The Iraqi Resistance [Archive]

Edelweiss

17th June 2005, 18:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 06:40 PM
I can't see how neutrality is defensible at all.
Again, I'm German. My opnion is that every citizen of a western nation should primarily care about the imerialism of it's own nation with a strong anti-national attitude. If I would be American, I would eventually have another stance. The Iraqi resistance is full of reactionaries, and not at all a promising alternative. Unlike you say, it's dominated by Islamists, not everywhere, but in many regions. I'm not an hardcore anti-imperialist who supports every scum who is fighting the Yankees, no matter who it is, and I'm not supporting "national self-determination" at any price. Anti-imperialism alone as an ideology is not leftist at all IMO. Simplified and vulgar anti-imperialism is nationalist and deeply reactionary. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not at all a philosophy I support.

The struggle of Iraqi workers against a “foreign” army does not originate from the concept that this intervention is a violation of their national sanctities! What sanctity is left for us, the workers, that the foreign army can violate! Is it the “Sovereignty,” which was in the hands of our oppressors? Or the “motherland” that we own not one inch of? The “motherland”, which we said as Marx did 150 years ago, is never ours? Or “national freedom,” which always meant the freedom for our prison guards to torment us! The nationalist nonsense, which says that a local and “national” wolf is better than a foreigner because if it happened to eat our flesh it will never break our bones, is no longer able to numb the masses.

(...)

The only way for the international Left to emerge as an effective and prominent force amidst the current situation in the world is not by standing beside al-Sadrists and followers of al-Zarqawi and Bin Laden, and hailing their “resistance. Rather by politically and materially supporting the worker and communist forces in Iraq and on top of them, the Worker-communist Party of Iraq.

by Shamal Ali, WP Iraq
http://www.wpiraq.net/english/2004/shamal010604.htm

Urban Rubble

17th June 2005, 22:32

I am actually amased that you guys went as far as calling these brave people terrorists.

Killing civilians whose only crime was wanting to become employed, with the direct intent of "terrorizing" the occupying forces IS terrorism.

Obviously if they were just attacking U.S. battalions I'd call them soldiers (and would be much more inclined to support them). But when you strap yourself with a bomb and blow up a crowd of innocent men who are simply trying to gain some dignity you are a terrorist.

In any case, I don't see how any anti-imperialist can be neutral in battles between the Iraqis and the American invaders.

Perhaps because there is no viable alternative?

If the choice is between an American puppet regime and Islamic fanaticism (which makes up the vast majority of the resistance) I see no problem with washing my hands of the whole thing.

What I don't understand is, how is supporting Islamism defensible?

There are some Islamic elements, but the vast majority of the resistance is made up of nationalist elements

Oh gosh, they're nationalists? Well that changes everything. As we all know, fanatic nationalism is the most progressive thing since sliced bread.

Again, anti-Americanism, or pro-nationalism is not enough for me to support you and/or look at you as "progressive". The Iranian government is also quite nationalist and anti-American, yet I fail to see how they are any more progressive than the U.S. government.

YKTMX

17th June 2005, 23:46

If the choice is between an American puppet regime and Islamic fanaticism (which makes up the vast majority of the resistance)

Can I ask where you're getting this information. I've repeatedly read Naomi Klein, Tariq Ali and other say that the outside Islamic "militants" represent a tiny proportion of the resistance. They say that most of the resistance comes from the poor and unemployed sunni and some nationalist shiites. There wouldn't be a chance you are just regurgitating American propaganda would there?

I see no problem with washing my hands of the whole thing.

Of course not.

Oh gosh, they're nationalists? Well that changes everything. As we all know, fanatic nationalism is the most progressive thing since sliced bread

Maybe not, but when faced with the choice between the "fanatic nationalism" of an occupied people and the pitiful ultra-leftism of Western "leftists", I know which I choose - every time.

The Iranian government is also quite nationalist and anti-American, yet I fail to see how they are any more progressive than the U.S. government

Silly.

Does the Iranian government represent global capital? Does it murder a hundred thousand civilians to protect national resources for multinationals? Does it keep political prisoners in subhuman camps without legal rights (well, maybe there's one thing they have in common).

Anyone who doesn't support the resistance is a lackey, or worse.

refuse_resist

17th June 2005, 23:49

Originally posted by Malte
I'm not supporting "national self-determination" at any price. Anti-imperialism alone as an ideology is not leftist at all IMO.
So are you denying the fact that capitalist imperialism itself is something that operates on a global scale that exploits and oppresses workers in less developed and poorer nations, while those living in imperialist nations live comfortably at their expense?

*cough* parasitism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch08.htm) *cough*

Edelweiss

17th June 2005, 23:54

Anyone who doesn't support the resistance is a lackey, or worse.

Bullshit! That's the stupidity like when Dubya is saying "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists". I'm actually quiet disapointed to hear that kind of nonsense from you. There is more than black and white. Again, read the statements of the WP Iraq, for me they are the only progresive force in the region.

Edelweiss

17th June 2005, 23:56

So are you denying the fact that capitalist imperialism itself is something that operates on a global scale that exploits and oppresses workers in less developed and poorer nations, while those living in imperialist nations live comfortably at their expense?

Uhm...nope. You have successfuly described what imperialism is about, congratulations.

YKTMX

17th June 2005, 23:56

I don't feel I need to support a group just because they call themselves the "worker-communisy party" or whatever.

Of course I want socialism for Iraq but it won't happen if you have U.S bases there: fact.

Edelweiss

18th June 2005, 00:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 12:56 AM
I don't feel I need to support a group just because they call themselves the "worker-communisy party" or whatever.
Me either. I support them for their political positions, which are much more progressive than all that "victory to the Iraqi resistance" crap coming from western leftists. Again, read http://www.wpiraq.net/english/2004/shamal010604.htm, and you'll know where they are getting at. The quotes I provided should have already given you a good idea.

To make it clear: Unlike the CP Iraq, the WP Iraq has NOT collaborated with the US occupiers.

One more quote on that from that article:

The workers need a front, which stands against both poles of terrorism, the US and Islamic terrorists at the same time.

Edit: quote added

Edelweiss

18th June 2005, 00:44

Just found an good article on the topic while googleing: The "reactionary anti-imperialists" (http://www.workersliberty.org/node/view/3878).

Although from a Trot source, and from an organisation I don't support, this article is summing up my opnion on the Iraqi resistance and it's western, blind followers pretty well.

redstar2000

18th June 2005, 04:19

Originally posted by Malte
Again, I'm German. My opinion is that every citizen of a western nation should primarily care about the imperialism of its own nation with a strong anti-national attitude. If I would be American, I would eventually have another stance.

I agree with this position. Lefties in Germany, France, etc. who oppose their own country's imperialism first have their priorities straight.

Naturally, I always hope that they will bear down especially hard in those cases where their own ruling classes collaborate with American imperial ventures...but they must decide those things for themselves.

Matters are very different for lefties in the U.S., the U.K., and Australia. We are "in the shit" up to our eyebrows.

If we do not betray our countries, then we will have betrayed ourselves.

The best thing that can happen for us is the massive and catastrophic defeat of our own ruling classes...no matter who does it.

The Iraqis, Afghans, Colombians, etc., etc., can always fight their own civil wars after imperialism has departed...and victory will eventually come to bourgeois or bourgeois-like domestic forces -- pre-capitalist forces (like Islamic fundamentalism) are bound to lose in the long run.

People who argue that a U.S. puppet regime would be "better", "more humane", etc. than one or another resistance movement are just kidding themselves...possibly due to the fact that bombs are noisier than malnutrition/starvation/disease, etc.

Look at any one of the "peaceful and orderly" regimes set up by U.S. imperialism...the "silent violence" of exploitation is far deadlier than any resistance movement ever was.*

Or ever will be.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

*The only historical exception is the Cambodian Khmer Rouge...and even there it must be remembered that many of the deaths attributed to Pol Pot were, in fact, victims of the massive U.S. bombings of that defenseless country.

lennonist-leninist

18th June 2005, 05:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 05:40 AM
Supporting the Iraqi resistance is supporting the enemy of the US which I have no problem with but it is considered treason and could actually get the head honchos of this site in trouble.
i think your right. and i do belive in supporting the iraq resistence but like codyvo is right it could get the leaders of this site in trouble with the big bad goverment.

Man of the Century

18th June 2005, 22:25

Edward, et. al

Your Anti-U.S. views have blinded you to the fact that there is no relationship between a victory in Iraq for the pro-Saddam and pro-Ultra Islamic forces.

These religious and facist maniacs do not bring the world closer to revolution, but, as in Iran, control all aspects of society.

If you ask yourself, "Could a rovolution flurish more easily in the U.S. or Iran, unless you're a moron, you know the answer is the U.S.

Ultra-Islamic views WILL NEVER allow any interpretation of law that the clergy doesn't approve of. If you're unaware of this, I pitty your narrow minded Anti-American point of view.

You need a life, a girlfriend, a real career...WHATEVER.

refuse_resist

18th June 2005, 22:34

The Iraqi resistance is mostly made up of pissed off working class Iraqi's. Just because some may happen to be Muslim DOES NOT make them Islamic fundamentalist. If you believe this, you're no different then the neo-conservatives who launched this occupation against the Iraqi's. This whole excuse that the resistance is made of Islamic fundamentalist is pure propaganda that is used to justify the presence of imperialist occupiers in the country. Anyone who believes this is just as bad (if not worse) than those capitalists they claim to be against.

It is every human beings right and duty to defend themselves when being exploited and oppressed. It would be wrong to deny this for anyone. Much of the resistance are people who have lost relatives and friends to the occupiers.

Another thing I'd like to bring up is that these so called 'Islamists' that the mainstream western media speaks of are the ones working for the imperialists. Iyad Allawi and many other puppets in the puppet government have their own militias that do their dirty work (i.e. inciting sectarian violence) so they can try and divide the Iraqi people so they aren't united to fight against the imperialists.

Originally posted by Malte
Uhm...nope. You have successfuly described what imperialism is about, congratulations.
I find it funny a self-proclaimed 'anti-Fascist' doesn't think that people have a right to defend themselves from imperialist aggression.

Man of the Century

18th June 2005, 22:48

If everyone has a right to defend themselves, then you (refuse_resist) obviously condem Iraq invasion, but support the invasion against the Taliban in Afgan. They declared war against the U.S., and used Afgan. as their training ground and base. For the U.S. to defend itself against them is, by your yardstick, reasonable. (And in this case, there was a clear agreement by the world community.)

Severian

19th June 2005, 05:25

Originally posted by Lenin i [email protected] 17 2005, 06:32 AM
Most of the Iraqi ressistance is made up from former Baathists, where the Fedyaeen might be a good example.
I agree. (That the Ba'athists are the main force, not that the "Islamic" groups are unimportant.) How does this make it better?

First, the Ba'athists are a viciously anti-working class tendency in their own right, with a fascist-like ideology and a long history of bloody repression against the working class and others. They're justly hated by the large majority of Iraqis. Second, they're fully allied with the (Sunni) "Islamic fundamentalists" now, including the worst of them, Zarqawi's "al-Qaeda in Iraq." Third, they've grown beards and adopted all kinds of reactionary "Islamic" trappings and program themselves - a process that began even during their last decade in power, and has greatly accelerated since.

Severian

19th June 2005, 07:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 09:19 PM
Matters are very different for lefties in the U.S., the U.K., and Australia. We are "in the shit" up to our eyebrows.
I see. Then Edward Norton's position is correct, if he lives in one of those countries? You haven't said anything about the recent evolution of his declared political beliefs, but it seems quite logical from your perspective.

Quit those do-nothing peaceful leftist groups, he argues, and join something that's really dealing physical blows to Uncle Sam - essentially, al-Qaeda. Do you agree, and if not, why not?

***

Since this thread was split off from one on sending money to the Iraqi resistance, let me suggest that if anyone wants to send money to Iraq, send it to the workers' organizations instead.

You can do this directly (http://uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=7470) to the Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions of Iraq, which includes the Union of Unemployed and is supported by the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq. Or through the Iraq Labor Solidarity Fund (http://uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=3998) which sends 50% to the FWCUI and 50% to a labor federation associated with the Iraqi CP.

redstar2000

19th June 2005, 13:49

Originally posted by Severian
I see. Then Edward Norton's position is correct, if he lives in one of those countries? You haven't said anything about the recent evolution of his declared political beliefs, but it seems quite logical from your perspective.

Quit those do-nothing peaceful leftist groups, he argues, and join something that's really dealing physical blows to Uncle Sam - essentially, al-Qaeda. Do you agree, and if not, why not?

Unlike yourself, I will actually answer your question.

Mr. Norton is a young fellow who could not decide (probably for some time) whether he was a "leftist" or a Muslim -- I believe I've made that point to you before...that, sooner or later, people must choose between communism and superstition.

Lately, he's decided (evidently) to hook up with some Muslim sect -- I suspect in the U.K. -- while, at the same time, working on setting up his own business that "could be worth millions".

This is a kind of tragedy...but not an uncommon one.

In spite of his harsh critique of the "do-nothing left", I don't think he's going to do anything of any consequence himself...most certainly not go off to Iraq to "fight U.S. imperialism" -- he probably thinks that McDonald's is an example of "U.S. imperialism".

If, at most, he tries to send money to Iraq, it will almost certainly be stolen...probably several times. :lol:

Now, we could certainly talk about more realistic scenarios than that involving a confused and depressed young man.

Say a seriously devout Muslim in the U.K., fluent in Arabic, wants to go to Iraq (and has the money to get there) and enlist in one of the religious sects involved in the resistance.

