Iraq

[sin miedo]

I just want to hear people's ideas of what needs to occur in Iraq. What is the "solution"? Is there a solution?

I see a number of people here support the resistance fighters. Is this because they are striking a blow against the U.S.? Or do you support their ultimate agendas (as various as they are)?

[h&s]

People here support the resistance fighters purely because they ar efighting the US. A lot of people though don't seem to realise that some of these fighters support regimes worse than the Allawi puppet regime, and these fighters should not be suppored. I support the right of the Iraqi people to resist an illegal occupation of their country, I don't support the other motives some of them may have.
There is no 'solution' to anything - nothing is perfect. I'm sure most people here want the withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq, but this would raise problems. The main one being that theocrats/fascists would get into power. Many people will use this as an argument against the withdrawal of troops, but to that I would say that its not up to the Western borgeoise to 'defend' Iraq against this sort of thing - they couldn't care less.

[Wurkwurk]

One of the best things that can be done is to allow TRUE democratic elections to take place Iraq and withdraw the unpopular occupation forces too. Like that will ever happed :lol:

But seriously, when you look at it, the vast majority of Iraqis dont want foreign troops patrolling their neighborhood streets everyday! Its opressive imperialism for god sakes! :angry: So withdrawing and enabling true elections will remove the imperialist vestiges from Iraq and generally make both Iraqis and Americans happy. And if the Iraqis know full and well that the elections are just, then there will no longer be a need for violence that currently wrecks iraq.

Everything solved!

But it won't happen, cuz Bush wan't some cash in his pocket. Bastard.

[dso79]

I agree that the foreign troops should leave. They are the main cause of all the problems and the violence, so I don’t think the situation will get much worse when they leave. After that the main challenge is finding a solution that will satisfy all the different groups (Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, etc). If one of the groups feels left out, the violence is likely to flare up again.

And yes, I support the Resistance because they are fighting against US imperialism. I don’t really care about the agendas of the individual members of the Resistance. At this point their only goal is to drive out the foreign troops and I support that goal.

[PRC-UTE]

Of course most of us aren't too thrilled with some of the groups resisting the occupation. But that's not really the point.

All we have to do is call for the US/UK forces to leave. That's it. We don't have the right, the intel or the logistics to dictate to the Iraqis how they should conduct their struggle and for what.

100,000 Iraqis have been murdered by the occupation and this is becoming a terrible catastrophe, much like Africa. So I support whoever can drive the imperialists out.

[Cal]

Again Realism has once again disappeared from the topic.

It is true that most people on this forum want the troops to pull out and didn't want the troops to be there in the first place but please remember what was there before, and also remember what will take over when the troops leave with no established government in place.

[sin miedo]

If the troops leave, how can any sort of stability be attained? The resistance fighters may be somewhat unified in their effort to be rid of the coalition forces, but what after? The different groups are diverse and want very different things for Iraq, and I doubt cooperation is a route they are all willing to take (the Baathists in particular).

But I understand the want to drive out the foreign troops, if I was in their shoes I very well might be taking the same road. But the violence is only making things worse. The resistance has specifically targeted and killed just as many (if not more) fellow Iraqis than the coalition troops. I just can't throw my support behind folks who do this sort of thing, just like I won't put my support behind Bush and his evil cronies.

[PRC-UTE]

It is true that most people on this forum want the troops to pull out and didn't want the troops to be there in the first place but please please remember what was there before,

You mean a country being strangled by terrible sanctions that killed 2-3 million people, mostly children? Or a regime that suppressed Islamic terrorism and made an effort to feed its people? I'm not a big fan of the Baathists, especially their war against the Kurds, but they didn't get everything wrong.


and also remember what will take over when the troops leave with no established government in place.

Righto. . . cuz we know what a good job the Yanks and Brits have done in power! You don't really believe the myth about 'protect and serve' do ya? :o


But I understand the want to drive out the foreign troops, if I was in their shoes I very well might be taking the same road. But the violence is only making things worse.

Yeah. Just let the Crusaders take the oil and blow up your town. Don't do nuthin. It's a lie that uranium depelted shells cause cancer, no worries.


The resistance has specifically targeted and killed just as many (if not more) fellow Iraqis than the coalition troops.

:lol: No, not even close.


I just can't throw my support behind folks who do this sort of thing, just like I won't put my support behind Bush and his evil cronies.


I hope it's fun to sit on the sidelines.


If the troops leave, how can any sort of stability be attained? The resistance fighters may be somewhat unified in their effort to be rid of the coalition forces, but what after? The different groups are diverse and want very different things for Iraq, and I doubt cooperation is a route they are all willing to take (the Baathists in particular).


You're right. The sandmonkeys can't govern themselves. Send in the conquerers to civilise them. It's worked so well in Ireland, Africa and Asia.

That's called White Man's Burden. You're what's known as a racist pro-imperialist reactionary.

[Cal]

You mean a country being strangled by terrible sanctions that killed 2-3 million people, mostly children? Or a regime that suppressed Islamic terrorism and made an effort to feed its people? I'm not a big fan of the Baathists, especially their war against the Kurds, but they didn't get everything wrong.


