Saddam Hussein

[ComradeChris]

Now, I've been doing a bit of reading on Saddam Hussein recently. And other than his treatment of women (or lack of laws protecting women) I don't understand what he really did wrong. In the Gulf War, the US went in because Saddam invaded Kuwait. He's invading another country, he's evil! But they fail to tell you that only the British, a very influencial Western power, who seems to side with the US drew a line, creating Kuwait, in order to deprive Iraq from the Persian Gulf. So, the Western powers were depriving them from a waterway; I'd have been surprised they didn't take it back a lot earlier. Then the other major atrocity Saddam committed was killing the Kurds, "his own people." Well to be honest I don't condone war at all. But if someone was rebelling and shooting at me I'd be inclined to shoot back. Not to mention they were already in a war! With the people they were against, the Iranians, aiding the Kurds in their revolt. Now gassing them is a little extreme, but they would have had to been pacified someway. I don't see how it is any worse than say: dropping two nuclear weapons. Now my professors told me anywhere up to 650,000 Japanese were killed in the dropping of the bombs. The Conservatives place it around 100,000 for each. Now some people claim 5,000 died because of Saddam gassing people he was warring with. And the US wanted to remove Saddam's weapons? Maybe I'm missing something. But I'm inclined to think the US is just a powerhungry, hypocritical nation.

A good sites I found:
http://www.rense.com/general25/sadamsgassing.htm
http://hnn.us/articles/1242.html

[refuse_resist]

He was one of the many puppets of America. The reason why the U.$. supported him so much in the first place was because they knew he was a nutcase and would resort to killing anyone who got in his way, even his own people. Then in the end, they knew that one way or another they would be able to take advantage of the situation and wage war on him, with the pretext of removing an evil dictator from power.


But I'm inclined to think the US is just a powerhungry, hypocritical nation.
Precisely.

[praxis1966]

While it is true that Hussein was a brutal dictator responsible for something closer to a quarter million deaths throughout the entire span of his regime, he was the Mickey Mouse of dictators. I've said it once and I'll say it again, what about the Sudan? Why didn't the U$ become militarily involved there? After all, the genocide there has just within the last year topped 6 million people and it only just started about three years ago. One word: Oil.

The fact of the matter is though, the Bush people had been pushing for this sort of thing since 1998 if I'm not mistaken. There was a letter signed by a good many members of the current administration (not least of which were Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice) which was sent to then President Clinton. In this letter was an argument in favor of the invasion of Iraq.

More recently, I watched Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark on the Real Time discussing the events directly after 9/11. He made a trip to the standing part of the Pentagon on 9/12 to take a meeting with several members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They told him a joke: Guess what? Sadam didn't do this, but he should've. Clark asked them why. The response was because he was going to be invaded and disposessed anyhow.

In any case, the answer to your inquiry lies in your question. He hadn't done anything since Gulf War I that would warrant a second invasion. The charges were trumped up at worst and old news at best.

[Urban Rubble]

Of course the U.S has exagerrated the extent of Hussein's brutality, that does NOT mean he was an "O.K guy" or whatever you're attempting to paint him as.

And if you call gassing 5,000 innocent people to death "a little extreme" you seriously need to consider professional help.

[praxis1966]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 11 2004, 11:12 PM
Of course the U.S has exagerrated the extent of Hussein's brutality, that does NOT mean he was an "O.K guy" or whatever you're attempting to paint him as.

And if you call gassing 5,000 innocent people to death "a little extreme" you seriously need to consider professional help.
I'm sure you would concede that the same, if not worse, could be said about the current U$ president. If not him then certainly his father. Civil war and 75,000 subsequent deaths in El Salvador anyone?

[Reuben]

this thread will be moved to OI. If someone posted saying 'i dont really what hitler did wrong' i would be fucking pissed off. If i was kurd or and Iraqi communist i would definitely not want to see a despicable thread like this. if you want to ask such stupid question about somebody who carried out ethnic cleansing, and hwho murdered our political cmrades you can do so elsewhere

[Guest1]

Saddam was a reactionary who slaughtered thousands, and as Reuben has pointed out, many were Communists.

It must be made clear that while the party he led was originally a Socialist party, his rise to power was funded by the us and represented an internal coup by right wing elements. That was followed by the culling of the party of all its Socialist and left-wing elements, as well as the mass executions of Communists across Iraq. Which was made possible thanks to close CIA cooperation, and their lists of 3000 prominent Communists in Iraq.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 12 2004, 01:12 AM
Of course the U.S has exagerrated the extent of Hussein's brutality, that does NOT mean he was an "O.K guy" or whatever you're attempting to paint him as.

And if you call gassing 5,000 innocent people to death "a little extreme" you seriously need to consider professional help.
First of all they were rebels. I'm not trying to make him look out to be an ok guy. Did you even read my post? I said I don't condone his gassing methods and he's awful in womans rights. And how do I need professional help? Are you a psychologist?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 12 2004, 05:02 AM
Saddam was a reactionary who slaughtered thousands, and as Reuben has pointed out, many were Communists.

It must be made clear that while the party he led was originally a Socialist party, his rise to power was funded by the us and represented an internal coup by right wing elements. That was followed by the culling of the party of all its Socialist and left-wing elements, as well as the mass executions of Communists across Iraq. Which was made possible thanks to close CIA cooperation, and their lists of 3000 prominent Communists in Iraq.
Yeah, Saddam basically made himself a monarch. He just intended to pass his power down to his sons did he not? Like I said, I'm just trying to make the US in the wrong here. Not promote Saddam. I agree there would have been millions of better leaders.

[DaCuBaN]

he's awful in womans rights.

Compared to what might surface in Iraq now, frankly I think he's "woman's rights" record was superb. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you didn't see a lot of Burka's in Iraq...

Oh wait, now there is where we really get to the biscuit: Freedom of religion? No? He's got to go. Fucking bullshit.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 01:03 PM

Compared to what might surface in Iraq now, frankly I think he's "woman's rights" record was superb. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you didn't see a lot of Burka's in Iraq...

Oh wait, now there is where we really get to the biscuit: Freedom of religion? No? He's got to go. Fucking bullshit.
What is a Ba'athist? Is that a religion. Because he was a member of the Socialist Ba'athist party.

[DaCuBaN]

Ba'th is not a religion - it's a political party.

http://i-cias.com/e.o/baath.htm

The basic principles of the Ba'th Party were unity and freedom inside an Arab nation. The party also based itself on the belief that Arabs had a special mission to end Western colonialism.
The Ba'th Party was nationalistic, populistic, socialistic and revolutionary. Its socialism was not communism but did involve land reform, public ownership of natural resources, transport, large-scale industry and financial institutions.
It did allow workers and peasants to form trade unions, and that workers should be allowed into the management of the companies they worked for. Still the socialism of the Ba'th party allowed some private ownership.
Central to their ideology was also their tendency to ignore class divisions, as well as divisions between different religious groups. This allowed many from minorities to gain political by joining the Ba'th Party.
Central to the original program of the Ba'th Party was freedom of speech and association, even if the governments of Syria and Iraq has allowed little of this.

[ComradeChris]

Ok, thanks for the clear up. I didn't think it was, but I honestly had no clue what it meant. I thought he was a purely secular government.

[ComradeChris]

And just a quick question, how come this got moved into the opposing ideologies? See people here don't even give you a reason. Maybe politics was incorrect...you know being a POLITICAL leader and all. Not to mention a form of socialism. So whoever moved this thinks that socialism is an opposing ideology?

[1949]

I too have read that Hussein's policies on women were excellent (the most progressive in the Middle East, in fact). I have also read of a CIA study showing that the gassing of the Kurds at Halabja was committed by Iran, as Iraq did not possess the the chemical weapons that killed the Kurds, but Iran did. But I am skeptical of this.

[synthesis]

Ba'athist "Socialism" is as socialist as the "National Socialism" that preceded it forty years earlier.

I don't care about the Kuwait affair, Hussein was still a fucking douche. At one point, I believe this was 1996, a woman requested that her husband be sent back home, who had been imprisoned for dissenting against the regime. Saddam obliged, and sent her husband home in a black garbage bag, cut into several dozen little giblets.

That still doesn't excuse the American imperialism to remove him, as we cannot trust the same instrument that propelled his party to power to give the Iraqi people anything better.

(Also, don't take me as an idealist. I know that execution is sometimes necessary, but not as a categorical tool against anyone who dissents against the regime.)

But when people go around saying that Hussein "wasn't so bad," it makes me want to burn things.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 05:57 PM
I too have read that Hussein's policies on women were excellent (the most progressive in the Middle East, in fact). I have also read of a CIA study showing that the gassing of the Kurds at Halabja was committed by Iran, as Iraq did not possess the the chemical weapons that killed the Kurds, but Iran did. But I am skeptical of this.
Yeah that's what one of the articles I sent spoke about. I too am skeptical of that, but it's still a possibility. I don't rule out too much.