Would you tell him not to do that? Would you tell him that he'd be better off demonstrating in England? That anti-war demonstrations in England are more effective than the resistance? Could you keep a straight face while you were doing that?

If someone is mired in the muck of superstition, I think it's better that they do something that is objectively progressive than nothing. If our hypothetical Muslim guerrilla manages to kill one U.S. or U.K. soldier, that's one less murdering bastard in Iraq, right?

Me? I'd tell him to go right ahead and wish him a good trip.

In the context of western capitalism, Islam is, like all religions, inherently reactionary. But in a place like Iraq (or Afghanistan), the Muslims are confronting U.S. imperialism by armed struggle.

Why do you have such a problem with that?

Even you admit that most of the resistance is secular -- though you don't like their politics either. I believe "fascist" was the nicest thing you had to say about them.

Very well. You don't like anyone who is resisting U.S. power in Iraq...except some small working class groups who are doing it "peacefully".

I conclude that, at the very least, you will not be bothered at all by an American triumph in Iraq and the reduction of that wretched country to the status of Ecuador.

At least no explosions will disturb your slumbers. In Ecuador, the oppressed die quietly.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Edelweiss

19th June 2005, 15:17

I find it funny a self-proclaimed 'anti-Fascist' doesn't think that people have a right to defend themselves from imperialist aggression.

Well, I do think they have all rights to defend themself. My point is that I don't support them, and that anti-imperialism without a consitent, leftist, emancipated stance is reactionary, nationalist bullshit, and I say this just because I'm an anti-fascist, not despite being an anti-fascist. Unlike you claim, Islamic forces play an important role within the Iraqi resistance, and please don't accuse me again to "blindly buy into western media lies" or being "worse than neo-conservaties" now. You make it yourself a bit too easy with that kind of bullshit rhetoric. The Bathist nationalists are not much better than the Islamists anyway, for reasons Severian already has pointed out.

Please read the articles of the WP Iraq about the reactionary nature of the current Iraqi resitstance, they are far away from being " mainstream western media", they are Iraqis, and surely know better what is happening than you than you sitting in fron of your computer hailing the "brave Iraqi resistance".

spartafc

19th June 2005, 17:13

uncritical support for the actions of the Iraqi terrorist organisations is not a policy that should be supported.

Severian

20th June 2005, 17:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 06:49 AM
Mr. Norton is a young fellow who could not decide (probably for some time) whether he was a "leftist" or a Muslim -- I believe I've made that point to you before...that, sooner or later, people must choose between communism and superstition.
Well, gee, til last week he was espousing your line quite clearly. Anything against imperialism is progressive, by weakening imperialism they're bringing workers' revolution in the advanced capitalist countries closer, etc. If he was - who knows? - "(probably for some time)" considering his recent change, your line helped cover it quite efficiently. And, I would argue, facilitate it.

Say a seriously devout Muslim in the U.K., fluent in Arabic, wants to go to Iraq (and has the money to get there) and enlist in one of the religious sects involved in the resistance.

Would you tell him not to do that? Would you tell him that he'd be better off demonstrating in England? That anti-war demonstrations in England are more effective than the resistance? Could you keep a straight face while you were doing that?

I don't necessarily regard the present peace rallies as hugely important. I do think that working to build communist parties and intensify the class struggle in the imperialist countries is the most important thing anyone can do, but that's not advice one can give a "fundamentalist" reactionary, is it?

So the answer to your question is that I don't give tactical advice to enemies of the working class. I reckon it is better the enemies of the working class kill other enemies of the working class, than that they blow up large numbers of working people (in the UK or Iraq). But they're hardly likely to consider the advice of either of us, are they? More likely to decapitate us with a dull blade.

By the same token, you have not in fact answered my question. Which wasn't about advice to reactionaries, but what advice you would give some of these young leftists who seem to regard you as a guru.

At least no explosions will disturb your slumbers. In Ecuador, the oppressed die quietly.

Just a few years ago, a massive upsurge in Ecuador reached the point of setting up a "Popular Assembly" as a sort of center of workers' power. Your choice of this example just emphasizes how the actions of working people are invisible to you.

redstar2000

21st June 2005, 03:48

Originally posted by Severian
Which wasn't about advice to reactionaries, but what advice you would give some of these young leftists who seem to regard you as a guru.

I don't think anyone here regards me as a "guru"...it's not the sort of thing that I have ever encouraged. Nor has any young westerner consulted me about going to Iraq and joining the resistance.

If they did, I would tell them not to do that...on practical grounds.

All westerners in Iraq are presumed, at this point, to be part of the occupation and legitimate targets of the resistance. Westerners who nevertheless insist on going there are either real dumbasses or lackeys of U.S.-U.K. imperialism.

The fates of either are of no concern to me...whatever happens to them, they have brought it on themselves.

One of the Trotskyists who used to hang out here a lot once suggested that western Trotskyists should go to Iraq and organize a real Trotskyist party there.

Does that option appeal to you?

Then I sincerely urge you and your co-thinkers to leave for Baghdad right away.

I think you have to change planes in Amman (Jordan). I hear the highway from the Baghdad airport is the most dangerous stretch of road in the world so...drive carefully. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Severian

21st June 2005, 04:29

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jun 20 2005, 08:48 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jun 20 2005, 08:48 PM)
Severian
Which wasn't about advice to reactionaries, but what advice you would give some of these young leftists who seem to regard you as a guru.

I don't think anyone here regards me as a "guru"...it's not the sort of thing that I have ever encouraged. Nor has any young westerner consulted me about going to Iraq and joining the resistance. [/b]
Nor was I asking you about that. I was asking you about Edward Norton, who to my knowledge has expressed no such intention.

But never mind. You've had ample opportunity, and have utterly failed to give any political reason why he would be wrong to go over to the "Islamic" right. IMO there is none from your standpoint.

redstar2000

21st June 2005, 05:30

Originally posted by Severian
But never mind. You've had ample opportunity, and have utterly failed to give any political reason why he would be wrong to go over to the "Islamic" right. IMO there is none from your standpoint.

:huh:

I don't even understand what you are talking about now.

First you asked me about Edward Norton...and I answered that.

Then you asked me about young people...and I answered that.

And now?

Well, I think Edward Norton should abandon all Islamic superstition in favor of Marxism. Isn't that understood?

Ok, he doesn't want to do that; he prefers to flop on his belly five times a day and pray to the holy meteorite. That's a damn shame...but what do you want me to do about it?

If he is an Arab and is fluent in the language and wants to go to Iraq and join one of the Muslim currents in the resistance, why shouldn't he?

Better that than he should stay in the U.K. and spread Islamic superstition where it is much more harmful.

And if he is a western convert to Islam and tries to go to Iraq, he'll probably get his ass killed...and what do you expect me to say about that?

He should go to Iraq and build a real Trotskyist party? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Free Palestine

21st June 2005, 06:38

I flatly admit there indeed are many ghastly acts, perpetrated by people who claim to be fighting in the name of the resistance. These acts obviously should be condemned. But those of you have the audacity to denounce people who are fighting to end the takeover of a nation by a dangerously out-of-control superpower.. Those of you who reject the people of Iraq’s legitimate right to defend the nation against an army of occupation should be condemned.

I am not asking you to express solidarity with kidnappers and assassins, but defenders of cities. You don't have to support their social program beyond their opposition to the occupation, just their opposition to the occupation! The resistance is a multi-layered movement that contains some elements who are doing worthwhile work (fighting U.S./UK occupation forces) while others are patriarchal assholes and participate in kidnappings (a tried and true tactic of resistance) and some are just gangsters cashing in on the situation. In the surprisingly radical words of Michael Moore, they are like the Minutemen of the American revolution, who were both slave-owners and capitalists, but justice was on still on their side compared with the yoke of England.

If we were to only support pristine movements, then no resistance will be worthy of our purity. We could wait forever. I suggest expending less energy in judging the character of the Iraqi resistance and more effort on building a visible resistance to the Iraq occupation from inside the US.

pingwin

21st June 2005, 11:25

The only thing I don't get with the Iraqi resistance is why they keep on fighting. The quickest way of getting rid of the US presence is fairly simple. Make sure those elections are held and get enough votes to influence the Iraqi gouverment (by beeing elected into it) to kindly request the US to go home.

That would be extremely hard for Bush to ignore, considering the US public isn't to happy with troop presence in Iraq, the pressure it puts on the budget and the international discontent with the entire operation in the first place.

The continuation of low-intensity violence like simple carbombs only strengthens the US agrument 'we cannot and will not leave Iraq like this'. Driving the US out of Iraq by force would require an Army. And not one of well motivated but untrained and ill-equiped farmers and cityboyz.

bunk

21st June 2005, 13:10

Driving the US out of Iraq by force would require an Army. And not one of well motivated but untrained and ill-equiped farmers and cityboyz.

The NLF did pretty well in Vietnam! Although they did have help by the NVA admittedly. I think the Iraq resistance can make the pressure unbearable for the US in terms of US casulties. They can also disrupt oil and do a lot of things to drive the coalition out. Most of which will make the country a wreck to rebuild when they have succeded as with all conflicts.

pingwin

21st June 2005, 13:45

If you want to do a 1970's Vietnam and 2005 Iraq comparison from a militairy point of view I am up for it. Differences are so vast that stating the NLF could defeat the US so that means the Iraqi can do too isn't a very realistic way to look at it. I don't know if it would be way off-topic to take a closer look at why the Iraqi's will not be able to make the US retreat by use of force, but if the discussion heads that way I would gladly participate.

The Feral Underclass

21st June 2005, 13:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 05:25 PM
In any case, I don't see how any anti-imperialist can be neutral in battles between the Iraqis and the American invaders.

The working class in Iraq will be no better off when the Americans have left. The choices they have are an Islamic totalitarian regime or a liberal democracy tied to the west in a neo-liberal agenda.

Calling people "neutral" is not exactly a class-conscious criticism either. I am not neutral to the resistance in Iraq. I am for the removal of American forces from their occupation, but I also regonise that there must be a class context. Any resistance against the Americans must be a resistance against capitalism. You cannot support a resistance which means to maintain the status quo order or, worse, create a Fascist Islamic regime.

American Imperialism and capitalism are intertwined. A fight against one, is a fight against the other, but within a perspective. Until the Iraqi resistance takes on such a perspective how can you support it?

RedAnarchist

21st June 2005, 13:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 10:25 AM
The only thing I don't get with the Iraqi resistance is why they keep on fighting. The quickest way of getting rid of the US presence is fairly simple. Make sure those elections are held and get enough votes to influence the Iraqi goverment (by beeing elected into it) to kindly request the US to go home.

Wouldn't that just consolidate the power of the current Iraqi bourgoisie? The Iraqi people need to get rid of both the Americans and the Iraqi Government.

I myself do not agree with the tactics of the resistance, but if in the end they manage to free Iraq from the imperialist grip of Washington then they will have succeeded in acheiving their goal - and then it will be up to the people to do as they wish until a Communist organisation can gain a foothold in the country.

The Feral Underclass

21st June 2005, 13:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 03:17 PM
anti-imperialism without a consitent, leftist, emancipated stance is reactionary, nationalist bullshit
Precisely!

YKTMX

21st June 2005, 14:18

The working class in Iraq will be no better off when the Americans have left.

Well, presumably they will have less chance of being blown up/tortured in Abu Gharaib?

The choices they have are an Islamic totalitarian regime or a liberal democracy tied to the west in a neo-liberal agenda

Why do you presume that? Why is that Muslim fighters neccessarily want to create a "totalitarian state"? As I've said before, there are strong nationalist elements in the resistance, it isn't all "Muslim" fighters. The real choice the Iraqis have is occupation or self-determination.

Any resistance against the Americans must be a resistance against capitalism. You cannot support a resistance which means to maintain the status quo order or, worse, create a Fascist Islamic regime.

What are the stated aims of the resistance or the anti-occupation forces?

Do they say, as TAT has said, that they want to create some "fascist Islamic state"? The answer is no. The main elements of the resistance are simply calling for immediate Western withdrawal and for Iraqi control over Iraqi resources.

I detect a strong undercurrent (intended or otherwise) of Islamaphobia here. It presumes that anyone fighting for the "Muslim cause" must be some latent despot with a desire to cut everyone's hands off and repress women. All the stuff TAT and other are saying now have been said before. They were used against the "filthy pope loving Catholics" in 1916, they were used against the Algerian anti-imperialist fighters against the French. It was reactionery bollocks then, it remains so today.

Until the Iraqi resistance takes on such a perspective how can you support it?

I don't make "set conditions" for my solidarity with the oppressed.

bunk

21st June 2005, 14:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 12:45 PM
If you want to do a 1970's Vietnam and 2005 Iraq comparison from a militairy point of view I am up for it. Differences are so vast that stating the NLF could defeat the US so that means the Iraqi can do too isn't a very realistic way to look at it. I don't know if it would be way off-topic to take a closer look at why the Iraqi's will not be able to make the US retreat by use of force, but if the discussion heads that way I would gladly participate.
The resistance is already doing extremely well. They are killing unknown numbers of contractors and mercenaries and scores of Iraq police and army. I don't want to do an Iraq - Vietnam comparison, it's a bit tired. I don't think the resistance will be surrounding and driving the Coalition away among scenes of last minute helicopter evacuations. I did state a difference and that i did not believe they were parrallel. They are not the same conditions and it is not the same environment so why did you just make a post replying to me something that i never argued.

redstar2000

21st June 2005, 15:13

Originally posted by pingwin+--> (pingwin)The only thing I don't get with the Iraqi resistance is why they keep on fighting. The quickest way of getting rid of the US presence is fairly simple. Make sure those elections are held and get enough votes to influence the Iraqi government (by being elected into it) to kindly request the US to go home.[/b]

ROFLMAO!