No they did build some lovely palaces, don't ask me to feel sorry for the Baathists.

On 20 Janauary 2003, Dr. Barham Salih, PM of the Kurdish Government in Northern Iraq, was in Rome for a meeting of the Socialist International in Rome. He told this story.

Britain and America agreed to enforce a no fly zone in northern Iraq and a kurdish statelet grew up in the safe haven. Villages which had been levelled by Saddams ethnic cleansers were re-built. Although the same sanctions applied to the Kurdish enclave as the rest of Iraq, the infant mortality rate was half that in Baathist controlled areas because Saddam and his cronies weren't stealing bread from the mouths of children. There was a free media, women judges and all kinds of things for Western socialists. These achievements, Salih said could be a model for a free Iraq, but only if the Americans invaded.

he was adamant: there was no other way. Iraqis couldn't break the Baathist hold on power without help.

The Kurdish leadership was a touch confused by the argument (as I am) of its former socialist friends. Among the anti-war demonstrators, Salih observed were human rights activists who had noticed our (Kurdish) plight long ago. Now they were marching to keep in place the regime which caused their plight. Their chant was 'No war in Iraq-Justice for Palestine' Did the converse apply? If international troops went into the West bank to remove Israeli settlements, would millions take to the streets and demand: 'No War on Israel; Free Iraq?' Salih doubted it. 'Since when is it justice for the Palestinians, to the exclusion of justice for the Iraqis.


When America had been Saddam's ally the left had been Saddam's enemy. When America switched sides so did the left.Pure opposition and the psyche of opposition has lead those of the left who want to keep SH in power to abandon it's principles. The left has matched the hypocricies of the West.

Iraq was also in breach of 16 UN resolutions was a 17th necessary?

Ann Clwyd Labour MP and no friend of Tony Blair said to the labour rebels 'when I hear people calling for more time for weapons inspectors, I say who will speak up for the victims of Saddam's regime?

Obviously not the Western Left.

[Cal]

Apologies posted it twice

[PRC-UTE]

No they did build some lovely palaces, don't ask me to feel sorry for the Baathists.


Pointing out that the US/UK forces are more murderous than the Baathists doesn't mean I'm pro-Saddam. Get an atual argument.


When America had been Saddam's ally the left had been Saddam's enemy. When America switched sides so did the left.Pure opposition and the psyche of opposition has lead those of the left who want to keep SH in power to abandon it's principles. The left has matched the hypocricies of the West.

Rubbish. I support the establishment of a Kurdish republic, which the US is opposed to. The leader of the Kurdistan Workers Party was taken out by the CIA, not Hussein, so don't present the US/UK murderers as liberators.


Iraq was also in breach of 16 UN resolutions was a 17th necessary?


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

God forbid he should defy the UN!


Ann Clwyd Labour MP and no friend of Tony Blair said to the labour rebels 'when I hear people calling for more time for weapons inspectors, I say who will speak up for the victims of Saddam's regime?

Obviously not the Western Left.

What the fuck? I've heard many leftists condemn Saddam. I have no problem condemning Saddam. When the opportunist idiot Eamonn McCann said that the left should support Hussein, the IRSP responded by saying Hussein was guilty of suppressing the Kurds who were in a legitimate struggle for liberation.

It's almost like the writer of that piece has no knowledge of the left, OR an agenda.

I'd also appreciate if it if you'd address some of my other points and explain why you support forces that have murdered millions.

[Cal]

I support the overthrow of the Baathists,

What was the plan if SH remained?

Im looking for your other points, you say you don't support Saddambut before you say they didn't do everything wrong? So did you want him to stay?

You say get an actual argument, my argument is that I wanted rid of SH and the Baathists and I pointed out that the Kurdish leader did also. I also pointed out that the Americans and the ritish had brought a great stability to the Kurdish zone via the implementation of the no fly zone despie being subject to the same sanctions which you mentioned previously.


I don't deny for a second the civillian casualties or the situation that is in iraq now, but I ak what the alternative was?

I understand that the utilitarian argument (that less will die in the war than would've died under SH ) loses it's appeal when you're on the wrong end of a cluster bomb.

I just don't like the hypocricies of which I can name further examples such as people complaining to the UK government about the restrictions it imposed on Iraqi asylum seekers whilst simultaneously campaigning to keep the regime they are fleeing from in power.

[EGisJUICE]

Originally posted by sin [email protected] 28 2004, 11:52 PM
If the troops leave, how can any sort of stability be attained? The resistance fighters may be somewhat unified in their effort to be rid of the coalition forces, but what after?
Who gives a shit what after? Staying and forcing a "democratic election" and "democracy" (note: the US isn't even a democracy, nor was it intended to be by the founding fathers) on the Iraqis is in my opinion more likely to lead to a total Iraqi civil war then pulling the troops will. If pulling the troops out means Iraq falls into disarray, do it anyway. It's not our (the US) country, and we are making things worse by being there. It's not like whoever "wins" the Iraqi selections, which will coincidentally be the canidate(s) favorable to the US interests, (if not they'll do them over - see Ukraine elections 2004) can or will tell the US to pull it's troops from Iraq anyway. The US has military bases planned for Iraq no matter who wins, which shows the real intent of the US.