And his personal guard were aparently allowed to go around raping women. I heard this from a conservative on protestwarrior, but I haven't heard of any report cases.


But when people go around saying that Hussein "wasn't so bad," it makes me want to burn things.

Who said that? I don't think anyone here.


I don't care about the Kuwait affair, Hussein was still a fucking douche. At one point, I believe this was 1996, a woman requested that her husband be sent back home, who had been imprisoned for dissenting against the regime. Saddam obliged, and sent her husband home in a black garbage bag, cut into several dozen little giblets.

So was Stalin socialist when he had all the old Bolsheviks who posed a threat to his own power killed?


Ba'athist "Socialism" is as socialist as the "National Socialism" that preceded it forty years earlier.

Nope, even more socialist. Look at politicacompass.org.

[Invader Zim]

Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979-2003): 300 000
Human Rights Watch: "twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule ... murdered or 'disappeared' some quarter of a million Iraqis" [http://www.hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm]
8/9 Dec. 2003 AP: Total murders
New survey estimates 61,000 residents of Baghdad executed by Saddam.
US Government estimates a total of 300,000 murders
180,000 Kurds k. in Anfal
60,000 Shiites in 1991
50,000 misc. others executed
"Human rights officials" est.: 500,000
Iraqi politicians: over a million
[These don't include the million or so dead in the Iran-Iraq War.]

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#sadhus

Nice guy, huh?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 09:19 PM
Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979-2003): 300 000
Human Rights Watch: "twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule ... murdered or 'disappeared' some quarter of a million Iraqis" [http://www.hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm]
8/9 Dec. 2003 AP: Total murders
New survey estimates 61,000 residents of Baghdad executed by Saddam.
US Government estimates a total of 300,000 murders
180,000 Kurds k. in Anfal
60,000 Shiites in 1991
50,000 misc. others executed
"Human rights officials" est.: 500,000
Iraqi politicians: over a million
[These don't include the million or so dead in the Iran-Iraq War.]

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#sadhus

Nice guy, huh?
Still has yet to beat Stalin. They ruled relatively the same amount of time. Maybe Stalin a bit longer, 10 years :lol: . But I mean I think Stalin had a good enough head start on Saddam. Apparently he told Chirchill in the 1930's that 30 million had died, either by him or by starvation. But he himself had millions killed.

[synthesis]

Who said that? I don't think anyone here.

"Now gassing [the Kurds] is a little extreme, but they would have had to been pacified someway. I don't see how it is any worse than say: dropping two nuclear weapons. Now my professors told me anywhere up to 650,000 Japanese were killed in the dropping of the bombs. The Conservatives place it around 100,000 for each. Now some people claim 5,000 died because of Saddam gassing people he was warring with. And the US wanted to remove Saddam's weapons? Maybe I'm missing something. But I'm inclined to think the US is just a powerhungry, hypocritical nation."

This is one of the most extreme cases of moral relativism I've ever seen. The fact that you try to defend Hussein is incomprehensible.


So was Stalin socialist when he had all the old Bolsheviks who posed a threat to his own power killed?

What?

How am I supposed to answer this question?

It is the nature of members of any ruling class to pursue the most extreme persecution of anyone who threatens their power without arousing enough ire from the general populace to threaten their power further.

In Russia, Stalin could get away with it. In a true dictatorship of the proletariat, a full class dictatorship as opposed to a Party dictatorship, I would expect proletarians to persecute defenders of the old order - the business owners, the generals, the politicians, the clergy, the chauvinists, et cetera - as vigorously as possible.


Nope, even more socialist. Look at politicacompass.org.

Are you fucking joking me?

I'm wondering whether it was worth going to the trouble of articulating myself a few lines above here.

[ComradeChris]

This is one of the most extreme cases of moral relativism I've ever seen. The fact that you try to defend Hussein is incomprehensible.

I still listed numerous things he did that were bad too. I'm not defending him, just trying to put light on a situation. Let me give you a situation. You're the leader of Iraq. People are revolting against you with the help of your enemy. You'll let them shoot you? Well that was an easy argument. Either you have a death wish or are just too stupid to react.


What?

How am I supposed to answer this question?

It is the nature of members of any ruling class to pursue the most extreme persecution of anyone who threatens their power without arousing enough ire from the general populace to threaten their power further.

In Russia, Stalin could get away with it. In a true dictatorship of the proletariat, a full class dictatorship as opposed to a Party dictatorship, I would expect proletarians to persecute defenders of the old order - the business owners, the generals, the politicians, the clergy, the chauvinists, et cetera - as vigorously as possible.

Just trying to make a parallel. A lot of people on here seem to advocate for Stalin. Why not for Saddam? One killed MILLIONS less people. One fed his people too. I don't think I've heard too many cases of starvation in Iraq. Not on the scale that went on under Stalin.


Are you fucking joking me?

I'm wondering whether it was worth going to the trouble of articulating myself a few lines above here.

Why would I be joking? You obviously weren't; or you didn't indicate it anyway. You said:

Ba'athist "Socialism" is as socialist as the "National Socialism" that preceded it forty years earlier.

Obviously, what many consider to be a good political source, disagrees.

[synthesis]

You're the leader of Iraq. People are revolting against you with the help of your enemy. You'll let them shoot you? Well that was an easy argument. Either you have a death wish or are just too stupid to react.

That it was a natural reaction does not make it more deplorable. It was a natural reaction for Germans to gun down rebellious Jews and it is a natural reaction for Israelis to gun down rebellious Arabs, that does not change the fact that we have ruling ethnic classes violently repressing the nationalism of the oppressed, something we must always support.


Just trying to make a parallel. A lot of people on here seem to advocate for Stalin. Why not for Saddam? One killed MILLIONS less people. One fed his people too. I don't think I've heard too many cases of starvation in Iraq. Not on the scale that went on under Stalin.

Yeah, well, thanks for the explanation, but your straw man was still ludicrous. Who says I want to defend Stalin?


Why would I be joking? You obviously weren't; or you didn't indicate it anyway. You said:

I said that because neither Ba'athism nor Nazism were remotely socialist. Fascism always includes a rhetorical element of socialistic reform as an appeal to workers.


Obviously, what many consider to be a good political source, disagrees.

Many people are idiots. Political Compass is an absolutely worthless instrument for political analysis, despite the lofty moniker. It assigns arbitrary numbers to random, pseudo-representative viewpoints and calls it "data". I've seen right-wing religious fanatics get placed to the left of John Kerry, and I've seen Maoists equated with Pinochet.

The fact that you tried to use that laughable tool as evidence for your argument is simply further evidence for your own confusion.

[Maynard]

This is a guy who has killed thousands of our comrades, communists and Trade Unionists for the sole reason of holding those views. He started a war which killed hundreds of thousands of Iranis, so as to grab more land and his domestic polcies of repression where absolutely desbicable. His crimes were numerous and how anyone on the left would support a man who would have no problem killing you just for holding those views is beyond comprehension.

I was for his overthrow but did not support the Iraq war. I beleive the only way a truly progressive outcome could come from his removal, would come about only through an uprising of the general populace.

The eneny of my enemy is my friend logis is absolute bullshit and it was this reasoning which lead to the United States supporting him in the first place.


But if someone was rebelling and shooting at me I'd be inclined to shoot back. Not to mention they were already in a war!
That might be but how does that excuse him ? Do you therefore exonerate US Soldiers from their attacks on Iraqis ? Do you exonerate Pinochet, because leftists rebelled against him ? Saddam Hussein was not being shot at, his power was being thretaned so he slaughtreed thousnads of people with chemical gas. Would you support it if George Bush did the same if there was a leftist uprising ? I would hope not.
Just because the United States may have commited more crimes does not make Saddam Hussein "good" or we can excuse what he has done because it is not as bad as everyone else. It is perfectly consitent to be against state sanctioned murder whether it is done by the United States or Iraq.

His record on womens rights were not excellent, even if they were better than most Middle Eastern countries, that is hardly a cause for celebration. Prostitutes were executed. Women for beheaded for critiscing corruption, Iraqi police forces would bring a female relative, especially the wife or the mother, and raped her in front of the detainee. Is that something leftists should support ?

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMD...f=COUNTRIESIRAQ (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE140082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ)
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2000/427/427p22d.htm


Just trying to make a parallel. A lot of people on here seem to advocate for Stalin. Why not for Saddam? One killed MILLIONS less people. One fed his people too
There are some Stalinsts who support both. The USSR also had hundreds of millions more people, so the comparison doesn't really make sense but again, just because, he may not be as bad as others doesn't mean he should recieve support in any way. George Bush "feeds his people" as well and has killed less people than Saddam, as of now, so perhaps we should support him ?