As if the United States would permit any party genuinely opposed to its presence to run for office!

As if there could be such a thing as an honest election in any country run by the U.S. -- which cannot even run honest elections at home any longer.

As if U.S. imperialism always withdraws when politely requested to do so. :lol: :lol: :lol:

The Anarchist Tension
The working class in Iraq will be no better off when the Americans have left.

Nope. They were better off under Saddam Hussein than they are now -- that's widely admitted. They will be better off under any genuinely independent Iraqi regime...no matter who it is.

Many westerners make the assumption that a "neo-Liberal" puppet regime is preferable to an independent variant of Islamic fundamentalism...on the grounds, presumably, that it's, well, liberal. It pays homage to western "values"...at least on paper.

That assumption is not historically justified. All of the available evidence I know of points to the conclusion that an American quisling regime is just about the worse thing that can happen to a country...and the longer it lasts, the worse things get!

Iran is a shithole...but "Saudi" Arabia is an even bigger shithole!

Moreover, there is resistance to the Islamic shitstorm in Iran...after a generation of "holy rule", more and more Iranians are thoroughly sick of the mullahs. The people there will, if left unmolested by U.S. imperialism, transform (slowly or quickly) Iran into a modern bourgeois republic and send the mullahs back to their "holy books".

There's no hope for that in Iraq until the Americans and their lackeys are expelled. (The same is true for the Arabian peninsula, Jordan, Egypt, etc.)

It's all well and good to wish for a resistance that would embrace the principles of communism or anarchism...but this is not going to happen for many generations in a part of the world that is much closer to the 10th century than to the 21st.

It's just completely a-historical to insist that people at earlier stages of political development must either appropriate the most advanced political ideas or else be condemned to imperial servitude in perpetuity.

Any resistance against the Americans must be a resistance against capitalism.

That won't happen. Now what?

Modern capitalism would actually be a "great leap forward" for Iraq...provided it was done by Iraqis and for Iraqis.

But that won't happen either until after the Americans and their lackeys are driven out.

In Marx's day, it was thought that imperialism had a "progressive" function...it smashed the old traditional societies and shocked the people in the colonized countries onto the road of development towards capitalism and beyond.

That has not proven to be the case. In most countries, imperialism has modernized only small islands of development in an untouched ocean of backwardness. It rules those countries through a small westernized elite...leaving everyone else to eat shit and die.

This is the dismal fate that faces Iraq as a province of the American Empire.

Unless the resistance wins!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

pingwin

21st June 2005, 15:28

They are not the same conditions and it is not the same environment so why did you just make a post replying to me something that i never argued.

You brought up Vietnam, I didn't.

The resistance is not doing extremely well. They are doing very poor. The amount of casualties they inflict on the western soldiers is way to low to have any significant impact. Fighting power of US divisions can handle a 1% loss per day quite easily for at least six months. (using replacement programs etc.) Even that requires a 100 dead soldiers per division a day (at least, most divisions are made up of more than 12.000 troops) while they can't even take out a 100 US soldiers a week, spread across all divisions.

The low level combat we see today in Iraq only strengthens the US goverment in their 'we can't leave them now' statement. If things where peacefull the call to get the troops out of there would be much harder to ignore. Politically the US has taken risk, if they have to back off (like Vietnam) the loss of face will be enormous. Not something they will do unless the militairy presure by the resistance becomes unbearable or and much more likely, unrest in the US rises to a level where political support for operations in iraq is no longer an option.

Wouldn't that just consolidate the power of the current Iraqi bourgoisie? The Iraqi people need to get rid of both the Americans and the Iraqi Government.

I think it would consolidate the power of the average Iraqi because the whole step to voting is kind of a newish sort of thing for them. The bourgoisie wouldn't be particulairy hurt by the elections or stability but is that a problem right now?

they manage to free Iraq from the imperialist grip of Washington then they will have succeeded in acheiving their goal - and then it will be up to the people to do as they wish until a Communist organisation can gain a foothold in the country.

the people can do as they wish until a communst organisation can gain a foothold? I don't get it or you sound like '70's anti-communist propaganda.

RedAnarchist

21st June 2005, 15:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 02:28 PM

they manage to free Iraq from the imperialist grip of Washington then they will have succeeded in acheiving their goal - and then it will be up to the people to do as they wish until a Communist organisation can gain a foothold in the country.

the people can do as they wish until a communist organisation can gain a foothold? I don't get it or you sound like '70's anti-communist propaganda.
Won't there be a need for a Communist orgnaisation to gain the support of the masses first? Communist cannot just go into Iraq and take over - the people need to gain class conciousness first.

pingwin

21st June 2005, 15:45

As if the United States would permit any party genuinely opposed to its presence to run for office!

How can they not allow such a party?

As if U.S. imperialism always withdraws when politely requested to do so.

They will, they will. The whole Iraq thing is a major problem and the thing they are aiming at is a clean withdrawal. The situation they need is a peacefull period and a Iraqi official (head of gouverment) requesting them to hand authority back to the Iraqis. You'll be amazed, they hand it down and leave.

Just like they left Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Italy, North Africa, the Philipines, Japan and all the other territories conquered during WO2.

Oh sure, they'll leave some influence behind. Considerable influence actually. The price of 'Liberation'?

That assumption is not historically justified. All of the available evidence I know of points to the conclusion that an American quisling regime is just about the worse thing that can happen to a country...and the longer it lasts, the worse things get!

Do you include western european nations into your historical analyses?

pingwin

21st June 2005, 15:47

@XPhile2868: probably a formulation thing and not what you ment to say. The 'people can do what they want until communism marches in' sounded a bit odd to me.

xnj

21st June 2005, 15:55

This thread started when someone asked Malte, who said he lives in Germany, why he doesn't "support the Iraqi resistance." I think that's the wrong way to approach the issue.

It doesn't matter whether people who live in imperialist countries "support the Iraqi resistance" or not. Our conflict is with our own bourgeoisie, to end the imperialism of our own country, not to decide what government the Iraqi people can or cannot have, or what political forces are best to lead their struggle.

In the US, our only responsbility is to support the right of the Iraqi people to self-determination, impossible as long as their country is occupied by a foreign army. In organizing, the only thing we should be demanding is immediate, unconditional withdrawal, summed up in the slogan: "Troops Out Now." It's a slogan that's already resonating among broad sections of the population as the war costs more in blood and treasure each day.

The purpose of any movement is to force demands on one's own government. "Support the Iraqi resistance" isn't a good slogan at all. It's cheerleading, not politics.

xnj

21st June 2005, 16:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 02:45 PM

As if U.S. imperialism always withdraws when politely requested to do so.
They will, they will. The whole Iraq thing is a major problem and the thing they are aiming at is a clean withdrawal. The situation they need is a peacefull period and a Iraqi official (head of gouverment) requesting them to hand authority back to the Iraqis. You'll be amazed, they hand it down and leave.

Just like they left Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Italy, North Africa, the Philipines, Japan and all the other territories conquered during WO2.

Oh sure, they'll leave some influence behind. Considerable influence actually. The price of 'Liberation'?
This is ridiculous.

Have you read the policy statements of the Bush admin neocons themselves? You should. The PNAC policy papers are all in the public domain. Iraq is just the beginning.

The occupation of Iraq is a jumping-off point to colonize the entire Middle East and control access to Gulf oil. Why do you think they're building permanent military bases over there right now?

The US military isn't going to leave Iraq until: 1) it succeeds in subjugating the Iraqi people and establishing a neocolonial state or 2) it is forced out through popular resistance.

The occupation of Iraq can't be compared to the post-WW2 occupations of Western Europe and Japan at all. It's a completely ahistorical analogy. The purpose of the WW2 occupations were to counter-balance Soviet power and influence. The US had a stake in winning over the "hearts and minds" of the occupied populations. Today, there's no counter-balancing power, which is exactly why the neocons are pushing forward with their plans.

MeTaLhEaD

21st June 2005, 17:03

i support the resistance but it has lost its focus now its targeting civilians that is not fare.

bunk

21st June 2005, 17:16

You brought up Vietnam, I didn't.

That's still no reason to argue against something i never argued while directing it at me

Man of the Century

21st June 2005, 17:20

The resistance has no published, post-U.S. occupation / Iraqi Government overthrough plan. It probably doesn't have a plan, outside of various dictatorial / ultra-religious aims.

That Saddam was "good for the working class" is rediculous. Two wars in the past 15 years; both desasters for Iraq and the region as a whole. (The last invasion, Kiwait, only helping to solidify U.S. and capitalist forces.)

The Irqui people, now free of Saddam, only continue to demonstrate their interest in a capital based economy. From where will any revolution with socialist goals emerge?

Severian

21st June 2005, 17:52

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 20 2005, 11:38 PM
I flatly admit there indeed are many ghastly acts, perpetrated by people who claim to be fighting in the name of the resistance. These acts obviously should be condemned.
.....
I am not asking you to express solidarity with kidnappers and assassins, but defenders of cities.
Once again, does anyone have any evidence that it is possible to separate the two? That the Iraqi resistance itself makes any such distinction?

Severian

21st June 2005, 17:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:45 AM
If you want to do a 1970's Vietnam and 2005 Iraq comparison from a militairy point of view I am up for it. Differences are so vast that stating the NLF could defeat the US so that means the Iraqi can do too isn't a very realistic way to look at it. I don't know if it would be way off-topic to take a closer look at why the Iraqi's will not be able to make the US retreat by use of force, but if the discussion heads that way I would gladly participate.
I think that would be interesting.

The larger difference between Vietnam and Iraq is political: war of national liberation by peasants and workers vs war to regain privileges and power by Sunni-Arab landlords and capitalists.

redstar2000

21st June 2005, 18:02

Originally posted by pingwin+--> (pingwin)How can they not allow such a party?[/b]

:lol:

Really, pingwin, are you completely new to all this stuff? Have you read anything about how imperialism works?

They can disallow political parties that they don't like by (1) bribery; (2) rigging the election; (3) assassination of leaders and organizers; (4) formal suppression involving mass murder.

They've done all of those things; it's indisputable history!

Good grief!

Just like they left Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Italy, North Africa, the Philippines, Japan and all the other territories conquered during WW2.

They didn't leave!

What the fuck do you think NATO is? Are you aware that there are still large American military bases in Germany and Japan?

And Italy. And England. And Greece. Hell, the U.S. occupied fucking Iceland during World War II and they're still there!

I'm glad you mentioned the Philippines, though...it's a perfect example of the kind of quisling regime that America loves best -- its only drawback is that there is so little wealth to extract from it.

The vastness of your naivety boggles the mind!

xnj
In organizing, the only thing we should be demanding is immediate, unconditional withdrawal, summed up in the slogan: "Troops Out Now." It's a slogan that's already resonating among broad sections of the population as the war costs more in blood and treasure each day.

The purpose of any movement is to force demands on one's own government. "Support the Iraqi resistance" isn't a good slogan at all. It's cheerleading, not politics.

Now this is a rather "delicate" point on several levels.

There is heated debate in anti-war organizations in the U.S. right now over the slogans "Troops Out Now!" and "Victory to the Iraqi Resistance!"...and it reflects, I think, the difference between liberal opposition to this particular war and radical opposition to U.S. imperialism as a system.

There's no question but that "Troops Out Now!" has a broader popular appeal than its more radical alternative. It is a "safer" slogan and arouses less hostility from people still suffering from patriotic illusions.

And the success of such a slogan would have the same effect as a victory by the resistance in Iraq...it would get the Americans and their lackeys out and allow the Iraqis to determine their own fate. It would be perceived by the world as a stunning defeat for U.S. imperialism no matter what "spin" the American politicians tried to put on it.

So why go "the extra mile"? Why take on the burden of explicit opposition to U.S. imperialism? The slogan "Victory to the Iraqi Resistance!" is one that says, in effect, that the U.S. has been guilty of criminal aggression and deserves to lose this war and any future such war.

We use this slogan because we want to maximize American alienation from the existing system! We want to create a climate of public opinion where Americans don't jump with patriotic joy every time another president starts another war; where even the attempt by the politicians to "talk up a new war" is met with explosive outrage!

As things stand now, first we have the war and then afterwards the outrage...if any. That's got to change.

Now, does that reduce us to "cheerleaders"?

That is a real danger. I saw with my own eyes during the 60s that many people created a mythological "National Liberation Front" that was very distant from Vietnamese realities. The mythical "NLF" was a massive group of "superhuman communists" building a "brave new world".

The real NLF were peasant nationalists...who just wanted an independent capitalist country.

If we were to start saying that the Iraqi resistance was made up of "really wonderful people" who are "an inspiration to humanity", blah, blah, blah, then I think that would be "cheerleading"...and stupid cheerleading at that -- since it's pretty obvious that the Iraqi resistance is not made up of "really wonderful people".

We don't say "Victory to the Iraqi Resistance" because the resistance consists of a bunch of sweethearts; we say it because we want U.S. imperialism defeated in the most humiliating possible way. We want the American architects of the war publicly disgraced...and, if possible, even sent to prison!

Should this outcome materialize, I think it would have a substantial radicalizing effect on American workers and brighten the prospects for winning them (or at least a fair number of them) to a communist perspective.

An "orderly, negotiated withdrawal" wouldn't have that effect.

I don't think the people in the anti-war movement who support the slogan "Troops Out Now" are "villains" or "pro-imperialists".

