Then he took me to another room and started beating me. He put his hands around my throat and pushed me up against a wall. His hands were so tight I lost consciousness.... Then he dragged me to the personnel carrier.”

Bashar Mousa says that he and his father were taken along with the neighbour who was an officer to a British Army base in the former house of Ali Majid (dubbed “Chemical Ali” in the media). They were forced to wear hoods and taken to a room where they were beaten and kicked for an hour. Bashar could hear the screams of his father. After his father stopped screaming, Bashar was taken to a different room where he was given food and medical attention, and a change of clothes. He never saw his father alive again.

After one night, Bashar was taken to US-run Camp Bucca in nearby Umm Qasr, south of Basra, where he was held until June 20. Although Bashar was a civilian, he was held at Camp Bucca as an enemy prisoner of war. The British Independent on Sunday newspaper has seen his prisoner’s wristband and his Red Cross POW papers, number IQZ-120259-01. His release papers say there is no evidence to doubt he is a civilian.

The family has said that they only discovered where the two men had been taken by a tragic coincidence. The soldiers were searching for another man, who they identify as Kareem, and threatened to arrest his wife and daughters unless he gave himself up. The soldiers left a message that Kareem should surrender to a Sergeant Henderson of the Black Watch at Ali Majid’s former house.

For three days, the eldest son, Amar, called at the base asking for news of his father. On the third day he was taken to a military doctor who told him his father was dead. He said the body, which was bruised and covered in blood, was in Basra hospital.

“When I found the body, there was blood in his mouth,” said Amar. “There were wounds all over him, and a huge blue bruise like a boot print on his left side. I saw bruises over his heart and the outline of a military boot. All the body was covered in mud and there were outlines of finger marks on his skin.”

The death certificate, signed by Dr Haider Mohammed Saleh, stated the cause of death as “sudden heart attack: infarction of the heart muscles.” The family was never given a copy of the British military death certificate. They are demanding an investigation, and several family members have been interviewed as witnesses. Ammar said the investigators, who are refusing to comment on the case, told him the family was unlikely to get compensation.

Read the rest - http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/.../iraq-m10.shtml (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/iraq-m10.shtml)

The Feral Underclass

10th March 2004, 16:22

Kez will be proud!

Kez

10th March 2004, 16:26

" Yes, the U.$ and U.K should stay in Iraq. It's better for all"
- nah. like ive said literally 20 times on this thread alone i want the imperialist troops withdrawn/booted out on the basis of a mass movement, as ive said

Redstar you expect some magical fuckin fairy to come and vanish the troops?
You cant kick them out without mass movement, they wouldnt go, theyve got too many interest there. 90% of spain said no to war from spain, the biggest demo in british history took place to say no from UK, same applies for everywhere else, and they still went ahead. You think less people shouting a few slogans now will make soldiers go limp and run out? fuck no.

Only thing which will remove soldiers is the masses, something which you oppose.

Give me a logical method of expelling the troops and i will drop my argument and follow yours.

What im saying is

Masses should expel imperialists, and who are you to call whatever? are you a significant force outside your own head? nej.

2ndly, im saying other than there is no practical viability to your idea (shared by SWP), you will hand power to mullahs.. Your argument that revolutuion will come out of mullah repression is frankly worrying. thats exactly what iranian CP said, that they would help mullahs, then fight after mullahs come to power. thousands were murdered, now you have Islamic Republic of Iran, iran during shah was exactly what iraq is now, in that the shah was what the governing council is now.