In these "elections," the majority (sunni?) will fuck over the minoritiy religions and peoples as 'payback' for what they have experienced in the past and there will be open civil war. That's why Iraqis are killing other Iraqis now. They know what a "democratic election" means for their futures, and are fighting it like their lives depend on stopping the elections. They are dead anyway, the US bombs them into oblivion because they are "insurgents" for defending their own country from imperial invaders, or they get dissapeared quietly after the selections. Better to die on your feet then live on your knees.

If these elections are so "free" and "democratic" and the US only wants to support the will of the Iraqi people (unless they want to live, then fuck those rag heads) why isn't Saddam allowed to run? Probably because he'd win and the US couldn't have that happen, we might have to admit that we fucked up then.

[Cal]

why isn't Saddam allowed to run?

What??

I can't even begin to show how annoyed that comment has made me.

[Cal]

Who gives a shit what after?

good lateral thinking is that.


The US has military bases planned for Iraq no matter who wins, which shows the real intent of the US.

what? the purpose was to build military bases?



Better to die on your feet then live on your knees

did you see the torture chambers prison cells and secret police records of the baathist regime that were found.

Please do not think i'm naive and I believe that the US/UK were on a humanitarian mission, but an Iraq without the baathist i something i am very happy about.

War for oil probably or at least to stabilise world oil prices, but I accept that as it means no saddam.

[h&s]

Cal: The left as a whole didn't support Saddam. We condemmed his regime as much as the right did, but the regime of Hussein was never the issue to us. To us we see no difference between the US and Saddam - they both oppress the people they are meant to represent. You talk of Saddam's notorious prisons as if the US don't do exactly the same, if not worse. All over Iraq there were stories of torture and murder in US run prisons long before abu Ghraib. Both the US and the Baathists oppress, so why should we chose between the two? It is up to the Iraqi people to decide how to run their country. Don't even think that the US/puppet regime would think twice about using the same sort of force as Saddam to put down a popular revolution. They are one and the same, so we opposed both of them.

[Cal]

As i've said I'm no US supporter but to argue against regime change in Iraq is wrong.


but the regime of Hussein was never the issue to us

Well it should have been,



It is up to the Iraqi people to decide how to run their country

Correct, but the guy had survived sanctions, he'd survived one war with the west and only made concessions to allow UN inspectors in on the threat of war, It was not possible for the people of Iraq to get rid of him without help, that is why I support regime change.

I.ve no time for Those who say they support the insurgents that is just gross stupidity (many based on fundamental Islam), there are over 148 parties registered to take part in the elections, which is a fanastic achievement. I do not deny for a second that the US and it's companies will make a lot of money out of the reconstruction of Iraq but frankly given the choice between a democratic iraq free of sanctions and with a force of soldiers there to maintain the integrity of the elections or the continuation of the baathist regime what would you pick.

Puppet government, i agreee that the government will probably lean heavily to those who removed Saddam but what is the problem considering the alternative. American brutality in prisons, I don't deny it for a second.

Im just struggling to define what the majority who opposed regime change wanted to happen, as popular revolt in the country was impossible.

Also I find it ironic that the removal of what is essentially a facist dictatorship has become the big oppositon issue.

[T_SP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 04:26 PM
As i've said I'm no US supporter but to argue against regime change in Iraq is wrong.


but the regime of Hussein was never the issue to us

Well it should have been,



It is up to the Iraqi people to decide how to run their country

Correct, but the guy had survived sanctions, he'd survived one war with the west and only made concessions to allow UN inspectors in on the threat of war, It was not possible for the people of Iraq to get rid of him without help, that is why I support regime change.

I.ve no time for Those who say they support the insurgents that is just gross stupidity (many based on fundamental Islam), there are over 148 parties registered to take part in the elections, which is a fanastic achievement. I do not deny for a second that the US and it's companies will make a lot of money out of the reconstruction of Iraq but frankly given the choice between a democratic iraq free of sanctions and with a force of soldiers there to maintain the integrity of the elections or the continuation of the baathist regime what would you pick.

Puppet government, i agreee that the government will probably lean heavily to those who removed Saddam but what is the problem considering the alternative. American brutality in prisons, I don't deny it for a second.

Im just struggling to define what the majority who opposed regime change wanted to happen, as popular revolt in the country was impossible.

Also I find it ironic that the removal of what is essentially a facist dictatorship has become the big oppositon issue.
Ask yourself why this so called 'regime' change was started in the first place? It is obvious to say that the West put Saddam in his postion, sold weapons to Iraq and Iran. WTF is that all about? Power and control of oil. It's true!!
Regime change could have happened so much differently but Bush was vendetta chasing and the happy-go-lucky cowboy wanted a fight cause he thought he was a 'bigboy'.

The change could so easily have been implemented by the Iraquis themselves without military intervention, the west could have intervened in a more diplomatic way if regime change was the reasoning behind war, the simple fact is it wasn't and so operation 'bombthecrapouttaem' went ahead. Bush and Blair couldn't give a crap what Saddam was up to or how many innocemts he'd killed!!