But I do think their horizons are too limited...they don't see all the possibilities in the present struggle that actually exist or that potentially might come to exist.

That's what communists are supposed to do.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Severian

21st June 2005, 18:04

Originally posted by Man of the [email protected] 21 2005, 10:20 AM
The resistance has no published, post-U.S. occupation / Iraqi Government overthrough plan. It probably doesn't have a plan, outside of various dictatorial / ultra-religious aims.
That's true...to the limited extent any program has been put forward by the actual armed groups, or those inside Iraq sympathizing with them, it has been reactionary.

That Saddam was "good for the working class" is rediculous. Two wars in the past 15 years; both desasters for Iraq and the region as a whole. (The last invasion, Kiwait, only helping to solidify U.S. and capitalist forces.)

I might add as well the complete, bloody suppression of the workers' organizations.

That the occupation has been even worse, economically, is true; but that doesn't mean, as Redstar suggests, the answer is going back to the old regime or anything like it. That program has not and cannot inspire any support from most working people in Iraq.

The Irqui people, now free of Saddam, only continue to demonstrate their interest in a capital based economy. From where will any revolution with socialist goals emerge?

From the consequences of the capitalist system. Fear of the reaction to those consequences is the only reason the occupation hasn't gone farther than it has with privatizations and so forth.

Severian

21st June 2005, 18:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 09:13 AM
[Have you read the policy statements of the Bush admin neocons themselves? You should. The PNAC policy papers are all in the public domain. Iraq is just the beginning.
I'm curious: who are these neoconservatives in the Bush administration exactly? Wolfowitz and Feith are both on their way out.

The occupation of Iraq is a jumping-off point to colonize the entire Middle East and control access to Gulf oil. Why do you think they're building permanent military bases over there right now?

The US military isn't going to leave Iraq until: 1) it succeeds in subjugating the Iraqi people and establishing a neocolonial state or 2) it is forced out through popular resistance.

If the Baghdad government felt strong enough to ask them to leave, 1) might be considered accomplished. In any case, it would be politically difficult to stay if the Baghdad government asked 'em to leave, given all of Washington's rhetoric about democracy and restoring sovereignty to the Iraqi people and so forth.

Which isn't solely rhetoric; when Bush says "freedom" he doesn't mean actual freedom, but there has been a major shift in U.S. policy from "stability" to "freedom." Not all of the implications of these codewords are clear to me; but they include pushing for Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon and encouraging the Egyptian regime to become somewhat less repressive.

Of course Washington hopes that they will be able to retain military bases in Iraq; gain economic control by U.S. capital; and use Iraq as the beginning of the reorganization of its domination of the region. But it is committed to doing all this within at least the outward forms of bourgeois democracy; Pingwin's right that it can't go too openly against the will of an elected Iraqi government. (Nor is it likely to need to.) That would undermine some of the other things it's trying to do.

It's surprising, really, how little Washington has interfered in the incessant squabbles in the Iraqi assembly.

Severian

21st June 2005, 18:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 08:55 AM
This thread started when someone asked Malte, who said he lives in Germany, why he doesn't "support the Iraqi resistance." I think that's the wrong way to approach the issue.

It doesn't matter whether people who live in imperialist countries "support the Iraqi resistance" or not. Our conflict is with our own bourgeoisie, to end the imperialism of our own country, not to decide what government the Iraqi people can or cannot have, or what political forces are best to lead their struggle.

In the US, our only responsbility is to support the right of the Iraqi people to self-determination, impossible as long as their country is occupied by a foreign army. In organizing, the only thing we should be demanding is immediate, unconditional withdrawal, summed up in the slogan: "Troops Out Now." It's a slogan that's already resonating among broad sections of the population as the war costs more in blood and treasure each day.

The purpose of any movement is to force demands on one's own government. "Support the Iraqi resistance" isn't a good slogan at all. It's cheerleading, not politics.
Good points all. Yes, all demands should be directed at "our own" ruling class.

"Support the NLF" in the U.S. was a bad slogan - a slogan of action not rhetoric - even though the NLF deserved support and solidarity. "Out Now" and other variants on that basic demand were correct.

"Viva Cuba Socialista" no; "End the embargo" si.

"End the occupation, U.S. out of Iraq now" is the right demand. And would be regardless of the character of the Iraqi resistance.

I think there are some basic points being debated here which need to be clarified, though. Are we defined by positively by the struggles, interests, and goals of our class; or negatively by opposition to U.S. imperialism? Is there any substitute for the actions or our class and its toiling allies, which we can look to defeat our enemies? In other words, can the emancipation of the working class only be the act of the workers ourselves?

Right now these are being debated as "foreign policy" issues, if you will; IMO they inevitably have "domestic policy" implications as well...perhaps even proceed from there.

Severian

21st June 2005, 18:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 08:13 AM
As if the United States would permit any party genuinely opposed to its presence to run for office!

The fact is, it has permitted them.

And here ya go again: anybody legal in Iraq must be collaborators. Including the whole workers' movement, and all significant parties calling themselves communist.

Otherwise, Redstar would have to admit the occupation is allowing its opponents to be legal, and to oppose it using legal means. He might have to admit the obvious fact that there is more space for workers to organize under the occupation than under the old regime.

I might point out that the Sadrists, who not so long ago were fighting with AKs and RPGs against the occupation, had candidates in the election. A fair number of 'em got into the assembly, both on their own slate and as part of the winning UIA slate. Sadr organized some massive rallies calling for the occupation to get out, after the elections.

Redstar did once refer to the Sadrists as "quislings" despite these facts, but never explained why, so it could be a slip.

If your analysis has led you to think these things can't possibly happen, then your analysis has been disproved by facts.

Severian

21st June 2005, 18:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 07:18 AM
Why is that Muslim fighters neccessarily want to create a "totalitarian state"?
Because the parties and armed groups calling themselves "Islamic" typically have.

It presumes that anyone fighting for the "Muslim cause" must be some latent despot with a desire to cut everyone's hands off and repress women.

Yes, that's a pretty good description of the political tendencies usually described as Islamic fundamentalism. Their stated program, often.

I emphasize political tendency, because these groups like to identify themselves with the Muslim religion generally...and you seem to be doing the same thing, saying that anyone who opposes these reactionary political groups is Islamophobic.

They were used against the "filthy pope loving Catholics" in 1916, they were used against the Algerian anti-imperialist fighters against the French. It was reactionery bollocks then, it remains so today.

Crappy analogy. Connolly was certainly not demanding a "Catholic state" or the imposition of Catholic canon law as state law. Nor was the IRA, nor was the Algerian NLF in any was "Islamic fundamentalist." In fact the Algerian revolution led to the creation of a workers' and farmers' government, which nobody claims is a possible result in Iraq.

I don't make "set conditions" for my solidarity with the oppressed.

Clearly you do, since you've chosen to solidarize with the Ba'athist and Islamists rather than, say, the Kurds (nationally oppressed). Lemme suggest that "set condition" is opposition to the Anglo-American alliance, which is as hollow and empty a basis for a political tendency as any other purely negative program.

Severian

21st June 2005, 18:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:49 AM
Wouldn't that just consolidate the power of the current Iraqi bourgoisie? The Iraqi people need to get rid of both the Americans and the Iraqi Government.
I presume you're saying the Iraqi government needs to be overthrown, even if the occupying troops withdraw. Fine.

And replace it with what?

A workers' and farmers' government, IMO.

But probably you mean a victory for the "resistance". Do you have any reason to think the Ba'athists and Islamists would set up a government preferable to the current one, from the viewpoint of working people?

pingwin

21st June 2005, 19:19

The larger difference between Vietnam and Iraq is political: war of national liberation by peasants and workers vs war to regain privileges and power by Sunni-Arab landlords and capitalists.

It's not. The main difference is Vietnam is covered with jungle and Iraq is a barren waistland. In order to do any troop movement you'll have to face the recon and destructive power of the US airforce. That will keep all resistance local at best and makes sure coordination can never achieve massing of force.

The political background of the warriors involved doesn't matter much.

@redstar2000 in relation to US militairy bases in Europe:

They didn't leave!

What the fuck do you think NATO is? Are you aware that there are still large American military bases in Germany and Japan?

And Italy. And England. And Greece. Hell, the U.S. occupied fucking Iceland during World War II and they're still there!

Are you seriously thinking these bases provide the US with 'power' over lets say Germany? The presence of these bases is founded in mutual interests, not in an imperial overlord and supression model.

The real NLF were peasant nationalists...who just wanted an independent capitalist country.

The real NLF where a bunch of assholes seeing a way to gain power by joining the communist movement and extorting the peasants and workers of vietnam.

That's about just as far off the mark as your comment. The truth lies somewhere in between. I wonder who will only quote the first part of my comment. :P

I think, Redstar2000, you are looking at this matter a lot more in black and white than I do. You do have an interesting outlook, I must admit! (with all respect and everything!)

YKTMX

21st June 2005, 19:59

Because the parties and armed groups calling themselves "Islamic" typically have.

And groups calling themselves "communist" have "typically" committed genocide, perhaps we wouldn't support a "communist" guerilla movement either? I think not.

and you seem to be doing the same thing, saying that anyone who opposes these reactionary political groups is Islamophobic.

How can an anti-imperialist force possibly be "reactionery", it simply doesn't make sense. The fact is that Iraq is a Muslim country, therefore, in the current climate, any opposition to foreign invasion by Christian westeners is going to have a religious "bent". Now, we can hypothesise all day about what we'd "like" the resistance to be like, but sadly, it's all conjecture. The resistance reflects the occupation - it is bloody, brutal and unassuming.

Connolly was certainly not demanding a "Catholic state" or the imposition of Catholic canon law as state law.

So? Many volunteers in the ICA were catholics fighting against the "protestant" Imperialists. Surely to support the ICA was "reactionery", no?

And also, they may not have been demanding a "catholic state", but that's certainly what they got.

nor was the Algerian NLF in any was "Islamic fundamentalist."

Neither is the Iraqi resistance! Once again I'll say this, I've read Tariq Ali and other say that "Islamisists" and other "not nice" types are involved but there is also a nationalist/progressive section of the armed resistance. Now, apart from CIA/BBC propaganda and scaremongering about Zarqawi, I've not read any other serious analysis of the make-up of the resistance (save the CWP of Iraq's).

To try and suggest that the Algerian resistance was all socialists is just historically false. The French FREQUENTLY used the same rhetoric you're using now, saying they're crazy Muslims. It's funny how lies can be reformed and regurgitated without anyone noticing isn't it?

Clearly you do, since you've chosen to solidarize with the Ba'athist and Islamists rather than, say, the Kurds (nationally oppressed).

:lol: You've chosen to side with the plucky little Kurds, eh Severian? Good choice. It seems your comrades in the State department and Pentagon are really on the side of the "oppressed" after all.

Lemme suggest that "set condition" is opposition to the Anglo-American alliance, which is as hollow and empty a basis for a political tendency as any other purely negative program.

Not really. I oppose imperialism because I support national self-determination. I oppose occupation because I support peace. I support the oppressed because I oppose the powerful.

There's nothing "negative" about it.

bunk

21st June 2005, 20:21

It's not. The main difference is Vietnam is covered with jungle and Iraq is a barren waistland. In order to do any troop movement you'll have to face the recon and destructive power of the US airforce. That will keep all resistance local at best and makes sure coordination can never achieve massing of force.

While the Iraq terrain is not as good for Guerrilla tactics and strategy it's not bad. Localised resistance in the main cities is enough to disrupt any country. Although it must be hard for the resistance to move around it's clear that they have done this, large amounts of them escaping the second assault of Fallujah and re-appearing in the north for example.

Severian

21st June 2005, 21:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 12:19 PM
It's not. The main difference is Vietnam is covered with jungle and Iraq is a barren waistland. In order to do any troop movement you'll have to face the recon and destructive power of the US airforce. That will keep all resistance local at best and makes sure coordination can never achieve massing of force.

The political background of the warriors involved doesn't matter much.
I think it matters greatly. More than anything. Just for a beginning, the Iraqi resistance has chosen to limit its potential base of support to the Sunni Arab minority. And no capitalist-led force could have sustained the incredible determination - on a mass scale, not just a few fanatics - which the Vietnamese revolutionary forces showed over so many years. No military analysis is serious if it ignores the political aspect.

As for the terrain: the main terrain for combat is the cities, a hugely difficult environment which U.S. forces are little prepared for. (As the Pentagon recognized a few years back, and began trying to correct, with urban combat training and so forth.) Iraq is far more urbanized than Vietnam was. A sign of things to come - with the growing urbanization of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, colonial wars will involve a lot of slum fighting. The Pentagon as Global Slumlord (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0419-14.htm)

You have a point about the difficulty of moving forces and weapons between cities; but in fact the resistance has shown some ability to do so - an air force can't so easily distinguish between civilian and covert guerilla vehicles. Or at least the U.S. Air Force is poorly structured for this type of counterinsurgency operation, as this U.S. military analyst argues. (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj04/fal04/vorfal04.html)

Are you seriously thinking these bases provide the US with 'power' over lets say Germany? The presence of these bases is founded in mutual interests, not in an imperial overlord and supression model.

Which is exactly why the analogy between Iraq and the post-WWII scenario is no good. I agree with xnj on this.

The German and U.S. imperialist ruling classes had common interests in exploitation of the rest of the world and as opposed to "Communism". Now that common interest is being overridden by economic and strategic rivalry, the U.S. military is leaving Germany.