To argue against Saddam is not to argue for war, it is just upholding the values of which the left has had throughout his history. It is posisble to be both against Saddam and the War and why as of now, I support organisations such as Worker-communist Party of Iraq, Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq, Union of Unemployed in Iraq, Organization to Defend Secularism in Iraq , Federation of Workers’ Councils and Unions in Iraq , Center in Defense of Children’s rights in Iraq.
Who, I beleive, are the best chances of securing a better future for all Iraqis, rather than the US Occupation or the Insurgants.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 09:11 PM
Ba'athist "Socialism" is as socialist as the "National Socialism" that preceded it forty years earlier.
While I do agree that Saddam was horrible, one must understand that he was the result of a right-wing takeover of the Ba'ath party, and that Ba'athism in and of itself was actually a very progressive socialist movement that came to power on a wave of student and worker rebellion.

My dad was in an underground cell for Ba'ath in Syria. It was not Marxist, but there were alot of Marxists in the party, and it was a very left wing movement. The original writers who established it were all executed.

That being said, even for the bureaucrats who seized the Syrian Ba'ath, Saddam was too rightwing. They cut all ties with him and sent troops for the first war.

[DaCuBaN]

While I do agree that Saddam was horrible, one must understand that he was the result of a right-wing takeover of the Ba'ath party, and that Ba'athism in and of itself was actually a very progressive socialist movement that came to power on a wave of student and worker rebellion.

Cheers CyM: I tried to point this out with the link I posted above, but it seems that people are more intent on character assasination of ComradeChris than discussion of the topic at hand. Hussein seems to have been one hell of an asshole, but in truth we know little about him other than that which our media have spoonfed us.

I wonder how many of you have seriously tried to investigate this with a skeptical mind?


That being said, even for the bureaucrats who seized the Syrian Ba'ath, Saddam was too rightwing. They cut all ties with him and sent troops for the first war.

Yes; He similarly perverted Arab nationalism (which I question, given that it's a little...off. Seeds of another "master race"?) into Iraqi nationalism (which I abhor, as all "nationalism") - his only real saving grace was the secular nature of the society he controlled.

He was still despotic, he still sentenced enemies of the state to their doom. These alone are reasons enough to despise the man, but such hatred does little for objectivity - what is gained by attacking him? We can gain plenty from learning from his mistakes; nothing from attacking his character

Especially given that most of the arguments here are baseless. No offense meant to anyone here, but as far as I'm aware the only person in this thread with any experience of middle eastern politics is CyM - Listen to the man.

[Galatian 6:2]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 07:33 AM




He was still despotic, he still sentenced enemies of the state to their doom. These alone are reasons enough to despise the man,
DaCuban,

I'm new to leftist politics but I thought when communists/anarchists came to power they naturally "eliminated" reactionaries. I mean, isn't that what Hussein was doing? Eliminating the 'reactionaries' in his country (obviously he wasn't communist or maybe not even a true socialist--i've taken only one class in middle eastern politics). But you see what I'm saying, right? Why is it okay for communists/anarchs. to eliminate (could be through reprogramming camps or death) reactionaries but it's not okay for Hussein? And I'm honestly not trying to take a jab, I'm just new to leftist ideas.

[Maynard]

it seems that people are more intent on character assasination of ComradeChris than discussion of the topic at hand With the topic being "Saddam Hussein, His Crimes?". While the Ba'ath party may have had progressive and Marxist elements, that has little to do with the actions of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath party once he had purged the Marxist and progressive elements of the party, so I believe it does stay on topic. I don't think anyone has undertaken a "character assassination" of ComradeChris, more so attacking the idea that Saddam Hussein did very little wrong, which I don't agree with.


We can gain plenty from learning from his mistakes; nothing from attacking his character

Nothing will be learnt if people deny what he and his party did or deny the "mistakes" they made wuth statements like "I don't understand what he really did wrong". I have no problems with people attacking the character of Hussein, just as they would to any Fascist, which Hussein came very close to replicating, though I didn't see much of that here. I can't see anything at all that Saddam hussein did that deserves the support of any leftist at all. If the Ba'ath party had remained true to its roots, then I would be most pleased. The fact is, that it didn't and the crimes committed by this regime should be condemned just as much as they were performed by the United States or Great Britian.

[DaCuBaN]

I'm new to leftist politics but I thought when communists/anarchists came to power they naturally "eliminated" reactionaries. I mean, isn't that what Hussein was doing?

That's exactly what hussein was doing as far as I'm concerned, but such double standards are not unique to the left, and I'm sure with some digging you could find the same in my own words/actions.


Why is it okay for communists/anarchs. to eliminate (could be through reprogramming camps or death) reactionaries but it's not okay for Hussein? And I'm honestly not trying to take a jab, I'm just new to leftist ideas.

Every day, we live and learn - you're only as "new" to these ideas as you allow yourself to be. Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with you that communists and anarchists (of many "strains") - some of the most "noble" minded people on this globe - should not be committing such acts. For me, it's such an alien concept. Like this mythical "justice" beast we hear so much about, it consists of putting two wrongs together, and supposedly making things "right": It truly baffles me.

There are many here who continually disagree with me on this of course, I would recommend reading a paper from RedStar2000's website called No "Free Speech" for Reactionaries (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1097152138&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) as to justification for the opposite viewpoint, although I'm sure someone else will oblige.

[DaCuBaN]

"I don't understand what he really did wrong"

As was mentioned this is a case of moral relativism. I don't think anyone has denied his "crimes", but more that the focus is being placed on them, and other aspects are being completely ignored. Compared to the crimes committed daily against humanity, and the crimes that Britain, America, and the other imperial nations of this world have committed Saddam's actions really don't amount to a spit in the ocean.

I certainly know that I myself am playing the devil's advocate here - I would have been delighted to hear of an armed uprising in Iraq to overthrow Saddam's regime - even if it was a fundamentalist Islamic replacement, simply because it was the "will of the people".

[synthesis]

While I do agree that Saddam was horrible, one must understand that he was the result of a right-wing takeover of the Ba'ath party, and that Ba'athism in and of itself was actually a very progressive socialist movement that came to power on a wave of student and worker rebellion.

I'll take your word for it, because I respect your proximity to the conflict, but my opinion lies elsewhere. No matter what section of that party you look at, it smacks of the same ethnocentric non-socialism as Mugabe and Mussolini.

I would have less of a problem had they emphasized their oppressed-nation nationalism. Instead of talking about regional solidarity against imperialism, as most Latin American and Asian nationalists (like Castro and Mao) parties like Ba'ath and ZANU take it a step farther and talk about "Racial Unity" (Arab Unity, Shona unity, etc).

In other words, they're not simply an alliance of convenience and friendship. They want to organize the oppressed on grounds of race instead of class, ethnicity instead of geography. I'm sorry, but that's not something I sympathize with at all.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 07:36 AM
And just a quick question, how come this got moved into the opposing ideologies? See people here don't even give you a reason. Maybe politics was incorrect...you know being a POLITICAL leader and all. Not to mention a form of socialism. So whoever moved this thinks that socialism is an opposing ideology?
You were given a reason.


this thread will be moved to OI. If someone posted saying 'i dont really what hitler did wrong' i would be fucking pissed off. If i was kurd or and Iraqi communist i would definitely not want to see a despicable thread like this. if you want to ask such stupid question about somebody who carried out ethnic cleansing, and hwho murdered our political cmrades you can do so elsewhere

[ComradeChris]

That it was a natural reaction does not make it more deplorable. It was a natural reaction for Germans to gun down rebellious Jews and it is a natural reaction for Israelis to gun down rebellious Arabs, that does not change the fact that we have ruling ethnic classes violently repressing the nationalism of the oppressed, something we must always support.

Read my post next time. Both countries were US puppets. The US was supplying both sides with chemical and biological weapons. I said I DON'T APPROVE OF HIS METHODS (or something along those line), but obviously you couldn't just leave them shooting at you. Well in your case, you could. But as I said, death wish, or just stupid.


Yeah, well, thanks for the explanation, but your straw man was still ludicrous. Who says I want to defend Stalin?

A few other administation on here do. Just though you'd like to fit in with your elitest pals.


I said that because neither Ba'athism nor Nazism were remotely socialist. Fascism always includes a rhetorical element of socialistic reform as an appeal to workers.

One's a hell of a lot more socialist. ONE'S ACTUALLY TO THE LEFT!!!


Many people are idiots. Political Compass is an absolutely worthless instrument for political analysis, despite the lofty moniker. It assigns arbitrary numbers to random, pseudo-representative viewpoints and calls it "data". I've seen right-wing religious fanatics get placed to the left of John Kerry, and I've seen Maoists equated with Pinochet.

The fact that you tried to use that laughable tool as evidence for your argument is simply further evidence for your own confusion.

First of all a plethural of other sources seems to think it's great. Secondly, don't even do the test if you don't care to; nobody's forcing you too. And where's your backup my friend? I don't see anything other than YOUR opinion. Laugh at my 'data' (as you would call it) all you want, still more than you have :rolleyes: .

[ComradeChris]

This is a guy who has killed thousands of our comrades, communists and Trade Unionists for the sole reason of holding those views. He started a war which killed hundreds of thousands of Iranis, so as to grab more land and his domestic polcies of repression where absolutely desbicable. His crimes were numerous and how anyone on the left would support a man who would have no problem killing you just for holding those views is beyond comprehension.