[Cal]

The change could so easily have been implemented by the Iraquis themselves without military intervention

Another Classic!!! Have they just been waiting for the opportune moment do you think!


the west could have intervened in a more diplomatic way

Pardon? 16 UN resolutions flouted, but no, we better not go to war until there is at least 17. I don't think SH was a fan of diplomacy.

[sin miedo]

I personally was against the war. Saddam was a dick, no doubt. But the U.S. had no right to invade. It might sound cold, but the Iraqi people would have had to put up with Saddam for a bit longer. Even if Bush wanted to go to Iraq solely for moral reasons (which sure as hell isn't the case), a war, especially a war of this type, cannot be fought on a moral stance alone. This leads to much too many pitfalls. The sanctions, while flawed and degraded, were keeping Saddam contained, and would have kept him contained for a while.

As for being a racist pro-imperial reactionary, c'mon now my friend, please re-read what I said. No where did I throw support behind the coalition. No where did I state that the Iraqi people were somehow incapable of ruling themselves and sorting their problems out (you used the racist slander, amigo). So where exactly did you infer me being a racist or pro-imperial? Please re-check the definition of reactionary friend, and take a good look at yourself.

Maybe pulling the troops is the answer. But do you honestly think Iraq will become a garden of democracy if the troops leave? If you wish for the diverse insurgents there to fight it out and the strongest claim victory, then alright, I accept your stance for the removal of troops. But if you think the troops leaving will lead to peaceful elections, you need to wake up.

[PRC-UTE]

As for being a racist pro-imperial reactionary, c'mon now my friend, please re-read what I said. No where did I throw support behind the coalition.

You wrote: If the troops leave, how can any sort of stability be attained? . . . do you honestly think Iraq will become a garden of democracy if the troops leave?


No where did I state that the Iraqi people were somehow incapable of ruling themselves and sorting their problems out (you used the racist slander, amigo).

You said: The resistance fighters may be somewhat unified in their effort to be rid of the coalition forces, but what after? . . . if you think the troops leaving will lead to peaceful elections, you need to wake up.

Peaceful elections after a two year period are one of th key demands of the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance.

I admit I went too far, I apologise, but I completely oppose the idea that people from radically different parts of the world can tell other people what to do. It's been terrible in history, and the argument occupiers use is along the lines of, well 'we'd like to leave but we the natives can't govern themselves,' whether it's the middle east or Ireland (blithely ignoring the fact that most of the third world's problems were caused by the first world).

Imperialism and occupation are charactaristic of advanced capitalism and defeating it must be a priority.

[h&s]

but the regime of Hussein was never the issue to us



Well it should have been,

I didn't put that clearly enough: what I meant was that Saddam's regime was the same as dozens of others the world over - there was nothing special about it.



It is up to the Iraqi people to decide how to run their country



Correct, but the guy had survived sanctions, he'd survived one war with the west and only made concessions to allow UN inspectors in on the threat of war, It was not possible for the people of Iraq to get rid of him without help, that is why I support regime change.
He'd survived that war by the skin of his teeth. He only survived because the US made no attempt to get rid of him. Regimes just as oppressive as his have been overthrown by popular revolutions (be they 'good' or 'bad') in the past - what made the Iraqi people incapable of doing this?


I've no time for Those who say they support the insurgents that is just gross stupidity (many based on fundamental Islam)
A piece of advice for you: don't believe the propaganda the media feeds you. If you seriously belive that the insurgency is based on theocracy, you are sadly mistaken. The vast majority of it is made up of groups of 5-7 normal men, independant of any religous affiliation. They may be Moslems, but that does not mean that they are fighting for some jumped up cleric.

there are over 148 parties registered to take part in the elections, which is a fanastic achievement.
I apologise for my lack of enthusiasm for borgeios 'democracy.'


I do not deny for a second that the US and it's companies will make a lot of money out of the reconstruction of Iraq but frankly given the choice between a democratic iraq free of sanctions and with a force of soldiers there to maintain the integrity of the elections or the continuation of the baathist regime what would you pick.
1. Iraq will never be democratic with the proposed system.
2. Soldiers 'maintaining the integrety of the elections?' Don't make me laugh.


Puppet government, i agreee that the government will probably lean heavily to those who removed Saddam but what is the problem considering the alternative.
The alternative is that the Iraqi people actually rule themselves. Somehow I think I'd support that over US colonial rule.


American brutality in prisons, I don't deny it for a second.
You supported the overthrow of Saddam because he tortured his people, yet you have no problem with the US doing exactly the same.


Im just struggling to define what the majority who opposed regime change wanted to happen, as popular revolt in the country was impossible.
Again: what makes you think that popular revolt in Iraq is impossible?


Also I find it ironic that the removal of what is essentially a facist dictatorship has become the big oppositon issue.
I find it strange how people suport the removal of one regime to replaced by one that is essentially identicle.

[T_SP]

Another Classic!!! Have they just been waiting for the opportune moment do you think!

What on earth are you prattling on about?? Iraquis could have been liberated by the west with out the aid of the Military! Did that not make sense to you?? The West did not need to blow Iraq up to remove Saddam.




Pardon? 16 UN resolutions flouted, but no, we better not go to war until there is at least 17. I don't think SH was a fan of diplomacy.