If you want an analogy from the history of U.S. foreign policy, try the Phillipines after the Spanish-American war...loosely applicable, and has even by used by Bush and prowar pundits like Max Boot.

Free Palestine

21st June 2005, 21:15

It is ridiculous to call them anything other than a determined resistance force because we don’t know who most of them are and what they really stand for beyond opposition to the occupation. So please don't try to oversimplify a multi-layered resistance movement and paint them in one brush as all religious fanatics who want to create a totalitarian state because that's total nonsense. Like most resistance movements, the Iraqis combine a range of assorted factions. Former Baathists, liberals, Islamists, fed-up collaborationists, communists, et cetera.

As I said before, if only support pristine movements, then no resistance will be worthy of our purity, and we will wait forever.

Man of the Century

21st June 2005, 21:30

Free:

As it happens, I don't agree with you. The insurgents are mainly made up of ex-Bathists and ultra-religious nuts. And from where do you get the communist angle? I don't know ONE Marxist group who believes in blowing up indiscriminately for the only purpose of political change. Where there is an overwhelming chance that an innocent will be killed, there is no revolutionary gain.

But more the point, other groups would give some idea of a plan, and not merely the removal of the coalition forces.

If the current Iraq government were akin the the Vichy government of the '40's, the United States would have a lot more weight with them. I think in President Bush's dreams the goverment would be more plyable, but that is not the case.

Too many members of this site discount the anti-insurgent feelings in Iraq (which is NOT pro-United States, but is pro-democracy.)

The insurgents offer no future but a civil war.

YKTMX

21st June 2005, 22:46

Click (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2005/04/resistance-and-representation.html)

Read that. It's a blog by a Marxist, explaining how the U.S. has deliberately (and successfully by the look of this board) aimed to portray the resistance as all Muslim nuts.

Once again, even IF the resistance were all hand choppin' loons (which they're not) I'd still support them, because the nature of the resistance is not the main question.

Free Palestine

21st June 2005, 22:47

You are putting entirely secondary issues --ideology, war tactics, etc. - at the forefront, while ignoring the core issue of colonialism in Iraq and elsewhere. The Minutemen of the American revolution had their vices too, they were slave-owners and capitalists, but justice was still on their side compared with the yoke of England. To claim opposition to a war while refusing to even acknowledge that justice is on the side of the resistance wrong.

When you break international law and start a completely unprovoked war on a sovereign country based on a pile of lies, and then engage in a brutal occupation murdering and torturing innocent civilians, then I think there's no question as to whether Iraqi people have a right to resist (by any means chosen) in the struggle against imperialist domination.

It boils down to this simple equation: On the one side are all the forces fighting a war against colonialism and occupation, and on the other side are the colonialists, neo-colonialists and their Iraqi collaborationists. In that struggle I take an unambiguous position opposing the colonizers.

Blaming the resistance on foreign fighters or Sunni deadenders is just another in the long series of American lies about Iraq intended to fit this conflict into the American mythology that everything the United States does is good, and all its opponents are bad. This myth has proven to be a complete lie so many, many times. You need to accept the reality of the fact that America are not noble liberators but brutal occupiers, and the whole country of Iraq wants them out, now.

mo7amEd

22nd June 2005, 00:33

i havent read the whole thread, and i just registrated, but gotta say this:

I'm iraqi
I'm a communist

what should i do? not support the resistance in my country whn US is stealing and killing in it? should i stay neutral?

the thing is that about 20 percent (maybe more, proberly less) of the iraqi people (often the educated one's) are supporters to marxism. and there is two communist parties in iraq, one ruling in the north and one in the whole iraq. the one ruling in the north is collaborating with the kurdish parties (which is practicully buying and soon ruling my countries), and theyre the biggest capitalists. the other one is collaborating with the US (!!!)... u proberly wonder how that works, well the party is known as being betrayal, when it had the most influence in iraq and mostly supported by iraqis it let them down and started to collaborate with the baath party (which in its turn killed lots of communistleaders).

this party was accepted by the US (how is that possible? u wonder..) and did participate in the last "election". therefore it has very little support by the iraqi people.

my conclusion is that u should not support any communist party in iraq.

the resistance? well all those iraqis that is communists that i know of do support the resistance. and the resistance is not what u see on tv. maybe 5-10 percent of the resistance is formerly saddamsupporters, alqaida (or other terroristorganisation) or criminal gangs. the rest, those who fight with their AK's and RPG's are just simply poor people who do not want US there, and want to rule and own their own country. in other words they are workers that has yet not learned about socialism.

i dont know what yall think but i will always support those who oppose capitalism!

redstar2000

22nd June 2005, 00:57

Thank you, mo7amEd, for your sensible contribution to this thread.

Maybe your words will get through to some of the members of this board who want to demonize the Iraqi resistance to justify their own support of (or at least indifference towards) the crimes of U.S. imperialism.

Not to mention those to whom the very idea of U.S. imperialism is seemingly "incomprehensible".

Who presumably "think" that the sprawling world-wide network of U.S. military bases is some sort of "accident of history". :o

Or that the motives of U.S. aggression are to "spread democracy".

It would be intolerably presumptuous of me to tell you that you "should" join the resistance in Iraq. The personal risks are so great that it is a decision that you must make for yourself.

But even if you decide not to join it directly, I hope you will tell people in the "west" more about what is really happening there and why the resistance should win this war!

The only voices from Iraq that we normally hear in the "west" are American quislings...who will say anything for money.

That's something else that needs to change.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

mo7amEd

22nd June 2005, 01:13

well i live in sweden (have been living here since 94), but ive been in iraq in 2001, and 2003 (exactly after the war) and i always keep in touch with my relatives.

but as far i know almost all communists in iraq support the resistance only becoz they want to get rid of US.

and waht u say about American quislings is soo true, the media in west never gets it that what the American quislings wants is to gain power and money (as any capitalist) and therefore colllaborates with US nad says anything the US wants them to say. therefore any iraqi official statement should be considered as bullshit.

u know what a iraqi channel run by the white house does? the channel bytheway is called Al-Iraqiyya:

they view videos with iraqi captured "terrorists" and have some "iraqi antiterrorist force" to question them and then forces them to pleed guilty to have killed alot of innocent people just becoz they get paid by a "secret dude" with alot of money. that to show the iraqi people there is no real resistance. then they make them pleed guilty of homosexual acts (which will be considered by iraqis as a huge crime), perverted acts with eachother and so on. then when they get that on tape the air it so every iraqi can see it and then kill (yes, US gave us democracy!) the "terrorist" and send the body to his family...

pingwin

22nd June 2005, 08:23

Not to mention those to whom the very idea of U.S. imperialism is seemingly "incomprehensible".

Who presumably "think" that the sprawling world-wide network of U.S. military bases is some sort of "accident of history".

That must be me.

And you do confuse me. In one post the base in Germany is a sign of US colonization, in the next it has nothing to do with the topic and now I am a stupid guy who doesn't understand the implications of the foreign US bases?

I don't understand what you base the second line on. I never said anything like that. Well, enough about bases and retorics...

I just still don't see what the resistance is hoping to win by using small scale violence against US and civil targets. That was my question and your just turning it into 'Pingwin doesn't understand'. Maybe, just maybe, that's why I asked the question in the first place? Maybe some of you can answer?

Free Palestine

22nd June 2005, 08:39

It is quite a simple equation, pigwin, one side aims to control Iraq to fulfill its grand plan to dominate the Middle East and its oil resources. The other merely seeks to defend their cities and the right of Iraqis to determine their own future. On the one side are all the forces fighting a war against colonialism and occupation, and on the other side are the colonialists, neo-colonialists and their Iraqi collaborationists.

On one side are the 500-pound bombs and high-tech weapons used by the world's biggest superpower occupying Iraq (at the cost of $7.8 billion ea/month) and on the other side are the rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs of those resisting that occupation.

Some 100,000 Iraqi civilians are now estimated dead (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/10/300266.html) because of the war and occupation (this estimate did not even count excess deaths in Fallujah, which was deemed too dangerous to include). This followed the roughly 1.7 million Iraqis (http://www.tandl.vt.edu/Foundations/mediaproject/mediaprojecthtml/iraq12.html) who died from the deprivation caused by more than a decade of economic sanctions (1 million of these innocent victims were children under the age of 5). And this followed a death toll of up to 2,300 civilians in the 1991 Gulf War (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/appendix/death.html) and this figure not even taking into acount the 96,000 depleted-uranium shells we bombarded Iraq with which have left a legacy of cancers and deformed children there.

Choosing sides should not be so difficult. The sheer magnitude of the death and destruction inflicted by the U.S. upon ordinary Iraqis should dispel any myth that the two sides in this war deserve equal condemnation. Anyone with even a cursory sense of humanity or justice should be cheering the resistance on.

Victory to the resistance! We should start using the phrase "Stop the massacres in Iraq! Bring the murderers home!"

Severian

22nd June 2005, 08:48

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 21 2005, 03:47 PM
You are putting entirely secondary issues --ideology, war tactics, etc. - at the forefront, while ignoring the core issue of colonialism in Iraq and elsewhere.
Is that even the core issue for the resistance fighters themselves?

Let me suggest there is another issue they all agree on - Ba'athists, Islamists, and those without clear program.

Restoring the supremacy of the Sunni Arab minority.

Severian

22nd June 2005, 09:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:13 PM
well i live in sweden (have been living here since 94), but ive been in iraq in 2001, and 2003 (exactly after the war) and i always keep in touch with my relatives.

but as far i know almost all communists in iraq support the resistance only becoz they want to get rid of US.
Which is contrary to every report out of Iraq I have ever seen. And if most communists in Iraq support the resistance, why are the only (nominally) communist groups you ever hear about doing anything on the ground in Iraq, the Communist Party and the Worker-Communist Party? One of which supports the occupation, and the other opposes both the occupation and the resistance.

If in fact there were all these pro-resistance communists, or any, they could found a group which would A) support the resistance and B) do something on the ground in Iraq that gets noticed. C'mon somebody, show it to us. Any of you who's claimed there's a communist or "progressive" component of the resistance, where is it? What has it done?

But hey, some anonymous guy posting on the net from Uppsala, Sweden says the opposite, so of course we're all going to believe him. As long as he's telling us what we want to hear.

This is the net. Who you claim to be cannot be taken into account. What you claim to have seen cannot be taken into account....perhaps a little after people get to know you. But basically, none of that reverse ad hominem stuff. Only facts and sources.

Free Palestine

22nd June 2005, 09:07

Originally posted by Severian+Jun 22 2005, 07:48 AM--> (Severian @ Jun 22 2005, 07:48 AM)
Free [email protected] 21 2005, 03:47 PM
You are putting entirely secondary issues --ideology, war tactics, etc. - at the forefront, while ignoring the core issue of colonialism in Iraq and elsewhere.
Is that even the core issue for the resistance fighters themselves?

Let me suggest there is another issue they all agree on - Ba'athists, Islamists, and those without clear program.

Restoring the supremacy of the Sunni Arab minority.[/b]

And what evidence is offered in support of this assertion? There is ample evidence of a mass movement where Sunnis and Shiites have in fact joined hands in opposing the US led occupation. As I wrote previously, the Resistance is a homegrown, multi-layered movement of many Iraqi groups taking directions from members of their respective communities so don't try to oversimplify them in one category because that's total hogwash.

Your claim that the Sunnis are fighting, not to oust the Americans but to restore Baathist power over Iraq, fits nicely with the American mythology of its noble 'liberation' of Iraq from Saddam. This myth goes back to Rumsfeld and is just another embarassing attempt by Washington to make Americans feel better about themselves by whitewashing the fact that the entire country is in opposition to the brutal occupation. You should know better than to buy this fairy-tale

While there is undoubtedly some settling of scores going on, the majority of Sunni-Shi'ite violence is the work of the same agents provocateurs who are trying to start a civil war in Iraq (see the article by John Kaminski I posted recently (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36959)). The reason that Sunnis are prominent in the resistance is because Baathists made up the officer corps of the Iraqi army, and know where the weapons are hidden and how to use them.

According to a recent report by the U.S. Project on Defense Alternatives:

"Strong majorities in the Sunni and Shiite community oppose the occupation – and significant minorities have registered support for attacks on US troops. ‘What drives these attitudes more than anything else’, says the report’s author, Carl Conetta, ‘are nationalism, the coercive practices of the occupation, and the collateral effects of military operations’".

Severian

22nd June 2005, 09:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 01:23 AM
And you do confuse me. In one post the base in Germany is a sign of US colonization, in the next it has nothing to do with the topic and now I am a stupid guy who doesn't understand the implications of the foreign US bases?
Hmm...I don't recall any one person expressing all of those opinions.

Perhaps you are frustrated that different posters in this thread have expressed different opinions in opposition to yours?

That's what this board is for, discussion, including debate, among leftists. Including the expression of many varying points of view. Having to defend your point of view against differing, even opposite critiques is a sign of a vibrant debate.

The only point of view we don't welcome is supporters of the capitalist system. 'Cause they tend to make us constantly re-explain points we consider excessively basic. Gets in the way of the other discussions we're trying to have.

pingwin

22nd June 2005, 09:34

@free palestine

Thanx for the serious reply. I can understand the moral backing for the resistance. I don't say the resistance is wrong in wanting to resist, but what I don't understand is what they think they'll gain by carbombing a line of people applying for a job with the police.

I understand the peacefull departure of US troops will only occur after a certain level of stability has been achieved. As redstar2000 would put it, after colonization is completed. I totally agree the situation where US troops withdraw and an Iraqi elected gouverment is in place will be seriously influenced by US funding of political parties and more stuff like that. It's not a desireable situation. But that is if you'd consider that to be the final situation.