I was for his overthrow but did not support the Iraq war. I beleive the only way a truly progressive outcome could come from his removal, would come about only through an uprising of the general populace.

The eneny of my enemy is my friend logis is absolute bullshit and it was this reasoning which lead to the United States supporting him in the first place.

And Stalin? He was much more socialist and also gave socialists a very bad name.

[QUOTE]There are some Stalinsts who support both. The USSR also had hundreds of millions more people, so the comparison doesn't really make sense but again, just because, he may not be as bad as others doesn't mean he should recieve support in any way. George Bush "feeds his people" as well and has killed less people than Saddam, as of now, so perhaps we should support him ?
QUOTE]

So what are you saying? Under Stalin you had a less chance per-capita to be killed? Some people say upwards near 50 million died under Stalin. Under Saddam, what was the number in that source, 300,000 or something? I think I'd have took my chances under Saddam. No huge shortages in the bread lines there that I have heard of.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 13 2004, 05:24 AM
You were given a reason.


Doesn't really apply. I'm trying to put the WAR situation in light. Yeah sure, there were plentyof better leaders than Saddam. He can't help that he was screwed from the get-go being a US lap-dog.

But as I said, the Mods-Admins here can do whatever they wish, when they wish, without even their full understanding. :rolleyes:

[Osman Ghazi]

No huge shortages in the bread lines there that I have heard of.


Are you ing crazy? As many as 500,000 died during the sanctions (1991-2002) as a result of inadequate food, clean water and medicines.

Anyway, the guy who ordered the first ever chemical attack on a civilian population couldn't be so bad, could he?

Sardasht (http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/ira030530.html)

As for Halabja, it may be possible that it was Iran, or that Iranian forces were in the area. In peacetime, it was just 11 km from the Iranian border, and at that stage of the war, Iraq was taking a defensive stance and fighting on its own territory. I know that Suleymaniyah about 15 km to the north of Halabja fell to Iranian forces. It is likely that Halabja was threatened also.

I think the most likely explanation was that Saddam feared the Kurds would simply turn the city over to the Iranians who, so close as they were could have marched on the city (theoretically at least) at any time.

This would have been a huge blow to the defending Iraqi forces, as the urban areas of both countries served as strongholds to bog down each other's offensives, much like the failure at Abadan caused the collapse of Saddam's initially successful offensive.

[synthesis]

Read my post next time. Both countries were US puppets. The US was supplying both sides with chemical and biological weapons. I said I DON'T APPROVE OF HIS METHODS (or something along those line), but obviously you couldn't just leave them shooting at you. Well in your case, you could. But as I said, death wish, or just stupid.

So what the hell is the point of this thread?


One's a hell of a lot more socialist. ONE'S ACTUALLY TO THE LEFT!!!

Right.


First of all a plethural of other sources seems to think it's great.

Indeed. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html)


Secondly, don't even do the test if you don't care to; nobody's forcing you too.

Of course no one's forcing me to take the test, but you're insisting on the validity of that worthless tool by attempting to use it as evidence. No dice.


And where's your backup my friend? I don't see anything other than YOUR opinion

Are you really this blind?

The way the Compass works is that it arbitrarily (you may have to look this word up) assigns random numbers to what is supposed to be a representative range of questions dealing with ideology. There is no evidence that the numbers it assigns to the different responses available have any purpose or reason behind them (thus they are arbitrary) and if you've been involved in political discussion for any amount of time, you'd realize that the questions it offers are nowhere near the amount it would take to truly quantify someone's political ideology.

I'm not even going to touch upon the ridiculousness of actually attempting to quantify political ideology. You have to actually deal with their policies, not just plop them on a graph and call that "data."

[Mr. Krinklebein]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 01:42 AM
And other than his treatment of women (or lack of laws protecting women) I don't understand what he really did wrong.
His treatment of just about everyone was better than that perpetuated by Muslim fundamentalists the US has supported in the past.

[DaCuBaN]

Precisely - as far as US puppets go, he's one of the "best". Quite subjective word, I'm sure you agree, but I'm sure I need not bring up a list of others...

*EDIT*
Think past tense...

[Mr. Krinklebein]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 05:04 AM
While it is true that Hussein was a brutal dictator responsible for something closer to a quarter million deaths throughout the entire span of his regime, he was the Mickey Mouse of dictators. I've said it once and I'll say it again, what about the Sudan? Why didn't the U$ become militarily involved there? After all, the genocide there has just within the last year topped 6 million people and it only just started about three years ago. One word: Oil.
Yes.

The U.S. has a habit of making the mice it doesn't like look worse than the wolves it does.

[Mr. Krinklebein]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 01:44 AM
This is one of the most extreme cases of moral relativism I've ever seen. The fact that you try to defend Hussein is incomprehensible.
How, exactly, do you define 'moral relativism'?

And what is incomprehensible about it?

[Mr. Krinklebein]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 05:11 PM
Precisely - as far as US puppets go, he's one of the "best". Quite subjective word, I'm sure you agree, but I'm sure I need not bring up a list of others...

*EDIT*
Think past tense...
I'd say he's more of a pawn than an outright puppet (which is also subjective ;) ); nevertheless, this basically sums up the situation at hand.

[ComradeChris]

So what the hell is the point of this thread?

Well he's a leftist he must be bad. No, to SHED LIGHT ON THE SITUATION OF THE WAR!! I said that somewhere. I never said he was the best.


Right.

Got you to agree on something. I feel as though I've jumped through a hoop of fire 10 feet off the floor or something :lol: .


Indeed.

You wanted to bring sources into this not I. I'm not hoping on any bandwagons here. I question pretty much everything.


Of course no one's forcing me to take the test, but you're insisting on the validity of that worthless tool by attempting to use it as evidence. No dice.

Well like I said, look at the list of acknowledgements on the site. Where are your credentials? Wait, those are YOUR opinions too :rolleyes: .


Are you really this blind?

Nope, I only touch myself until I need corrective vision :lol: .


The way the Compass works is that it arbitrarily (you may have to look this word up) assigns random numbers to what is supposed to be a representative range of questions dealing with ideology. There is no evidence that the numbers it assigns to the different responses available have any purpose or reason behind them (thus they are arbitrary) and if you've been involved in political discussion for any amount of time, you'd realize that the questions it offers are nowhere near the amount it would take to truly quantify someone's political ideology.

So you don't believe in political idealogical placement is what you're saying?


I'm not even going to touch upon the ridiculousness of actually attempting to quantify political ideology. You have to actually deal with their policies, not just plop them on a graph and call that "data."

Why not? You can quantify almost anything. Look at the frequently asked questions. My bet is you didn't even read anything on that site, just because it proved you wrong.


His treatment of just about everyone was better than that perpetuated by Muslim fundamentalists the US has supported in the past.

I have heard quite good things about the industrialization and development of Iraq under Saddam, especially after the Gulf War.

All the reasons people went to war with him, those countries all committed pretty much the same atrocities. I mean they say Saddam tortures people, look what the US was doing in that one prison. The CIA has allied with mobsters. It's just rediculous. Once again for the dimwitted people (I hope you know who you are); THIS SITE IS TO SHED LIGHT ON THE SITUATION. not make Saddam to look out to be some God or something.

[Osman Ghazi]

I have heard quite good things about the industrialization and development of Iraq under Saddam, especially after the Gulf War.


You're joking again, right?

Are you talking about after the Iran-Iraq War (known for about three years as the Persian Gulf War) or after the First Gulf War? Maybe he made leaps and bounds after the Iran-Iraq War but the only reason it looked so good was because he brought Iraq to economic ruin during the war.

If you are referring to the post-Gulf War period, I don't think the economy improved much during the sanctions. However, I suppose that the sanctions could have created the need for local industry, thus leading to greater industrial development in Iraq. However, I haven't really heard anything about this myself.

[Hiero]

But as I said, the Mods-Admins here can do whatever they wish, when they wish, without even their full understanding.

And? Ofcourse the can do what they want, the admin creates the site so he can do what he wants. This isnt public owned, so get the foolish idea out of your head that this is meant to be some utopian message board.

You can always leave.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 13 2004, 08:02 PM

And? Ofcourse the can do what they want, the admin creates the site so he can do what he wants. This isnt public owned, so get the foolish idea out of your head that this is meant to be some utopian message board.

You can always leave.
And you're the one with the elitist attitude and for the ability to OWN webspace (which may leave me to believe you're for the ownership of more that that). I think YOU should remove the comrae from YOUR name :rolleyes:

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 13 2004, 07:09 PM

You're joking again, right?

Are you talking about after the Iran-Iraq War (known for about three years as the Persian Gulf War) or after the First Gulf War? Maybe he made leaps and bounds after the Iran-Iraq War but the only reason it looked so good was because he brought Iraq to economic ruin during the war.