Steady yourself, before you make an arse of yourself!!

What does this have to do resolutions. The point I was making, and I reiterate, is that bombing the crap outta Iraq was never gonna work and Iraq is now living proof of that! Saddam could have been removed in other ways but that would not have benefitted George Bush and Co would it?
The Iraquis were never given a choice or a say so in any of this, so much for Western Democracy!!

[Cal]

As I stated in my first and most of my subesequent posts, I am a aupporter of the remover of the Baathists,

I never once stated that I agree with Americans brutailty in prisons I stated that I was aware of it, and unlike the regime of the Baathists American soldiers involved have been punished, not all of them granted.

Another point is that I have asked in posts what else could have been done and the only answer tha comes forward is 'popular revolution' Im sorry but there is little to state this could or would happen.

Do the tortured Iraqi's just have to wait until it happens?

The broad point I am trying to make is tha although I am opposed to a lot of what America does in the world, (and by the way I am under no illusion that the motives were anything other than commercial) the removal of Saddam Hussein is something I support, and with respect Bush despite his many and numerous faults is no SH.

As for the lack of excitement about bourgoise democracy, it is better than fascist dictatorship where the ruling family live like kings and a good percentage of the population has nothing.

And where I am from people are perfectly entitled to make an arse of themself!! It is a long standing family tradition.

[T_SP]

As for the lack of excitement about bourgoise democracy, it is better than fascist dictatorship where the ruling family live like kings and a good percentage of the population has nothing.

What's the difference!!


And where I am from people are perfectly entitled to make an arse of themself!! It is a long standing family tradition.
:lol: :lol: Glad you took it in jest it was meant as such!! :lol:


I'm not saying the removal of SH was bad, I'm glad for the Iraquis that he's gone, but the way it was done has done nearly as much harm to Iraq as when he was still in place, do you not agree?? There is still no peace, democracy could not be further away and the death toll rises daily. The worst thing is the U$ is not even willing to count the dead Iraquis, they have given an extremely rough estimation and a very low number at that! It seems thast there lives are worthless to the U$ :(

[Hate Is Art]

It is quite clear that there is no plan for post-war Iraq, further then the building of oil pipes that is. I unfortunatly don't see much hope for Iraq whilst troops remain in or once troops have left.

[Intifada]

Regime change does not have to involve the bombing of a nation.

How many times has America covertly overthrown "evil" leaders?

The fact is that regime change is not what the US is there for. It only ever wanted strategic control over the entire region along with a safe supply of precious oil.

That is why they invaded and now occupy Iraq.

[sin miedo]

I think the whole situation in Iraq is very troublesome. I asked the question because I do not know the answer. I wanted to point out that simply calling for the removal of troops will solve very little, of the violence at least. If pulling the troops meant the various Iraqi groups would work together peacefully and create an open government and free state, then I would absolutely accept that. I do not see that happening however. But as said previously, the further involvement of the U.S. will not likely change things either, except fill the coffers of U.S. monopolies and force Iraqi and N.American families to bury their loved ones. Strong legal institutions and local and national governing bodies must be created for any sort of stability to be maintained. How this can happen I have no clue. But I do know violence commited by both sides will do nothing but continue the circle of brutality.

As for stating the the resistance has killed just has many innocents has the coalition forces, yeah, that was retarded and I never should have stated that. For that I apologize.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Cal
The broad point I am trying to make is that although I am opposed to a lot of what America does in the world, (and by the way I am under no illusion that the motives were anything other than commercial) the removal of Saddam Hussein is something I support, and with respect Bush despite his many and numerous faults is no SH.

I quite agree. Compared to George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein was an evil pygmy.

In other words, Cal, your statement displays an incredible ignorance of the daily and systematic consequences of world domination by U.S. imperialism.

Just limiting it to Iraq, who killed more Iraqis...Saddam Hussein or American imposed sanctions on that hapless country?


As for the lack of excitement about bourgeois democracy, it is better than fascist dictatorship where the ruling family live like kings and a good percentage of the population has nothing.

In America, our ruling class is the wealthiest in the world...compared to which the rest of us have nothing.

And if you imagine that there is not torture going on in American prisons right now, then I can only hope you have the good fortune never to find yourself in one.

:redstar2000:

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

[Cal]

Just limiting it to Iraq, who killed more Iraqis...Saddam Hussein or American imposed sanctions on that hapless country?

I never agreed with sanctions, my ideal scenario would have ben getting the job done in 91.

Also the Kurds did not suffer under the sanctions as they were protected by the no-fly zone. This leads me to believe that it is not sanctions that were the problem but those in charge of the country, supposedly looking after the people. but that is not my point.



And if you imagine that there is not torture going on in American prisons right now, then I can only hope you have the good fortune never to find yourself in one.


I have never said that torture wasn't going on in American prisons, and if i'm honest I hope a coalition invades your country to free you.

But given the choice between living in Hussein Iraq or Bush America which would you pick?

If you choose Hussein Iraq then I (no doubt to the appreciation of everyone on the forum) will shut up about it.


your statement displays an incredible ignorance

That's my first time as incredibly ignorant.