If you'd consider it a possible point of departure for a next step, I think it is a better alternative than what the resistance is dooing now.

The low level violence is pointless and hurts Iraqi interests more than US interests.

- From a militairy perspective its all completely harmless, not even scratching the paint on the US warmachine.

- Politically it provides the US with an excuse not to hand down power or leave. The place is a mess with carbombs and all and the US cannot leave it like that. Simple argument that will make sense to a lot of people. Actually, its making it impossible for the US to leave even if they would want to.

- Internally for Iraqi politics a lot of the more radical politicians are now involved in the resistance. That makes them vunerable if they ever want to pursue a more diplomatic approach. Might not be very relevant but I thought might be good to mention anyway. Ties with armed resistance makes it real easy for their political opponents to have 'em arrested.

- the terror attacks actually do destabilize the country. There is no positive effect to be discovered in acts like blowing up lines of people applying for jobs with the local police.

- Peace demonstrations 'at home' and debates about what to yell are all real nice and all. Political impact on the gouverments of nations stationing troops in Iraq is minimal. The unrest would have to rise a lot more before it would start having any sort of impact. And that mainly from the supporting nations position, the US isn't going to roll over due to some leftwing-peaceloving-treehugging-hippies.

Severian

22nd June 2005, 09:35

Originally posted by Free Palestine+Jun 22 2005, 02:07 AM--> (Free Palestine @ Jun 22 2005, 02:07 AM)
[email protected] 22 2005, 07:48 AM
Let me suggest there is another issue they all agree on - Ba'athists, Islamists, and those without clear program.

Restoring the supremacy of the Sunni Arab minority.

And what evidence is offered in support of this assertion? [/b]
Their own words? Blowing up Shi'a mosques? Attacking pilgrims on the road to Najaf? Have you been following the news from Iraq at all, or are you simply sunk deep in denial?

I gave plenty of evidence in this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34263&hl=quisling&st=0).

There is ample evidence of a mass movement where Sunnis and Shiites have in fact joined hands in opposing the US led occupation.

You have any recent example of that? I'd be surprised.

There were past examples, when the Sadrists were fighting, like many Shi'a sending aid to Falluja during the first U.S. assault. They were repaid for that with car bombs made in Falluja. Not surprisingly, there was nothing like that, and few public protests, during the second U.S. assault.

The reason that Sunnis are prominent in the resistance is because Baathists made up the officer corps of the Iraqi army, and know where the weapons are hidden and how to use them.

Also money. All of which tends to put the Ba'athists in charge.

Those are good reasons...why the Ba'athists are prominent. The reason Sunni Arabs are prominent is because they're virtually the only people in it.

According to a recent report by the U.S. Project on Defense Alternatives:

Here's the report (http://www.comw.org/pda/0505rm10exsum.html#5) Bet you haven't seen it yourself, just the quote on some blog. Note it focuses on Sunni support to the resistance and Shi'a "ambivalence". As for the Kurds, they strongly support the occupation, probably in large part 'cause they ain't under it.

The statement you quote seems based on old polls I've seen before. They show at one point in 2004 26% of Shi'a supported attacks on the occupier. Went up somewhat with Sadr's rebellion and the first assault on Falluja, from later polls I've seen.

Haven't seen a recent poll asking that question. But I bet being blown up by the Sunni resistance hasn't made Shi'a like it any better.

Free Palestine

22nd June 2005, 11:48

Addressing the issue pigwin brought up about the bombing of people applying for police positions as well as Severian's issue of Shi'a mosques being bombed, I would again refer you to the article I posted recently by John Kaminski. I happen to believe much of the sectarian hatred are in fact 'false flag' operations designed to foment chaos, portray the resistance as serial murderers and monsters, and fire up sectarian and ethnic hatred in Iraq and thus divide the resistance. In politics and sociology, divide and rule is a strategy of gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into groups that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The aim of the imperialists is to divide Iraq; they are attempting to do so with their violence against Sunni’s and Shia's, attempting to trick both sides that each was attacking the other. A perfect example of the Napoleonic war and how the Rothschild’s funded both sides of the war, and initiated conflict for their pleasure. War criminal Rumsfeld's secret SSB is part of it, even according to CNN: Pentagon runs clandestine intelligence and support infrastructure (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/23/pentagon.intel/).

Think about it, it simply does not make sense. Muslims never blow up their own houses of worship. Heard of Operation Gladio? It was a covert campaign of provocateur-style deceit that lasted decades. It was established in 1952 as a covert NATO program and it's purpose was to establish a clandestine network of "stay-behind" teams who would organize sabotage in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. But they took a more active role and, directed by US/NATO intelligence services against their own populations, killed and maimed hundreds of people in "terrorist" attacks which were then blamed on leftist subversives and other political opponents (all of which were completely manufactured). Look up the 1980 bombing of the train station at Bologna if you don't believe me. It left 85 dead and was initially blamed on radical lefties, but later revealed to be the work of an right-wing network linked to Italy's Gladio team, and four of the fascists were convicted of the crime.

It could be very possible that the same provocateur-style state deceit is being directed in Iraq, with groups carrying out clandestine special operations to foment chaos and portray all resistance as murderous nihilists and cold-blooded criminals. To send the message that the Iraqi resistance is comprised of monsters and serial murderers - and there can be no response other than wiping them from the face of the earth.

pingwin

22nd June 2005, 12:20

It could be very possible that the same provocateur-style state deceit is being directed in Iraq, with groups carrying out clandestine special operations to foment chaos and portray all resistance as murderous nihilists and cold-blooded criminals. To send the message that the Iraqi resistance is comprised of monsters and serial murderers - and there can be no response other than wiping them from the face of the earth.

It could very well be possible. I totally agree with you on that. As you where adressing the issue I brought up, might I repeat my original question? Why is armed resistance against American troops in Iraq something that will lead to anything positive?

If the Americans run such an operation, it clearly shows they want 'the fight' to continue. Any efford by Iraqi resistance (assuming it will not be terroristic but straightforward militairy in nature) only provide the US propaganda machine with more fuel. More unrest, more fighting, more reasons why the US 'cannot abandon the people of Iraq on their quest for liberty' of whatever the statement will sound like.

If such an operation is run, considering the risks of exposure involved (they are a lot higher than the risk would be if you don't run such an operation) it would be a clear indication that the US require such violent incidents to execute their strategy. How can violent resistance than be good for the enemies of the US?

redstar2000

22nd June 2005, 14:52

Originally posted by pingwin
I understand the peaceful departure of US troops will only occur after a certain level of stability has been achieved. As redstar2000 would put it, after colonization is completed. I totally agree the situation where US troops withdraw and an Iraqi elected government is in place will be seriously influenced by US funding of political parties and more stuff like that. It's not a desirable situation. But that is if you'd consider that to be the final situation.

If you'd consider it a possible point of departure for a next step, I think it is a better alternative than what the resistance is doing now.

Once the United States really gets its hooks into another country, it is extraordinarily difficult to get them out and keep them out. What you are really suggesting is that the Iraqis accept American hegemony for at least another three decades or more...only to go through again what they are already going through now.

Only then, the Americans will have permanent military bases there as well as in surrounding countries.

And what will those next 30 or more years be like? Look at Iraq's history under the British (1920-1958). Or look at some of the American neo-colonies in Central or South America now.

Or look at "Saudi" Arabia!!!

(Note that Severian evidently thinks that trade unions will flourish under the American quisling regime in Iraq...that's his excuse for supporting it. We've all seen how well trade unions have done in other American-sponsored regimes, haven't we?)

The low level violence is pointless and hurts Iraqi interests more than US interests.

Not if the primary interest at this point is driving the United States and its lackeys out of Iraq before they have a chance to "settle in for the long haul".

From a military perspective its all completely harmless, not even scratching the paint on the US warmachine.

The resistance has, in my view, heavily damaged the morale of American mercenaries. Many of those soldiers did not sign up out of a belief in the "glorious Empire"...they did it for the money.

Historically, mercenaries are prone to "giving up on a bad job" much more quickly than those motivated by patriotism.

Politically it provides the US with an excuse not to hand down power or leave. The place is a mess with carbombs and all and the US cannot leave it like that.

Why not? The U.S. left Somalia "like that" and even worse.

Of course, there is the oil...

The terror attacks actually do destabilize the country. There is no positive effect to be discovered in acts like blowing up lines of people applying for jobs with the local police.

Have a soft spot for cops, do you?

I don't.

Neither does the resistance.

...the US isn't going to roll over due to some leftwing-peaceloving-treehugging-hippies.

Starting to reveal your real politics now?

Charming.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

xnj

22nd June 2005, 15:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 08:34 AM
I understand the peacefull departure of US troops will only occur after a certain level of stability has been achieved. As redstar2000 would put it, after colonization is completed. I totally agree the situation where US troops withdraw and an Iraqi elected gouverment is in place will be seriously influenced by US funding of political parties and more stuff like that. It's not a desireable situation. But that is if you'd consider that to be the final situation.
pingwin, so you support the US colonization of Iraq? Because that's exactly what you're arguing for, for the Iraqi people to roll over and accept the rape of their country.

As for the topic of targeting police stations and the moral imperialism of the western Left, Stan Goff wrote a commentary on his blog that goes right to the heart of the matter:

Moral Imperialism

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why it is more offensive for a national guerrilla resistance to send a suicide bomber on a mission to target a collaborator police station, where the attack kills two civilians in its execution, than for a $500 billion a year imperial military warplane to reduce entire city blocks with uranium munitions and calls everyone who is killed or wounded “terrorists,” or “insurgents.”

And if anyone wants to know who is targeting mosques, and so on, the first place to look is at Rumsfeld’s special P2OG outfit, and to the Badr militias - who are aiming to become Uncle Sam’s surrogate death squads. The Badr militias, by the way, hang out with precisely the same people as the vaunted IFTU.

Were this kind of hypocrisy not maddening enough, there is an equally twisted construction that determines the legitimacy of an attack by a series of ideological litmus tests. What is the resistance’s position on burkhas? We should be asking what is the occupier’s position on pornography? Talk about taking the beam out of one’s own eye…

There is so much plain western racism tucked away in this bullshit - carefully concealed under expressions of deep concern, of course - but this is White Man’s Burden, and there is no escaping it. WE are the enlightened ones who will teach civilization - even ‘progressive’ civilization - to those poor, dusky, benighted beings.

...

Semantic Affinity

This brings me to the subject of semantic affinity. Ever since it has become apparent that (1) the Iraqi resistance need only survive to win, and (2) that political Islam - not a more secular political from - has become its opposite, from its origins as a tool of imerialism against Arab nationalism, to its current and irrefutably anti-imperialist form, people on the western left have choked.

They want imperialism to die at the hands of Robin Hood… I suppose because that makes a better docu-drama. This is the same reason western leftists have been so enchanted by the utterly symbolic shenanigans of the Zapatistas (I’ll get some hate mail on that one, I’m sure).

The Iraqi resistance now, and the growing political resistance throughout the region, will not sell florid little dolls or organic coffee in your local anarcho-head-shop.

Western progressives have been so chagrined by this development that they have taken to calling the resistance Islamo-facsist and the like (just as some will criticize the IFTU as Stalinist - which is not my issue). This kind of rhetorical shorthand is worse than meaningless; it substitutes purely symbolic thinking for criticism. Neither term has an ounce of validity. They are just impressionistic epithets, and in the case of “clerical fascism,” “Islamo-fascism,” and so on, they short-circuit the most important task the left may have in the western metropoles with regard to Southwest Asia, and that is studying and understanding the *political* content of political Islam.

And so they grab at outfits like the IFTU, precisely because it articulates a program that sounds secular, and they ignore the fact that the fucking IFTU (read the Iraqi Communist Party) supports the occupation and collaborates with it. But hey, they are called the Iraqi COMMUNIST Party, so they must be doing something right.

There are a couple of big problems with this. One, the armed resistance enjoys popular support and even sympathy among many of the Shia, and the Iraqi Communist Party has opposed it from the beginning. Two, they have no substantial popular base. Even the rank-and-file members of the ICP-controlled IFTU largely abandoned it in the last elections… for Islamist candidates.

A Word on Military Realities

One of the biggest expressions of outrage against the resistance from western leftists was when some component of it assassinated Hadi Salih of the IFTU last January.

There is no way to be delicate about this, and it goes to the heart of what I said about moral imperialism.

A guerilla movement that is trying to liberate its country from a brutal foreign military occupation by the most expensive and lethal conventional military in human history cannot confront that conventional military in conventional military terms. To do so in the name of some asinine sense of fair play would be suicidal and a betrayal of their own cause.

One of the premier tactical necessities for such a guerrilla movement is to deny the occupation military useful, timely intelligence. Given that the Anglo-American occupiers are clueless about most of what’s going on around them and thoroughly incapable of translating these activities into their own congitive frameworks, they must rely on human intelligence inthe form of collaborators. Any and all Iraqis who work in any capacity with the occupation are sources of intelligence to the Americans.

There is one way, and only one way, to effectively “blind” the occupation forces in order to maintain the freedom of maneuver necessary to ccontinue effective guerrilla actions: Target the collaborators.

Any call from any western ‘progressive’ for the resistance to do otherwise is a call for the resistance to stand down. it is tantamount to a demand of surrender, and is therefore synonymous wiht the very demand of the occupying forces themselves.
Read the whole thing here: http://stangoff.com/index.php?p=130

pingwin

22nd June 2005, 15:36

Not if the primary interest at this point is driving the United States and its lackeys out of Iraq before they have a chance to "settle in for the long haul".

yeah, and that brings out another question, how the hell are those resistance fighters going to get the US troops out? In my opinion wars are not won due to greater idealism (nationalistic, religious, something else) but by breaking the other sides will to fight.