If you are referring to the post-Gulf War period, I don't think the economy improved much during the sanctions. However, I suppose that the sanctions could have created the need for local industry, thus leading to greater industrial development in Iraq. However, I haven't really heard anything about this myself.
Actually, he promised 50 billion in reconstruction (after the Iran-Iraq war), but his primary export is oil (obviously). His neighbouring countries kept selling their oil cheaper and cheaper to almost give "economic warfare" to suffocate Iraq's economy. Part of the reason he went after Kuwait is because he believed they were "slant-drilling" Iraqi oil.

But, I haven't heard too many bad things about the social policies Saddam had after the Gulf War (with the US; to save any further confusion)

[synthesis]

Well he's a leftist he must be bad. No, to SHED LIGHT ON THE SITUATION OF THE WAR!! I said that somewhere. I never said he was the best.

The situation of the war? Are you trying to say that the war was less about economic imperialism than "the threat of a good example," a la Grenada?


You wanted to bring sources into this not I. I'm not hoping on any bandwagons here. I question pretty much everything.

I don't care who "endorses" Political Compass, its value stands on its own.


Well like I said, look at the list of acknowledgements on the site. Where are your credentials? Wait, those are YOUR opinions too .

It's not an opinion, it's an argument. Logic doesn't need credentials.


So you don't believe in political idealogical placement is what you're saying?

Obviously some degree of political contextualization is inevitable and in fact quite useful, but to try to reduce all political thought to two numbers is absolutely ludicrous.


Why not? You can quantify almost anything. Look at the frequently asked questions. My bet is you didn't even read anything on that site, just because it proved you wrong.

...right.


Once again for the dimwitted people (I hope you know who you are); THIS [thread] IS TO SHED LIGHT ON THE SITUATION. not make Saddam to look out to be some God or something.

If so, you're going about this the wrong way.

What you're doing here is this:

"Sure, country A did atrocity X, but country B did atrocity Y (where Y is X on a larger scale)."

The fact that Y was committed doesn't justify X.

[Subversive Pessimist]

"Nope, even more socialist. Look at politicacompass.org. "


Politicalcompass.org can make mistakes, too. I don't trust them, but their political compass is better then most of the other tests. They are mainstream, and they don't take into account of leftist views.

For example:


If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.


"the "extreme left" identifies a strong degree of state economic control, which may also be accompanied by liberal or authoritarian social policies. "

[Xvall]

He was quite the ass. He deserves to be publicly executed, right alongside Cheyney, Ken Lay, and Ann Coulter.

[Osman Ghazi]

Part of the reason he went after Kuwait is because he believed they were "slant-drilling" Iraqi oil.


Yeah, right. The other part was that he was 14 billion dollars in their debt and din't have the money.

[Maynard]

As was mentioned this is a case of moral relativism. I don't think anyone has denied his "crimes", but more that the focus is being placed on them, and other aspects are being completely ignored.
Of course the United States government only brought up his crimes once it suited their foreign policy agenda and had no problem with it throughout the 80s and supported the regime through arms exports. Of course the United States government was hypocritical in its actions, that is no surprise but the fact is, he did commit many crimes and it should be condemned in the greatest of terms. He may not have been the worse, he may have had support from the west but he and his government carried out the killings, of reportedly 300,000 civilians, many of whom were Leftists. Even if that is focused upon, more so, than lets say, the current government of Uzbekistan, which receives United States support and also happens to be one of the worst human rights abusers. It still happened. The left should be fighting injustices perpetuated against civilians whenever they occur. I would like to see those who defend or play down Saddam's crimes from the left, tell that to their Iraqi comrades who often suffered the worst fate.


I would have been delighted to hear of an armed uprising in Iraq to overthrow Saddam's regime - even if it was a fundamentalist Islamic replacement, simply because it was the "will of the people".

It is kind of hard to know what really is the will of the people. I really sincerly doubt that the majority of Iraqi people want fundamentalist Islam as a replacement, even for occupation. I think all leftists should support the Iraqi Democrats Against Occupation and the Workers Communist Party of Iraq

http://www.wpiraq.org/english/

Who offer a leftist alternative to occupation.


So what are you saying? Under Stalin you had a less chance per-capita to be killed? Some people say upwards near 50 million died under Stalin. Under Saddam, what was the number in that source, 300,000 or something? I think I'd have took my chances under Saddam. No huge shortages in the bread lines there that I have heard of.

No, I was just saying the comparison didn't make sense. Hypothecially, if you had a 1 in 1000 chance of being killed by Stalin's government and a 1 in 1500 by Saddams, does it make it better ? Yes but does not make it good. Defending Saddam by saying he wasn't as bad as others is a dangerous thought to have. That is like defending Franco or Mussolini, because they didn't kill as many as Hitler. I don't think it is any communists job to rationalise the crimes perpuated by any national leader. That 300,000 is only Iraqi citizens and does not include Iranians as well. You don't have to choose between the lesser of two evils in this instance, was Saddam worse than Stalin ? It doesn't matter in this instance. Saddam was a imperialist, a war criminal and a downright thug. He doesn't deserve any support at all.


He can't help that he was screwed from the get-go being a US lap-dog.

He was screwed ? Just like Pinochet was ? or Batista ? The Iraqi people were "screwed" by him with the support of the United States. He didn't have to be a US lap dog, he chose to be and he chose to commit those crimes, the US didn't force him too.


THIS SITE IS TO SHED LIGHT ON THE SITUATION
What "situation" is light being shed on ? That because he done things other countries have done, he should not have been attacked ? It seems you are more interested in defending Saddam, than having any sort of solidarity with the Iraqi people. I did not support the war and do not support the occupation. But I think the worst argument made against the war was the downplaying of what Saddam did. I'm fully aware that under my thoughts Saddam would be left in power which is troubling but I was against the War, because I knew the alternative that the US was offering would not be the interests in the majority of Iraqi civilians and would make it even harder for any sort of leftist revolution to take place or any progressive outcome for Iraqi civilians. As they would now have to be undertaken against the biggest military in the world and the power of some of the largest corporations around, rather than a despotic dictator


I have heard quite good things about the industrialization and development of Iraq under Saddam, especially after the Gulf War
What good things were they ?

[ComradeChris]

The situation of the war? Are you trying to say that the war was less about economic imperialism than "the threat of a good example," a la Grenada?

Nope, just saying every country involved has hypocritical reasonings for going to war. But I think I'm going to stop listening to you. You still need help, like I said, death wish or stupid. You scare me.


I don't care who "endorses" Political Compass, its value stands on its own.

I don't care whom or what you endorse either. This argument is still going nowhere.


It's not an opinion, it's an argument. Logic doesn't need credentials.

This coming from a guy who either has a death wish or is jsut too stupid to defend himself/herself. There's logic for you ;) .


Obviously some degree of political contextualization is inevitable and in fact quite useful, but to try to reduce all political thought to two numbers is absolutely ludicrous.

It is or it isn't. If you're placed in a political party, there's going to be numbers involved. Numbers can be incorperated into anything.


...right.

Thanks for the agreement.


If so, you're going about this the wrong way.

What you're doing here is this:

"Sure, country A did atrocity X, but country B did atrocity Y (where Y is X on a larger scale)."

The fact that Y was committed doesn't justify X.

How is it the wrong way? But I love how you yourself is trying to quantify politics by placing variables into it. And using ideas like "larger scale." Make up your mind, can you or can't you quantify politics? Or you just don't like quantifying politics when it proves you wrong? :rolleyes:

[ComradeChris]

No, I was just saying the comparison didn't make sense. Hypothecially, if you had a 1 in 1000 chance of being killed by Stalin's government and a 1 in 1500 by Saddams, does it make it better ? Yes but does not make it good. Defending Saddam by saying he wasn't as bad as others is a dangerous thought to have. That is like defending Franco or Mussolini, because they didn't kill as many as Hitler. I don't think it is any communists job to rationalise the crimes perpuated by any national leader. That 300,000 is only Iraqi citizens and does not include Iranians as well. You don't have to choose between the lesser of two evils in this instance, was Saddam worse than Stalin ? It doesn't matter in this instance. Saddam was a imperialist, a war criminal and a downright thug. He doesn't deserve any support at all.

Ok, we're talking about leftist movements here aren't we? This is what this site is for isn't it? Because people are most likely going to die in armed conflict. I'm not arguing Hitler or Mussolini, both weren't leftist. I'd be more inclined to fend for Stalin, but I still don't. It was kind of like the "lesser of two evils" campaign going on outside the US. People outside the US wanted Kerry, or even Nader (but his campaign was hopeless with almost no coverage), because he was the lesser of two evils.

And Stalin doesn't deserve any support either. But a few mods have stuck up for him. Comrade RAF seems to a few times. Stalin, I think was almost like the same situation in France. Revolution, abolish the monarch for a few years, then you have a monarch again. He may have been collectivized yes, but back in Greece there were redistributive Monarch societies too.