Also taking your word for it I hope not to end up in prison in the US. But i'll invest in a rock hammer and a big poster, in case the situation presents itself.

[sin miedo]

The Iraqi Kurds were under the same sanctions as Saddam's Iraq, yet the Kurds were able to form a thriving democracy. To say that the sanctions were the main bane of the Iraqi people, I believe, is a false statement. Not that the sanctions were perfect, but you can't deny Saddam had some nasty intentions if left to his own devices.

[PRC-UTE]

The Iraqi Kurds were under the same sanctions as Saddam's Iraq, yet the Kurds were able to form a thriving democracy. To say that the sanctions were the main bane of the Iraqi people, I believe, is a false statement.

You're absolutely wrong. You couldn't be more wrong. I know you didn't mean anything by that statement, but it's reactionary and you should read up more on what's going on.

The pigs don't even deny that they're responsible. They asked that Madeline Albright if the huge deathtoll of children from the sanctions was worth it and she said it was.

Iraqis couldn't get medicine and their supply of food was restricted. Saddam Hussein's regime provided a food rationing program that probably helped more than it hurt.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by sin miedo+--> (sin miedo)The Iraqi Kurds were under the same sanctions as Saddam's Iraq, yet the Kurds were able to form a thriving democracy.[/b]

Leaving aside the "democracy" part, I went looking for some explanations for the "thriving" part of that claim.

Guess what I found?


Much has been made recently of the more favourable conditions in the three northern governorates that are under Kurdish control. However, we would argue that this is not entirely due to the fact that the UN, rather than the government of Iraq, is running the oil for food programme there. What needs to be taken into account in explaining this difference is very much higher per capita international humanitarian assistance to this region between 1991-1996, compared with the volumes of assistance to government controlled areas.

Christian Aid, along with several other British aid agencies, has been working in Iraqi Kurdistan since 1991.

http://www.caabu.org/press/briefings/economic_sanctions.html


A portion of the programme's funds is allocated to rebuilding the region's civil infrastructure. Various UN agencies and non-governmental organisations implement projects for electricity, water supply, sanitation, agriculture, health, education and mine clearance.

Trucks hauling goods and fuel to and from the region generate large sums of revenue and create many business opportunities.

The region's mini economic boom is clearly evident in the stable exchange rate of the local currency.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1501327.stm


Surprisingly, the sanctions have done more to help northern Iraq's advancement than to hurt it. Sanctions have brought for the first time in its history, a share of Iraq's oil revenue equal to the region's percentage of the total Iraqi population, which is 13 percent. This influx of money has permitted the North to develop, with new schools built, roads paved, telephone service implemented, and medical clinics well stocked.

http://www.meforum.org/article/11

So what do have we here? A part of Iraq that (1) gets a big boost in oil funding from the UN compared to when it was under the control of Baghdad; (2) is able to collect substantial "customs duties" (bribes) from Hussein's own "illegal trade"; and (3) is the beneficiary of generous assistance from British Christians and other "non-governmental organizations".

Did I mention investments from wealthy Kurds overseas? Yeah, that too.

There was even a story to the effect that the Kurdish quislings are now signing oil contracts...though I'm skeptical about that one. Getting any oil out of Iraq these days is strictly a "blue sky" proposition.


Cal
But given the choice between living in Hussein's Iraq or Bush's America, which would you pick?

I don't speak or read Arabic; therefore, I'm compelled to choose the latter.

I question the usefulness of such questions though...most of the planet is a shithole!

New Zealand would probably be my choice, all other things being equal.


But I'll invest in a rock hammer and a big poster, in case the situation presents itself.

Ah, another fan of that famous (and delightful!) Stephen King short story...do you remember the title?

:redstar2000:

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 07:51 PM
Britain and America agreed to enforce a no fly zone in northern Iraq and a kurdish statelet grew up in the safe haven. Villages which had been levelled by Saddams ethnic cleansers were re-built. Although the same sanctions applied to the Kurdish enclave as the rest of Iraq,
That's not particularly accurate. The Kurdish statelet received preferential treatment from the oil-for-food program - per capita spending was 22% higher. It's also misleading in that the north had most of the rain-watered agriculture.

One might ask as well WHY the U.S. and other imperialist powers chose to inflict the the inhuman blockade on the Kurdish statelet as well as the rest of Iraq. (To prevent stuff being legally imported and then smuggled into the rest of Iraq...or to perpetuate smuggling that the Kurdish nationalist parties benefited from? Either way, even harder to justify than the blockade of Baghdad-ruled Iraq.)

And why the Kurdish nationalist parties didn't say jack against this...except perhaps that the oil-for-food supplies gave them patronage to strengthen their political hold on the Kurdish population, and they got a cut of the smuggling.

I suggest another statistical comparison: infant mortality rates under the Ba'athist regime, but before the blockade, versus those under the blockade. You'll see a drastic increase, which you can't blame on the Ba'athists, because hello! they were in power during both periods. In fact, the usual death tolls quoted for the "sanctions" are "excess mortality", so they've already made this comparison and subtracted the normal, pre-blockade death rate.

And certainly the occupation, even without the blockade, has not greatly improved matters....good statistics are lacking, so it's unclear whether things may even have gotten worse. Almost any other regime, with the lifting of the blockade, would have seen a great improvement.