The resistance has, in my view, heavily damaged the morale of American mercenaries. Many of those soldiers did not sign up out of a belief in the "glorious Empire"...they did it for the money.

I my view it hasn't. Casualty ratings are too low to have a serious effect on moral. As i stated before, any US or allied division can handle 1% casualties per day for a prolonged period of time and current casualties are not even near 0,1% a day. Not even 0,01%...

Why not? The U.S. left Somalia "like that" and even worse.

true. But with the international condemming of the Iraq operation this situation is a bit trickier from that perspective. The somalia operation was much more low profile.

Have a soft spot for cops, do you?

I don't.

Neither does the resistance

Nice one at not answering the question and turning it into me liking cops.... Fits your style thou...

...the US isn't going to roll over due to some leftwing-peaceloving-treehugging-hippies.

Starting to reveal your real politics now?

Charming.

Make note to self, do not use irony on the revolutionaryleft.com boards, it will be lost completely....

xnj

22nd June 2005, 15:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:36 PM
I my view it hasn't. Casualty ratings are too low to have a serious effect on moral. As i stated before, any US or allied division can handle 1% casualties per day for a prolonged period of time and current casualties are not even near 0,1% a day. Not even 0,01%...
You're separating the political from the military dimensions of the war. The casualties are already have a very significant effect on American politics and the willingness of the American people to continue the occupation.

A Republican senator from a North Carolina military-base district (the one who invented "freedom fries") announced his support for withdrawal last week. Bipartisan legislation for withdrawal was recently introduced in the House. The release of the Downing Street Memo had a big impact on the liberals, despite the near-total media blackout. Democratic Congressman John Conyers of Michigan presented a petition signed by 100 Democratic office-holders and 500,000 people calling on Bush to address the Memo.

What all of this reflects, especially with the upcoming 2006 elections, is that the mood of the American people is shifting. According to the most recent Gallup poll, the majority of Americans support withdrawing all or some troops from Iraq.

The tide is turning, precisely because occupation forces are dying on a daily basis in Iraq. The only way to make sure no more troops die (and to shut down the US rulers' attempt to colonize the people of Iraq) is to bring all of them home now.

redstar2000

22nd June 2005, 16:59

Originally posted by pingwin
Make note to self, do not use irony on the revolutionaryleft.com boards, it will be lost completely....

Wise advice.

You might also try tags. Or perhaps just put your "ironic" statements in italics.

And, by the way, do you...have a soft spot for cops?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

mo7amEd

22nd June 2005, 17:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 08:01 AM

Which is contrary to every report out of Iraq I have ever seen. And if most communists in Iraq support the resistance, why are the only (nominally) communist groups you ever hear about doing anything on the ground in Iraq, the Communist Party and the Worker-Communist Party? One of which supports the occupation, and the other opposes both the occupation and the resistance.

If in fact there were all these pro-resistance communists, or any, they could found a group which would A) support the resistance and B) do something on the ground in Iraq that gets noticed. C'mon somebody, show it to us. Any of you who's claimed there's a communist or "progressive" component of the resistance, where is it? What has it done?

But hey, some anonymous guy posting on the net from Uppsala, Sweden says the opposite, so of course we're all going to believe him. As long as he's telling us what we want to hear.

This is the net. Who you claim to be cannot be taken into account. What you claim to have seen cannot be taken into account....perhaps a little after people get to know you. But basically, none of that reverse ad hominem stuff. Only facts and sources.
Well the things about the resistence that ive said are only my OPINION.

about communists supporting the resistance, that i have read in a article that is published by a swedish workers newspaper (coz mostly i read in swedish). the site is http://www.arbetarmakt.com, and you dont understand any swedish therefore i cannot convince u at all. but i know what i read and hear.

EDITED:
this is the site (even though it doesnt matter): http://www.arbetarmakt.com/texter/0406/irak.php

d-e-f-i-a-n-c-e

22nd June 2005, 17:07

the americans are a bunch of fat lazy imperialists...they need to get them out of iraq..and ever other country they have bases in...what right do they have to build bases all over the place?...i hate the american government...i have no idea..what kind of stupid idiots would get mass murderers like bush into office..

Severian

22nd June 2005, 21:36

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 22 2005, 04:48 AM
I happen to believe much of the sectarian hatred are in fact 'false flag' operations
Also, the moon landing photos are fake and the "alien autopsy" movie is real.

A perfect example of the Napoleonic war and how the Rothschild’s funded both sides of the war, and initiated conflict for their pleasure.

Yup, the Jews are behind everything. And here I thought the Napoleonic wars resulted from a clash of class and national interests, especially the rising system of capitalism vs feudalism and the old monarchies. Nope, the whole thing was engineered by Jews.

Muslims never blow up their own houses of worship.

Every heard of the sectarian bombings in Pakistan? Ever heard of the Wahhabi sack of Najaf, centuries before the Brits first set foot in Iraq? Ever hear about Saddam's massacres of Shi'a and Kurds?

And the Wahhabi simply do not consider Shi'a to be Muslims. It's not "their own houses of worship", it's pagan shrines to them.

No, your conspiracy theory is not possible, for the simple reason that it would be leaked. Bush can't even fart without somebody leaking it.

Also it ignores the social reality of the deep Shi'a-Sunni sectarian (and Arab-Kurd national) division in Iraq and elsewhere.

Severian

22nd June 2005, 21:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 10:03 AM

Well the things about the resistence that ive said are only my OPINION.
Sure. And you have a right to it, and to argue for it the same as everybody else.

What annoys me, is when everyone else starts fawning over somebody, oh he's from the country, he must speak for its whole population, or Iraqi communists or something. Actually we had another guy posting recently who said he was an Iraqi exile communist, arguing for the continuation of the occupation. Probably more typical than your viewpoint, but nobody took him as the spokesman for anything, because he wasn't saying what anybody on this board wants to hear.

A while back we had some guy from Saudi Arabia post claiming to be from Nepal - and in Nepal...Redstar slobbered all over him too. Some people never learn.

mo7amEd

22nd June 2005, 22:17

Originally posted by Severian+Jun 22 2005, 08:53 PM--> (Severian @ Jun 22 2005, 08:53 PM)
[email protected] 22 2005, 10:03 AM

Well the things about the resistence that ive said are only my OPINION.
Sure. And you have a right to it, and to argue for it the same as everybody else.

What annoys me, is when everyone else starts fawning over somebody, oh he's from the country, he must speak for its whole population, or Iraqi communists or something. Actually we had another guy posting recently who said he was an Iraqi exile communist, arguing for the continuation of the occupation. Probably more typical than your viewpoint, but nobody took him as the spokesman for anything, because he wasn't saying what anybody on this board wants to hear.

A while back we had some guy from Saudi Arabia post claiming to be from Nepal - and in Nepal...Redstar slobbered all over him too. Some people never learn. [/b]
i never asked to be spokesman for the whole country, and i dont think i should be considered as one (thats just stupid, not every iraqi has the same opinion) ...

about that exile communist, im not surpriced... both my uncles are for the US occupation, and both lives/lived in sweden, one of them is in iraq working for the Iraqi athority as an expert in political science. but all my relatives IN Iraq are against the occupation (coz theyre living it). this exile communist is nt living in the streets of Iraq to know how that feels, so its easier for him to accept it.

Free Palestine

22nd June 2005, 22:41

What kind of idiotic argument is this? "If it isn't leaked yet it doesn't exist"? Who ever denied that Shi'a-Sunni sectarian divisions existed or suggested Bush himself was orchestrating any clandestine special operations ? I certainly didn't.

Does believing in the possibility of provocateur-style state deceit being directed in Iraq make me a believer in an "international conspiracy"? No, I think it's just a fact that Gladio-style operations have existed in the past and it is a likely possibility considering the war ultimately serve the geo-political ends of social control in the interests of US corporate domination. Cries of "conspiracy" are just attempts by childish idiots like yourself to discredit a rationale belief.

redstar2000

23rd June 2005, 02:11

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)What annoys me, is when everyone else starts fawning over somebody, oh he's from the country, he must speak for its whole population, or Iraqi communists or something...

A while back we had some guy from Saudi Arabia post claiming to be from Nepal - and in Nepal...Redstar slobbered all over him too. Some people never learn.[/b]

What annoys me about Severian is that he is chronically unable to stick to the topic thread...whenever the implications of his position become uncomfortable (or difficult to plausibly defend), he decides a poke at me is in order.

Early in this thread he accused me of being a "guru". Now I am accused of "slobbering on people".

What next?

And why?

Perhaps as a distraction from this...

Severian
In any case, it would be politically difficult to stay if the Baghdad government asked 'em to leave, given all of Washington's rhetoric about democracy and restoring sovereignty to the Iraqi people and so forth.

Which isn't solely rhetoric...

Of course Washington hopes that they will be able to retain military bases in Iraq; gain economic control by U.S. capital; and use Iraq as the beginning of the reorganization of its domination of the region. But it is committed to doing all this within at least the outward forms of bourgeois democracy...

And here ya go again: anybody legal in Iraq must be collaborators. Including the whole workers' movement, and all significant parties calling themselves communist.

Otherwise, Redstar would have to admit the occupation is allowing its opponents to be legal, and to oppose it using legal means. He might have to admit the obvious fact that there is more space for workers to organize under the occupation than under the old regime.

You see, kids, the occupation isn't "really so bad", now is it?

According to Severian, it's a step towards "democracy". And opponents of the occupation are actually "allowed" to oppose it "legally".

Think about that one for a moment! On the one side, "legality". On the other side, somewhere around 200,000 heavily armed soldiers already guilty of documented atrocities.

What makes this especially amusing to contemplate is that the Iraqi quisling government is physically located in the "Green Zone" -- the heavily fortified U.S. base in downtown Baghdad.

This "sovereign government" wouldn't last 10 minutes after an American withdrawal...and some imagine that they are ever going to "politely request the Americans to leave"?

And then we have the matter of what Washington "hopes" to do -- make Iraq a permanent neo-colony. But "only" in the context of the "outward forms" of "bourgeois democracy".

Like, um, Ecuador or Colombia.

A "bright future" that every Iraqi eagerly anticipates...well, every Iraqi quisling, anyway.

Severian's last fortress is the "new space" for workers "to organize". The quisling regime and its American masters are currently preoccupied with "other matters" (a.k.a. the resistance), so we have a bunch of new trade unions in Iraq.

While they all say that they "oppose the occupation"...yet they are sending representatives to meetings in England and the United States asking working people not to support the resistance or demand U.S.-U.K. withdrawal from Iraq. Even more "curious", these tours are actually held under the auspices of the British "Labour" Party leadership and the U.S. State Department.

What interesting "workers' leaders" these people are. Perhaps things would be clearer if they just called themselves the International Brotherhood of Lackeys, Quislings, and Bootlickers.

With a name like that, they'd certainly get a warm welcome at the next AFL-CIO convention.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Hiero

23rd June 2005, 02:47

You pick whats already on the table.

Severian

23rd June 2005, 08:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 03:17 PM

i never asked to be spokesman for the whole country, and i dont think i should be considered as one (thats just stupid, not every iraqi has the same opinion) ....
It's a common thing Americans do, is take some guy as spokesman for "the people" of a country...and maybe not just Americans. Looking back at your first post I think you did in fact play into it.

Thread with the guy I mentioned from an Iraqi CP family. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36764&hl=)

this exile communist is nt living in the streets of Iraq

Neither are you.

but all my relatives IN Iraq are against the occupation (coz theyre living it)

Is that what your earlier statement were based on, your relatives? I can believe that might be true....are they Sunni Arabs or what?

Severian

23rd June 2005, 09:19

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 22 2005, 03:41 PM
Does believing in the possibility of provocateur-style state deceit being directed in Iraq make me a believer in an "international conspiracy"?
Maybe not. But saying that Jewish bankers "initiated" the Napoleonic Wars certainly does indicate a conspiracist worldview, as usual influenced by radical rightist conspiracy theories.

A consequence of thinking everyone against U.S. imperialism is progressive, even ultrarightists, is you start being influenced by ultrarightist ideas.

"Who ever denied that Shi'a-Sunni sectarian divisions existed"

Yet apparently you can't believe that sectarian divisions would lead to intercommunal violence. Apparently Iraq, unlike everywhere else on earth, is immune to this, for no stated reason other than the alleged unity of Islam. You prefer to believe - without evidence - in an elaborate and highly risky "false flag" operation - rather than the obvious truth.

This is psychological denial.

What kind of idiotic argument is this? "If it isn't leaked yet it doesn't exist"?

Bubba, these days every disagreement within the spy agencies and the military rapidly leads to a leak. And I can't think of something more likely to produce divisions and disagreements than carrying out bombings against one's allies. Even one's own troops, "al Qaeda in Iraq" does attack U.S. targets as well as Iraqi civilians.

Just for one example of the numerous leaks, a State Deparment confidential cable on illegal arrests by the Kurdish nationalists in Kirkuk is leaked and appears in the Washington Post within 10 days. (http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5457776.html?SID=k8v6asg0o0c681n1t5l575bbn4) Considering that it takes time to verify the cable is genuine, gather the other information reported in the article, etc., that's amazing speed.

***
Redstar:
No, I'm glad you noticed that passage...I'd be even happier if you would attempt to show that any of those factual assertions were false, rather than fulminating about the supposedly implied support to the occupation.