In this case, Saddam seemed the less of two evils, you even helped illustrate that point for me.


What "situation" is light being shed on ? That because he done things other countries have done, he should not have been attacked ? It seems you are more interested in defending Saddam, than having any sort of solidarity with the Iraqi people. I did not support the war and do not support the occupation. But I think the worst argument made against the war was the downplaying of what Saddam did. I'm fully aware that under my thoughts Saddam would be left in power which is troubling but I was against the War, because I knew the alternative that the US was offering would not be the interests in the majority of Iraqi civilians and would make it even harder for any sort of leftist revolution to take place or any progressive outcome for Iraqi civilians. As they would now have to be undertaken against the biggest military in the world and the power of some of the largest corporations around, rather than a despotic dictator

What solidarity for the Iraqi people? There has NEVER been solidarity. When each faction/religion makes up ~10-15% of the population you can't have SOLIDARITY! So your argument is irrelevant to this situation. But under an authoritarian person, you can help keep order. Look at Tito for Yugoslavia. The place was divided and under him, there was relative harmony.

But I mean, maybe Saddam did have good intentions for his people and economy. When he invaded Kuwait, he wanted access to the Gulf. But having your country bombed to fuck, can kind of change a person.


What good things were they ?

Schooling, health care, public services, jobs, etc.

And a little interesting fact I heard. Did you know that under both of the Bush's presidencies not a single job was ever created. And that if they would have resided over the US since its creation not a single US citizen would have a job? :lol:

Sorry for the sidetrack, just thought of that when I mention jobs, the US, and the war.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 14 2004, 07:10 PM

Yeah, right. The other part was that he was 14 billion dollars in their debt and din't have the money.
That's always good when a Western country can take a country and divide it into a prosperous one and a non-prosperous one, isn't it?

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 03:52 AM
And you're the one with the elitist attitude and for the ability to OWN webspace (which may leave me to believe you're for the ownership of more that that). I think YOU should remove the comrae from YOUR name :rolleyes:
I do not own any webspace, i have nothign to with this website and if it wasnt for malte this website would exist. You seem to know little of anything.

And can you stop using thoose childish smilies in every single post.

[Raisa]

"Like I said, I'm just trying to make the US in the wrong here."

Even if the US was in the wrong, it STILL doesnt put Saddam any where in the right. The struggle is the struggle every where, and even if Saddam never killed anyone he is still just another opressor and exploiter of the people.

Are people forgetting about all the lavishing palaces that he had throughout his country?

As people supporting a change in the world why are we even bothering to compare which leader is better, it misses the point.

[synthesis]

This coming from a guy who either has a death wish or is jsut too stupid to defend himself/herself. There's logic for you

You aren't catching on.

If I were in the position of a totalitarian, ethnocentric dictator having to deal with an oppressed ethnicity waging a nationalist war of secession, then yes, I would defend myself. However, I would never be in that position, so your point is moot.


It is or it isn't. If you're placed in a political party, there's going to be numbers involved. Numbers can be incorperated into anything.

This is one of the most absurd non sequiturs I've ever heard. You should be shot.


How is it the wrong way? But I love how you yourself is trying to quantify politics by placing variables into it. And using ideas like "larger scale." Make up your mind, can you or can't you quantify politics? Or you just don't like quantifying politics when it proves you wrong?

I love how every post of yours contains at least one statement that is so ridiculously stupid as to allow me to simply quote it and have that function as my counter-argument :lol:

OK, I'll stop for a second and explain this to you, because I'm still a little nicer than, say, RAF would be, even though I know deep down inside that I'm wasting my time.

It is not possible to simply assign a set of numbers to an individual's (let alone an organization's) entire political ideology and use that to compare them to other individuals or organizations. The whole reasoning is flawed. Being for gay marriage is more leftist than being for civil unions; however, it is flatly ridiculous to try to say that gay marriage advocates are "2.64 points more leftist on the x axis and 1.34 points more leftist on the y axis" than civil union advocates. Especially because there's no real way of knowing which option Saddam or Stalin would pick for about half the questions, trying to use that device as the evidence for the case you're trying to present is self-evidently futile.

Seen?

[Urban Rubble]

Praxis


I'm sure you would concede that the same, if not worse, could be said about the current U$ president. If not him then certainly his father. Civil war and 75,000 subsequent deaths in El Salvador anyone?

What the fuck did that have to do with what I said ? Where in my condemnation of Hussein's warcrimes did I say that George Bush was O.K ?

[DaCuBaN]

I think there's quite a simple little algorithm can be applied here.

If the US government likes something, it's probably damned awful - if they hate something, it's probably the key to emancipation.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 09:27 AM
I think there's quite a simple little algorithm can be applied here.

If the US government likes something, it's probably damned awful - if they hate something, it's probably the key to emancipation.
That algorithm doesn't work, how about when the US banned slavery? You do realise that prior to the ban on slavery the US was hunting slavers accross the Atlantic for years.

I can come out with numerous such examples if you want.

[Osman Ghazi]

When he invaded Kuwait, he wanted access to the Gulf.

That's not true! Basrah is a port city on the Persian Gulf. So, Iraq already had access to the Gulf.


That's always good when a Western country can take a country and divide it into a prosperous one and a non-prosperous one, isn't it?

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean, let alone how it is good.

[ComradeChris]

I do not own any webspace, i have nothign to with this website and if it wasnt for malte this website would exist. You seem to know little of anything.

Never said you did you illiterate twit. But you respect that things are available for ownership. Remove the Comrade please, you aren't a true communist if you believe that.


And can you stop using thoose childish smilies in every single post.

Stop being such a fascist in every single post :P .

[ComradeChris]

You aren't catching on.

If I were in the position of a totalitarian, ethnocentric dictator having to deal with an oppressed ethnicity waging a nationalist war of secession, then yes, I would defend myself. However, I would never be in that position, so your point is moot.

No you aren't catching on. Stalin would have done the same thing if people were revolting against him. Wait, he did. And to a millions more people. And that was primarily on assumption, not in the middle of armed combat. It is obviously you, who is not catching on.


This is one of the most absurd non sequiturs I've ever heard. You should be shot.

Something Stalin probably would have done. You're fascism is showing.


I love how every post of yours contains at least one statement that is so ridiculously stupid as to allow me to simply quote it and have that function as my counter-argument

OK, I'll stop for a second and explain this to you, because I'm still a little nicer than, say, RAF would be, even though I know deep down inside that I'm wasting my time.

You're wrong on both those points. Because you didn't even respond to half my postings and you aren't nicer. You both like Stalin, as I said, must run in the Administation here or something.


It is not possible to simply assign a set of numbers to an individual's (let alone an organization's) entire political ideology and use that to compare them to other individuals or organizations. The whole reasoning is flawed. Being for gay marriage is more leftist than being for civil unions; however, it is flatly ridiculous to try to say that gay marriage advocates are "2.64 points more leftist on the x axis and 1.34 points more leftist on the y axis" than civil union advocates. Especially because there's no real way of knowing which option Saddam or Stalin would pick for about half the questions, trying to use that device as the evidence for the case you're trying to present is self-evidently futile.

Well, let's see, you're for Stalin, against, the 3D model of political placement so we'll go to the one-lined one. They put dictators on the right didn't they? So you're not a leftist at all! Who's logic here is stupid. the one who at least has some credible backup, or the one who advocates for the person who killing more people. I love your logic.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 10:47 PM
"Like I said, I'm just trying to make the US in the wrong here."

Even if the US was in the wrong, it STILL doesnt put Saddam any where in the right. The struggle is the struggle every where, and even if Saddam never killed anyone he is still just another opressor and exploiter of the people.

Are people forgetting about all the lavishing palaces that he had throughout his country?

As people supporting a change in the world why are we even bothering to compare which leader is better, it misses the point.
Kind of like the lavishes Stalin had while his people were starving? Yet people on this forum defend him.

[synthesis]

You both like Stalin, as I said, must run in the Administation here or something.

Where the fuck are you getting this from?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 10:43 PM

You both like Stalin, as I said, must run in the Administation here or something.

Where the fuck are you getting this from?
It was you who said something about it being safer living in Russia under Stalin because of the greater population wasn't it? If I'm wrong, I'm still not too sorry. You claim to be a leftist on a heirarchal board. Show's the equality of your beliefs.

[synthesis]

It was you who said something about it being safer living in Russia under Stalin because of the greater population wasn't it?

Check your facts before you get knocked on your ass, son. :D


You claim to be a leftist on a heirarchal board. Show's the equality of your beliefs.

Yeah, because I have so much power as a moderator :lol:

Seriously, kid, if you want to go back and respond to the points I've raised without any of your hysterical, ignorant accusations about this or that dictator, bring it on.

[ComradeChris]

Check your facts before you get knocked on your ass, son

It was as much a question as it was anything. And I apologize that I thought you said something someone else did. But when on the first page you say things like:


In Russia, Stalin could get away with it.

Sounds like your advocating for Stalin. Moral relativism.