Incidentally, Redstar, bringing oil out through the Kurdish north might not be so blue-sky; things are relatively stable there...in the one part of Iraq not under direct occupation control. If they were given control of Kirkuk and its oilfields....

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 08:05 AM
As I stated in my first and most of my subesequent posts, I am a aupporter of the remover of the Baathists,
That's a meaningless statement. The question is, and their replacement by what?

In practice, you're supporting their replacement by an imperialist occupation and eventually some client regime which may follow some of the forms of bourgeois democracy - or not, medium run - but whose main difference from Hussein will be more reliable obedience to Washington.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 06:53 PM
Peaceful elections after a two year period are one of th key demands of the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance.
I have to say, if you take this kind of promise seriously you must be wearing rose-colored glasses.

This is apparently a Ba'athist group based on one of their statements you posted in another thread. The Ba'athists have their own concept of what a "free election" means, as we saw when they were in power, and are perfectly well aware they are not going to win a contested election.

Somebody else suggested that Saddam might win an election if the occupation let him run...this has no relationship to reality, but then again, that poster was not aware that Shi'a Muslims are the majority in Iraq. In reality, the most popular candidates in Iraq are the representatives of Shi'a religious parties like SCIRI and Dawa, which are bitterly hostile to the Ba'athists.

One can point out that banning the Ba'athist party is not real consistent with the occupation's promises of democracy, given that a large minority of Iraqis appear to support them....but it's false to inflate that into a majority.

Yes, of course, there would be internal conflict in Iraq if the occupation withdrew now. Possibly a lot of pointless, dead-end fighting along lines of Sunni vs Shi'a and Arab vs Kurd.

Opponents of the occupation have no need to deny this...only to point out that this kind of conflict is growing under the occupation as well - for example the car-bombings of Shi'a, and a real possibility of Shi'a reprisals against Sunni populations. In fact, the logic of divide-and-rule requires the imperialists to deepen these conflicts, for example by using Kurdish peshmerga to put down revolts in the Arab part of Mosul.

The imperialist have been occupying parts of the former Yugoslavia for years, with no end in sight....when asked why, they always say the "ethnic cleansing" would resume if they left, which amounts to admitting they've done nothing to solve the conflicts. Nor did the British Empire when they occupied Iraq before, nor other colonial powers. They cannot and have no motive to do so.

The only road to resolving ethnic and religious-sectarian conflicts is the common struggle of working people of differening nationalities, etc.

[yes i am arab]

The U.S. really screwed itself this time, Iraq compiled with Palestine really make the U.S. look bad. They can't undo the impression that they have put in the minds of the Arab people. And as the resistance fighters go the Iranians are obviously in on at least the funding of militant resistance in Iraq, they more than likely support a clerical regime basically a clone of what the Iranians have, with the Shi'ites at the helm, the kurds gone, and the Sunni's out. and Syria they say is playing a big role in training them, i dont believe that i just think that the U.S. needs a reason to go to war with Syria, even though in "The School of the Americas" in Georgia the U.S. trains citizens of South American countries to overthrow the governments in South America that the U.S. can't bribe or doesnt have in their pocket.

There is no one single move that will partially resolve anything, the U.S. needs to reduce funding to Israel, the evil Zionist state that is indeed blackmailing the United States, foreign policy in the middle east is completely based around Israel, bush in the debates even said it himself, this is an exact quote "A free and stable Iraq will help secure Israel" Who gives half a damn? This only goes to show that the entire purpose of the war in Iraq, the country that never threatened, or harmed the United States, or its citizens, but only the Israeli's. Iraq is Israeli's War they used the U.S. because if Israel attacked the U.S. then Iraq would call upon Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon to take retaliatory action against the Isralis, this could have been another 1967 except the Israelis would probably end up in the Mediterranean. but if the U.S. went to war with Iraq, what nation in their right mind would ever help Iraq against the U.S.? So it was way easier at no cost to Israel at all, and no threats to israel at all if the U.S. faught Iraq and the Ba'athists for them, the regime that openly declared themselves anti-Zionist.

is it any coincidence that Israel is the only nation that fully supports the war, but doesnt have any troops in Iraq?

[EGisJUICE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 12:14 PM

why isn't Saddam allowed to run?

What??

I can't even begin to show how annoyed that comment has made me.
It was a question. It's less annoying if you don't take it out of context.

I asked - If these elections are so "free" and "democratic" and the US only wants to support the will of the Iraqi people why isn't Saddam allowed to run?

Why would asking why Saddam isn't allowed to run in the election ( if US claims are true he won't win since supposedly the Iraqi people were being oppressed by Saddam and didn't want him as their leader) annoy you?

He was the leader of a soverign nation that the US invaded, and as of yet is uncharged with anything, with little to no evidence supporting US pre-war claims having been found. Free elections mean anyone can run, even the (former) leader of the country that was illegaly removed from power.

[EGisJUICE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 12:22 PM




Who gives a shit what after?

good lateral thinking is that.


I figure it's better then "lets stay here and murder more people while taking casualties ourselves" Stop the killing by leaving and minding our own buisiness, what happens from that point on is what happens, it's beyond our control.