Yeah, because I have so much power as a moderator

All I know is you're a higher rank than I am.


Seriously, kid, if you want to go back and respond to the points I've raised without any of your hysterical, ignorant accusations about this or that dictator, bring it on.

I have been. You ignored half of my replies and focused on one question and said I was wrong to ask it. :rolleyes:

[RedAnarchist]

The site is hierarchical beacuse it has to be. IT IS NOT A COUNTRY. Malte is not our Communist president, the mods are not our Parliament, we are not Che-Lives citizens. It is a simple Internet political board.

You have to be either a stalin kiddie or a fool to attempt to justify or advocate any act by Stalin.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 08:27 AM
I think there's quite a simple little algorithm can be applied here.

If the US government likes something, it's probably damned awful - if they hate something, it's probably the key to emancipation.
Or ad hominem, as it is known.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 11:13 AM
The site is hierarchical beacuse it has to be. IT IS NOT A COUNTRY. Malte is not our Communist president, the mods are not our Parliament, we are not Che-Lives citizens. It is a simple Internet political board.

You have to be either a stalin kiddie or a fool to attempt to justify or advocate any act by Stalin.
Comrade RAF seems to diminish the facts and defend him. And these are the people who may consider a communist revolution. Many of the people here are young and influencial. How do you think they will react when it's time to maintain order? It will probably always look something like the USSR. One person ruling above all others. Because this is the example they have. People are above them, even though we're all supposedly communists.

Stalin had my political idol killed (supposedly. I'd bet my life on it; because Stalin is a vindicative person foremost). I have no respect for him whatsoever.

[DaCuBaN]

Ad Hominem

Well....


Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Not even close. It's besides the point anyway - you missed the all important word:

Probably.
:rolleyes:

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 15 2004, 09:15 AM

When he invaded Kuwait, he wanted access to the Gulf.

That's not true! Basrah is a port city on the Persian Gulf. So, Iraq already had access to the Gulf.


That's always good when a Western country can take a country and divide it into a prosperous one and a non-prosperous one, isn't it?

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean, let alone how it is good.
I was told they didn't have access to the Gulf.

And the other statement was obvious if you read my initial post. Britain divided Iraq into Kuwait and Iraq. One prospered the other didn't. Get it now?

[Osman Ghazi]

Stalin had my political idol killed

A trot huh? Well, if you want my advice, idols, especially political ones.

Leon was just as nasty as Stalin, in fact, Stalin stole many of his ideas.


I was told they didn't have access to the Gulf.


It appears that you've been misinformed about a few things. As long as you look for the truth though, you will find it.

I can remember specifically the demining of the port of Basrah in the first stages of the Iraq War.


Britain divided Iraq into Kuwait and Iraq. One prospered the other didn't. Get it now?

Well, it didn't go down quite like that. Kuwait was in British hands prior to WWI and after the war the little piggies took Iraq too. The only problem was that the Iraqis revolted, so they let Faisal I, who'd been cheated out of the throne of Syria, become King of Iraq(as a puppet, of course).

[Hiero]

Many of the people here are young and influencial. How do you think they will react when it's time to maintain order? It will probably always look something like the USSR. One person ruling above all others. Because this is the example they have. People are above them, even though we're all supposedly communists.

I doubt many people will be involed in the plaining of a revolutionary society.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 08:46 PM

Many of the people here are young and influencial. How do you think they will react when it's time to maintain order? It will probably always look something like the USSR. One person ruling above all others. Because this is the example they have. People are above them, even though we're all supposedly communists.

I doubt many people will be involed in the plaining of a revolutionary society.
Exactly. It will probably the type of people who lead here, who will LEAD a revolution into LEADERlesness (supposedly).

[ComradeChris]

A trot huh? Well, if you want my advice, idols, especially political ones.

Leon was just as nasty as Stalin, in fact, Stalin stole many of his ideas.

He didn't seem too nasty to me (from books with some first hand testimony). In fact he fought against authoritarian rule.


It appears that you've been misinformed about a few things. As long as you look for the truth though, you will find it.

I can remember specifically the demining of the port of Basrah in the first stages of the Iraq War.

Well that actually led me to another question. Did he always own that little piece of land? And maybe I just took it the wrong way too. Maybe it was just to RESTRICT, not abolish altogether, his access to the sea.


Well, it didn't go down quite like that. Kuwait was in British hands prior to WWI and after the war the little piggies took Iraq too. The only problem was that the Iraqis revolted, so they let Faisal I, who'd been cheated out of the throne of Syria, become King of Iraq(as a puppet, of course).

Yeah, the Middle East has a complex and divided history. I knew something about a King being allowed in Iraq (appointed by Britain; but I thought that came decades later after the WWI). I don't know too much about it other than the one book I read; which has a brief history, then the rest of the book goes into why Bush shouldn't have gone to war.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by ComradeChris+Nov 16 2004, 01:24 AM--> (ComradeChris @ Nov 16 2004, 01:24 AM)
[email protected] 14 2004, 10:47 PM
"Like I said, I'm just trying to make the US in the wrong here."

Even if the US was in the wrong, it STILL doesnt put Saddam any where in the right. The struggle is the struggle every where, and even if Saddam never killed anyone he is still just another opressor and exploiter of the people.

Are people forgetting about all the lavishing palaces that he had throughout his country?

As people supporting a change in the world why are we even bothering to compare which leader is better, it misses the point.
Kind of like the lavishes Stalin had while his people were starving? Yet people on this forum defend him. [/b]
Is that all you got ?

I do not defend Stalin, and most people here do not defend Stalin. But I did have a point.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 08:08 AM
I have been. You ignored half of my replies and focused on one question and said I was wrong to ask it. :rolleyes:
No, you haven't been answering shit. You've been tossing around ridiculous accusations and equivocations and calling them arguments.

This thread is shit.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by DyerMaker+Nov 16 2004, 10:28 PM--> (DyerMaker @ Nov 16 2004, 10:28 PM)
[email protected] 16 2004, 08:08 AM
I have been. You ignored half of my replies and focused on one question and said I was wrong to ask it. :rolleyes:
No, you haven't been answering shit. You've been tossing around ridiculous accusations and equivocations and calling them arguments.

This thread is shit. [/b]
Yeah it happens when Stalin sympathizers join the debate.
After all (fromthe words of the man himself):


In Russia, Stalin could get away with it.

;)


Is that all you got ?

I do not defend Stalin, and most people here do not defend Stalin. But I did have a point.

A few I've seen defend Stalin. Go to some of the Stalin threads. I didn't say most people do. At least I hope I didn't. I didn't mean to. But if I didn't, nice assumption, is that all you got? :rolleyes:

[RedAnarchist]

Stalin was just a wannabe Tsar - he spuna web of lies and grandeur around him, and creating a personality cult which showed him as some sort of Father to the Soviet peoples. In reality, he was just an arrogant, foolish, weak man who had no real belief in Communism.
Stalin is now sort of a caricature of Communism - at least thats what the Western media would like you to think. The capitalist media want to show Communism only in it's dark, shameful, Stalinist form instead of it's true self.

[Osman Ghazi]

Well that actually led me to another question. Did he always own that little piece of land? And maybe I just took it the wrong way too. Maybe it was just to RESTRICT, not abolish altogether, his access to the sea.


Well, control of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway, which allows Basrah to send its exports (i.e. oil) downstream, was a major cause of the Iran-Iraq War. The dividing line of the two countries sits in the middle of the river, (in the south anyways). You might find this map helpful.

Shatt-al-Arab Waterway (http://encarta.msn.com/map_701516482/Shatt_al_Arab.html)

And Chris, can I ask a favour? Please stop accusing everyone of supporting Stalin. Really, maybe 1 in 100 around here actually do support him, andI know Raisa and DyerMaker aren't in that group. Besides which, saying witty things like 'is that all you got?' really detracts from the thread.


He didn't seem too nasty to me (from books with some first hand testimony). In fact he fought against authoritarian rule.

Did he?

He was, after all, the progenitor of the Red Army, the very instrument that Stalin used to carry out his crimes. What do you think he would have done had he had control of it?

[RedAnarchist]

1 in 100? No offence, but i doubt it's as big as that. Maybe more like 1 in 500?

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 04:33 AM
I'll take your word for it, because I respect your proximity to the conflict, but my opinion lies elsewhere. No matter what section of that party you look at, it smacks of the same ethnocentric non-socialism as Mugabe and Mussolini.

I would have less of a problem had they emphasized their oppressed-nation nationalism. Instead of talking about regional solidarity against imperialism, as most Latin American and Asian nationalists (like Castro and Mao) parties like Ba'ath and ZANU take it a step farther and talk about "Racial Unity" (Arab Unity, Shona unity, etc).

In other words, they're not simply an alliance of convenience and friendship. They want to organize the oppressed on grounds of race instead of class, ethnicity instead of geography. I'm sorry, but that's not something I sympathize with at all.
Sorry it took me so long to respond here.

One thing. I'm not defending the Ba'ath party, it has its own problems. Rather, I'm trying to show you that, put in context, Ba'athism was in fact a progressive movement expressed through the anti-imperialist dynamic. It must be understood that when Ba'athism began, the Middle East was under direct colonialism. It was a movement for independance as well as socialism. The "nationalism" that came with it was not so much an expression of nationalism as an expression of freedom. It must be made clear that this was not like the proto-nazi "Greater Syria" party or any of the Fascist groups Ba'athists competed with.

Of course, I'm not into the "Pan-Arabism", and it is something to fight against. In context though, it was an outcry against european powers dividing the Middle East amongst themselves like a game of risk.

It was not the main plank of the Ba'ath party, Socialism originally was. The party had close ties with Marxists underground and there were a few Marxists in it I believe. It was not what it is today, and in Syria, it is still nowhere near reasonable to compare that party to Saddam's.

Later on, after taking government in both Iraq and Syria, internal coups led to changes in dynamic. In Iraq, this meant a total shift to the right. Saddam executed Communists and Socialists, within and without the party. Then proceeded to roll out laws against strikes with heavy punishments. In Syria, there was a shift to the right as well, though nowhere near as extreme. The Communist party remained one of the parties in coalition government, etc... But there were still alot of executions of Marxists, and that "coalition" had no real power. Those who took over where the ones who emphasized Pan-Arabism over Socialism.

Anyways, I'm not saying we should sympathize with Pan-Arabism, I'm saying that to compare Ba'athism to Fascism would be wrong. Though Saddam's regime did approach it.

It parallels the bureaucratic coups that took place in the Soviet Union much more than it does the Fascist takeover of Italy.

[ComradeChris]

Well, control of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway, which allows Basrah to send its exports (i.e. oil) downstream, was a major cause of the Iran-Iraq War. The dividing line of the two countries sits in the middle of the river, (in the south anyways). You might find this map helpful.

Shatt-al-Arab Waterway

Thanks for the source. I'm always looking for new readings.


And Chris, can I ask a favour? Please stop accusing everyone of supporting Stalin. Really, maybe 1 in 100 around here actually do support him, andI know Raisa and DyerMaker aren't in that group. Besides which, saying witty things like 'is that all you got?' really detracts from the thread.

Well on the first page DyeMaker said, "In Russia, Stalin could get away with it." And he's accusing me of moral relativism? But I will do my best to refrain myself from brash assumptions.


Did he?

He was, after all, the progenitor of the Red Army, the very instrument that Stalin used to carry out his crimes. What do you think he would have done had he had control of it?

I don't know, I don't think he would have sent people to the Gulag for starters. After all Trotsky was fiercely opposed to Stalins methods. Probably wouldn't have executed all the members of the Old Bolsheviks. But obviously nobody can defend or refute that. He wasn't in power.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 06:07 AM
Stalin was just a wannabe Tsar - he spuna web of lies and grandeur around him, and creating a personality cult which showed him as some sort of Father to the Soviet peoples. In reality, he was just an arrogant, foolish, weak man who had no real belief in Communism.
Stalin is now sort of a caricature of Communism - at least thats what the Western media would like you to think. The capitalist media want to show Communism only in it's dark, shameful, Stalinist form instead of it's true self.
I agree. There's a book I've been meaning to get called "Stalin: The Red Czar." It's expensive and I've bought lots of books recently so it's one of the ones at the bottom of my list.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 10:08 AM



And Chris, can I ask a favour? Please stop accusing everyone of supporting Stalin. Really, maybe 1 in 100 around here actually do support him, andI know Raisa and DyerMaker aren't in that group. Besides which, saying witty things like 'is that all you got?' really detracts from the thread.

Well on the first page DyeMaker said, "In Russia, Stalin could get away with it." And he's accusing me of moral relativism? But I will do my best to refrain myself from brash assumptions.
I really hope you're joking. No one could be this stupid on accident.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by DyerMaker+Nov 17 2004, 04:41 PM--> (DyerMaker @ Nov 17 2004, 04:41 PM)
[email protected] 17 2004, 10:08 AM



And Chris, can I ask a favour? Please stop accusing everyone of supporting Stalin. Really, maybe 1 in 100 around here actually do support him, andI know Raisa and DyerMaker aren't in that group. Besides which, saying witty things like 'is that all you got?' really detracts from the thread.

Well on the first page DyeMaker said, "In Russia, Stalin could get away with it." And he's accusing me of moral relativism? But I will do my best to refrain myself from brash assumptions.
I really hope you're joking. No one could be this stupid on accident. [/b]
Because someone as you would say "could get away with it" doesn't make it right guy.

[synthesis]

No, it doesn't make it "right," and I never implied it did. I said it was what would naturally happen as a result of the societal situation in early-20th-century Russia.

"Natural" does not mean "right", I have often argued against people who say that it does.

You should really try reading what I'm saying rather than scanning it and making these moronic accusations

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 04:26 PM
No, it doesn't make it "right," and I never implied it did. I said it was what would naturally happen as a result of the societal situation in early-20th-century Russia.

"Natural" does not mean "right", I have often argued against people who say that it does.

You should really try reading what I'm saying rather than scanning it and making these moronic accusations
I never said Saddam was right either. In fact I basically just gave his motives for everything and you accuse me of moral relativism. Just putting you in the same situation.

[synthesis]

Of course you gave his motives for everything. It's not like political leaders just do things on a whim, they each have their own agendas.

If someone breaks into a woman's house, and cuts off a digit (finger, toe) until she tells him the code to her safe, does the fact that he has a motive (wants to feed his kids, etc) make the action any less despicable?

You are using moral relativism by comparing his crimes with America's. The various episodes of wholesale slaughter pursued by the U.S. are obviously going to dwarf those of one reactionary dictator from the Middle East. That doesn't mean that the dictator shouldn't be seized and executed.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 04:16 PM
you missed the all important word:

Probably.
:rolleyes:
I do apologise. It's Probably an ad hominem, then.

Satisfied ?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 08:27 PM
Of course you gave his motives for everything. It's not like political leaders just do things on a whim, they each have their own agendas.

If someone breaks into a woman's house, and cuts off a digit (finger, toe) until she tells him the code to her safe, does the fact that he has a motive (wants to feed his kids, etc) make the action any less despicable?

You are using moral relativism by comparing his crimes with America's. The various episodes of wholesale slaughter pursued by the U.S. are obviously going to dwarf those of one reactionary dictator from the Middle East. That doesn't mean that the dictator shouldn't be seized and executed.
That's the age old question, "do the ends justify the means?" Depends on the person how to answer that question.

And probably close to every leader in the US should [not] be seized and murders. Hell they partook in something like 37 wars in less than 300 years. I'm up for that challenge; how about you? We'll set aside our morally relitive differences and go to all the US presidents involved in wars and [not] go [and not] "seize and execute" them. Sounds good to me. Hell the country is practically an oligarchy (look who was running in the last election: 3 very wealthy white men). That's close enough to a dictaatorship isn't it?

[Latifa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 01:19 AM
Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979-2003): 300 000
Human Rights Watch: "twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule ... murdered or 'disappeared' some quarter of a million Iraqis" [http://www.hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm]
8/9 Dec. 2003 AP: Total murders
New survey estimates 61,000 residents of Baghdad executed by Saddam.
US Government estimates a total of 300,000 murders
180,000 Kurds k. in Anfal
60,000 Shiites in 1991
50,000 misc. others executed
"Human rights officials" est.: 500,000
Iraqi politicians: over a million
[These don't include the million or so dead in the Iran-Iraq War.]

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#sadhus

Nice guy, huh?
The US Government estimates...

Don't you get the strange feeling they have been exagerated?? :blink:

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 01:18 PM
And probably close to every leader in the US should be seized and murders. Hell they partook in something like 37 wars in less than 300 years. I'm up for that challenge; how about you? We'll set aside our morally relitive differences and go to all the US presidents involved in wars and go "seize and kill" them. Sounds good to me. Hell the country is practically an oligarchy (look who was running in the last election: 3 very wealthy white men). That's close enough to a dictaatorship isn't it?
Could we please refrain from making stupid jokes that catch the attention of the secret service?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+Nov 25 2004, 08:30 AM--> (Che y Marijuana @ Nov 25 2004, 08:30 AM)
[email protected] 19 2004, 01:18 PM
And probably close to every leader in the US should be seized and murders. Hell they partook in something like 37 wars in less than 300 years. I'm up for that challenge; how about you? We'll set aside our morally relitive differences and go to all the US presidents involved in wars and go "seize and kill" them. Sounds good to me. Hell the country is practically an oligarchy (look who was running in the last election: 3 very wealthy white men). That's close enough to a dictaatorship isn't it?
Could we please refrain from making stupid jokes that catch the attention of the secret service? [/b]
My bad....want me to edit? It was a joke though. If anybody is going to kill anyone, in how I hope to achieve communism, it'll be the bourgeois.