The US has military bases planned for Iraq no matter who wins, which shows the real intent of the US.

what? the purpose was to build military bases?

Part of the plan is to build military bases to in order to protect the oil wells and to have a striking point/foot hold in the mideast.
Plans for US bases in Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm)





Better to die on your feet then live on your knees

did you see the torture chambers prison cells and secret police records of the baathist regime that were found.

No I only saw the pictures of torture, humiliation and abuse of in many cases innocent people going on in Abu Ghraib at the hands of our troops. Torture is bad no matter who does it, but if you are going to claim to be bringing freedom to Iraq the least you can do is not take control of the worst of Saddams torture prisons and use it to do the same shit to people in.


Please do not think i'm naive and I believe that the US/UK were on a humanitarian mission, but an Iraq without the baathist i something i am very happy about.

War for oil probably or at least to stabilise world oil prices, but I accept that as it means no saddam.

Saying who should rule a country isn't/wasn't our decision to make. Just because we didn't like the Baathist rulers we have no right to invade and overthrow them on false pretenses.

Going into a country to steal it's oil and killing 100,000 civilians in the process isn't acceptable if it means getting rid of a guy who posed no threat to us and was holding up his end of the deal from the cease-fire of the 91 gulf war. It isn't ok just because it's Saddam.

[EGisJUICE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 06:53 PM

Somebody else suggested that Saddam might win an election if the occupation let him run...this has no relationship to reality, but then again, that poster was not aware that Shi'a Muslims are the majority in Iraq. In reality, the most popular candidates in Iraq are the representatives of Shi'a religious parties like SCIRI and Dawa, which are bitterly hostile to the Ba'athists.


In reality it was asked why wasn't Saddam being allowed to run given the supposed desire for "free" and "open democratic elections." The poster got the name of the religious group wrong (said sunni not shi'a) but had the point about the canidates of the majority religion being the most likely ones to win the selections, even had their opinion on what that might mean for Iraq (open civil war).

[EGisJUICE]

Originally posted by sin miedo

But I'll invest in a rock hammer and a big poster, in case the situation presents itself.

Ah, another fan of that famous (and delightful!) Stephen King short story...do you remember the title?

Rita Heyworth and the Shawshank Redemption.

[Severian]

Originally posted by EGisJUICE+Jan 1 2005, 06:42 AM--> (EGisJUICE @ Jan 1 2005, 06:42 AM)
[email protected] 29 2004, 06:53 PM

Somebody else suggested that Saddam might win an election if the occupation let him run...this has no relationship to reality, but then again, that poster was not aware that Shi'a Muslims are the majority in Iraq. In reality, the most popular candidates in Iraq are the representatives of Shi'a religious parties like SCIRI and Dawa, which are bitterly hostile to the Ba'athists.


In reality it was asked why wasn't Saddam being allowed to run given the supposed desire for "free" and "open democratic elections." The poster got the name of the religious group wrong (said sunni not shi'a) but had the point about the canidates of the majority religion being the most likely ones to win the selections, even had their opinion on what that might mean for Iraq (open civil war). [/b]
The earlier post is from me, not McGlinchey...some glitch of the board's quote function, maybe. Anway, here's what I was originally responding to:


If these elections are so "free" and "democratic" and the US only wants to support the will of the Iraqi people (unless they want to live, then fuck those rag heads) why isn't Saddam allowed to run? Probably because he'd win and the US couldn't have that happen, we might have to admit that we fucked up then.(originally posted by EGisJuice, emphasis added by me.)

And my basic point is, no, it's not "probable" Saddam would "win". It's laughable to say so.

I'm not sure how you reconcile a belief that he would with your current statement that "the canidates of the majority religion being the most likely ones to win the selections". Saddam definitely does not belong to or have much support among the majority religious group in Iraq, Shi'a Muslims.

Also in your earlier post, you say:
In these "elections," the majority (sunni?) will fuck over the minoritiy religions and peoples as 'payback' for what they have experienced in the past and there will be open civil war. That's why Iraqis are killing other Iraqis now. They know what a "democratic election" means for their futures, and are fighting it like their lives depend on stopping the elections.

Which contains an accurate recognition that the resistance are fighting in part to prevent the majority group from gaining too much power....but how you reconcile that with describing the resistance as the "people" rather than a minority, is unclear to me. Seems like you got a couple of logical contradictions there.

I might point out as well that the Shi'a organizations have so far been quite restrained about taking revenge on Sunnis generally, not only for past oppression, but for current atrocities like the car-bombings in the Shi'a holy cities. Some Shi'a groups have even made a certain effort to reach out to Sunni Arabs, as in sending aid to Falluja during the first major U.S. assault on it.

So the fear of "payback" seems somewhat exaggerated, and reminiscent of the exagerrated fears of priveleged groups elsewhere in the world...the fear of losing traditional privileges is well-founded however.

And the playing up of this possibility by Westerners does seem to fit into the whole idea that those people are all savages, they've done nothing but kill each other for millenia, that's just the way they are, blah blah blah standard xenophobic crap.

[Bealfan]

Iraq, For Iraquis and for them only.,