I'll leave aside the misrepresentations and stuff in quote marks which is not in fact a quote, and just point out a couple of your false statements...

This "sovereign government" wouldn't last 10 minutes after an American withdrawal..

Ridiculous. As I've asked before, how would the Ba'athists overthrow them now that they don't have tanks or helicopter gunships anymore?

While they all say that they "oppose the occupation"...yet they are sending representatives to meetings in England and the United States asking working people not to support the resistance or

In fact, that's only done by the Communist Party of Iraq and its labor federation, which everybody knows support the occupation. If you know of sometime the Worker-Communist Party or unions associated with it have told anyone not to "demand U.S.-U.K. withdrawal from Iraq.", please post specifics. Otherwise, this has to be regarded as yet another of your slanders.

mo7amEd

23rd June 2005, 17:41

Originally posted by Severian+Jun 23 2005, 07:41 AM--> (Severian @ Jun 23 2005, 07:41 AM)
[email protected] 22 2005, 03:17 PM

i never asked to be spokesman for the whole country, and i dont think i should be considered as one (thats just stupid, not every iraqi has the same opinion) ....
It's a common thing Americans do, is take some guy as spokesman for "the people" of a country...and maybe not just Americans. Looking back at your first post I think you did in fact play into it. [/b]
i havent even read the thread, i just posted my views, whatever u think it seems like...

Neither are you.

Yes i kno...

Is that what your earlier statement were based on, your relatives? I can believe that might be true....are they Sunni Arabs or what?

That really does matter for you, please make me a favor (if u dare) and visit Iraq, and go please ask them what they ARE, if they are sunnis or shiites, as my father always says, I'm MUSLIM! In Iraq its traditionally to just say there is no difference between sunnis or shiites, they all are Iraqis. But if it really matters for you, then yes they are sunnis, but they are not ARAB sunnis, they are from an ethnic group called 'Shabak', they live in the city of Mosul and outside it. THis group had it really diffucult during the Arabization campaign by Saddam, they (as Syranians, Turkomans and Yezidis) was forced to either choose to be arabs or kurds.

Anyhow, according to u they are against the occupation becoz they are sunnis. therefore i can tell u my grandmother is shiite and her relatives are also against the occupation. All my shiite friends are against the occupation.

u would be REALLY stupid if ud say that the shiite are for the occupation, or that they have it better after Saddams fall.

btw, who the f*ck made u an expert of Iraq?
please post the sites u get ur information from...

and im going to check that thread out

mo7amEd

23rd June 2005, 18:01

i just read the entire thread from that "exile communisit", he was not even communist dude, he just said that his father was a former member of the CP of Iraq, the party that betrayed all the workers in iraq... gotta thank him or something man

Severian

24th June 2005, 09:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 10:41 AM
and go please ask them what they ARE, if they are sunnis or shiites, as my father always says, I'm MUSLIM! In Iraq its traditionally to just say there is no difference between sunnis or shiites, they all are Iraqis.
Yes, I know many Iraqis say that. Many people in the U.S. say it doesn't matter if you're white, Black, or whatever, we're all Americans. So what? Actions speak louder than words. The social division is real, and cannot be ended by ignoring it.

But if it really matters for you, then yes they are sunnis, but they are not ARAB sunnis, they are from an ethnic group called 'Shabak', they live in the city of Mosul and outside it. THis group had it really diffucult during the Arabization campaign by Saddam, they (as Syranians, Turkomans and Yezidis) was forced to either choose to be arabs or kurds.

And presumably if they chose Kurd they were persecuted as Kurds.

See, things suddenly make more sense the more concrete details there are. Put together Mosul and your hostility to Kurdish nationalism....of course the main political dividing lines in that area are around whether it will become part of the Kurdish autonomous region, and the Kurdish nationalists' efforts to reverse the effects of the Arabization, including taking back homes and farms. Tends to become Kurds vs everyone else, certainly Kurds vs Arabs of all sects.

And it sure looks like the smaller nationalities have been screwed by both sides.

u would be REALLY stupid if ud say that the shiite are for the occupation, or that they have it better after Saddams fall.

But of course I haven't said either of those things.

I do say most Shi'a hate the Ba'ath-Wahhabi resistance, just as it hates and massacres them.

btw, who the f*ck made u an expert of Iraq?
please post the sites u get ur information from...

I'm not an expert on anything, or special in any way. I argue on the same basis I expect everyone else to.

I've already given more links to sources in this thread, and the other threads I've linked, than anyone else has. I doubt you've read all of them.

i just read the entire thread from that "exile communisit", he was not even communist dude, he just said that his father was a former member of the CP of Iraq, the party that betrayed all the workers in iraq.

Betrayed, yes, by supporting the Ba'ath government at one time, as well as the occupation regime now. Now you say some Iraqis who...consider themselves communist...are supporting the Ba'athists again.

The Iraqi CP policy at least has the advantage they're selling out as an organized group, and getting a few crumbs in return. The policy you advocate is just as class collaborationist, just as class treacherous, but doesn't even have that advantage.

Severian

24th June 2005, 09:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 08:55 AM
The casualties are already have a very significant effect on American politics and the willingness of the American people to continue the occupation.
...
According to the most recent Gallup poll, the majority of Americans support withdrawing all or some troops from Iraq.
....
The tide is turning, precisely because occupation forces are dying on a daily basis in Iraq. The only way to make sure no more troops die (and to shut down the US rulers' attempt to colonize the people of Iraq) is to bring all of them home now.
Good points some of that. But "the majority of Americans support withdrawing all or some troops from Iraq."? Withdrawing some troops is not even clearly demarcated from the Bush administration position.

In order to force a withdrawal, a large majority for getting out would have to be expressed through sustained mass antiwar action and/or intensification of other aspects of the class struggle. That's what it took during the Vietnam War. And the second half would probably be even more important today.

And to produce that, it took a much higher rate of casualties than what's currently being inflicted in Iraq.

This is not going to be like Somalia. Not only -is Iraq of far more economic and strategic value, but there's been another shift in U.S. policy.

As Cheney expressed it: "Terrorists were at war with our country long before 2001. And for many years, they were the ones on the offensive. They grew bolder in their belief that if they killed Americans, they could change American policy. In Beirut in 1983, terrorists killed 241 of our service members. Thereafter, U.S. forces withdrew from Beirut. In Mogadishu in 1993, terrorists killed 19 American soldiers. Thereafter, U.S. forces withdrew from Somalia. The decade of the '90s saw many more attacks:"
transcript (http://www.israel.usembassy.gov/publish/press/2004/january/011603.html)

Note that this is not a mere partisan dig at Democratic girly-men - Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon is also condemned as contributing to the "belief that if they killed Americans, they could change American policy." Cheney is expressing a policy change.

Washington has a rep to maintain globally; they will not cut their losses willingly; the level of opposition must be sufficient to force a withdrawal.

(Other xnj post -Stan Goff article)

One of the biggest expressions of outrage against the resistance from western leftists was when some component of it assassinated Hadi Salih of the IFTU last January.
...
Any and all Iraqis who work in any capacity with the occupation are sources of intelligence to the Americans.

There is one way, and only one way, to effectively “blind” the occupation forces in order to maintain the freedom of maneuver necessary to ccontinue effective guerrilla actions: Target the collaborators.

The reference to "sources of intelligence" is fairly specious; no evidence is provided that Salih was an informer; for that matter he was not on the occupation's payroll, and did he have any special information on the resistance to give anyway?

But it's true that armed independence and anti-occupation movements typically carry out mass terror against collaborators - of all kinds, not just informers.

But think for a moment about what that means in a context where most of the population does things identified as collaboration...which even includes voting.

It means a campaign of terrorism against most of Iraq' population, including the most of the working class and all the workers' organizations....precisely what we've seen from 'al Qaeda in Iraq'.

And Goff's given it his seal of approval.

Free Palestine

24th June 2005, 10:19

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)You prefer to believe - without evidence - in an elaborate and highly risky "false flag" operation - rather than the obvious truth...This is psychological denial.
[/b]

There is undoubtedly some settling of scores going on but the majority of Sunni-Shi'ite violence is the work of provocateurs who are trying to start a civil war in Iraq. The fact that Iraqi politicians on both sides are not taking the bait is an indication that the nature of the Sunni-Shi'ites provocation is understood in Iraq. Thank heavens they're much smarter than you are.

Severian
Here's the report Bet you haven't seen it yourself, just the quote on some blog. Note it focuses on Sunni support to the resistance and Shi'a "ambivalence". As for the Kurds, they strongly support the occupation, probably in large part 'cause they ain't under it.

Sunni prominence in the resistance still does not prove your pitifully lame hypothesis that the Sunnis are fighting, not to oust the Americans, but to restore Baathist power over Iraq. The most active fighters in the resistance may very well be Sunni but to argue they are only motivated by a dissatisfaction with their sudden loss of privilege is an entirely unsubstantiated lie which denigrates both the resistance and the Sunni community's reasons for feeling alienated (of which there are many, and many of them very valid). "Loss of privilege" is not the issue. The sad fact of the matter is when you break international law and start an entirely unprovoked war on another sovereign country based on a platform of deceptions and outright lies, and then engage in a brutal occupation, massacring and torturing innocent civilians, the entire country will not greet you as 'noble liberators' but exactly what they are: brutal occupiers, and the whole country of Iraq wants them out, now.

redstar2000

24th June 2005, 15:35

Originally posted by redstar2000
The resistance has, in my view, heavily damaged the morale of American mercenaries.

Since my statement was disputed, it was nice to come across some confirmation...

Yesterday I talked with a 2nd Lt and West Point grad who has just come back from Iraq. He says flat out that the war is lost, that "we" only control territory when the troops are there in massive numbers and that "they" take over as soon as the troops leave, that the army is over-extended and morale is terrible -- drug use is escalating -- that there still isn't enough armor, that the Iraqi army and police are worse than useless, and that senior officers are convinced that it is Vietnam redux. One of his classmates a 23-year old was killed last week -- for nothing. There are signs that this story is belatedly beginning to sink in across the country, but he, and I, fear that it is too late.

http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/abizaid-co...easure-2nd.html (http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/abizaid-cost-in-blood-and-treasure-2nd.html)

Another angle just occurred to me. If the resistance wins and the Americans are compelled to withdraw, the outcome of "civil war" would be enormously beneficial to the Kurds. A weak or nonexistent government in Baghdad would be unable to exert any authority at all in northern Iraq...making the Kurds independent in fact if not in law.

It would therefore be advantageous for the Kurds to covertly support the resistance even while publicly reassuring the Americans of their "eternal friendship".

Damn, this stuff is tricky! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

OleMarxco

24th June 2005, 16:08

Ach. Y'see, here, this "resistance" is double-faced. While we ENJOY any resistance to the greater evil, the "resistance" is also just as reactionary as the one of US, just less powerful and less "democratic" (perhaps more honest in it's despotism, it doesn't lie and covet and try to mascerade up it's efforts to be a totalarian state trough an skin-deep threading illusion of people's power...and not far from as religious) so the lesser evil is still an evil! After they have crushed the Americans, someone should crush them to and start a struggle for leftist-society at once ;)

Phalanx

24th June 2005, 20:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:35 PM
It would therefore be advantageous for the Kurds to covertly support the resistance even while publicly reassuring the Americans of their "eternal friendship".

Damn, this stuff is tricky! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Supposedly Israel helps out the Kurdish peshmerga. That said, the resource was Seymour Hersh, whom I don't think has the most accurate articles.

Severian

24th June 2005, 21:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 08:35 AM
Another angle just occurred to me. If the resistance wins and the Americans are compelled to withdraw, the outcome of "civil war" would be enormously beneficial to the Kurds. A weak or nonexistent government in Baghdad would be unable to exert any authority at all in northern Iraq...making the Kurds independent in fact if not in law.
Right. The Kudish peshmerga are currently the most effective Iraqi military force. The only problem with this scenario is Turkish intervention.

Nevertheless, the Kurds are supporting the occupation - with bullets as well as ballots - in order to 1) stay on Washington's good side and win its approval for maximum autonomy or, they may mistakenly hope, conceivably even independence and 2) to achieve de facto control by peshmerga of Kirkuk, Mosul, etc.

It would therefore be advantageous for the Kurds to covertly support the resistance even while publicly reassuring the Americans of their "eternal friendship".

Except for the little problem of getting caught.

He says flat out that the war is lost, that "we" only control territory when the troops are there in massive numbers and that "they" take over as soon as the troops leave, that the army is over-extended and morale is terrible -- drug use is escalating --

This is known as anecdotal evidence.

It's also necessary to define terms - the everyday meaning of bad morale would be, the troops aren't happy, many don't believe in the war. There's a poll Stars and Stripes poll did at one point, which gives considerable evidence for this.

The other meaning would be, a loss of fighting spirit which interferes with combat effectiveness. There's little evidence for this, and it's not something likely to happen unless the casualty rate gets a lot higher.

Washington does have a recruitment problem. How severe it is remains to be seen.

Severian

25th June 2005, 08:38

Lemme just post, or repost, some factual material to help give some basis to this discussion.

Sunni Arab sheiks publicly call for war against Shi'a and Kurds. (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/03/27/fractured_iraq_sees_a_sunni_call_to_arms/) 'The Americans aren't the problem; we're living under an occupation of Kurds and Shi'ites," Sattar Abdulhalik Adburahman, a Sunni leader from the northern city of Kirkuk, told a gathering of tribal leaders last week, to deafening applause. ''It's time to fight back."
That's the social base of the resistance speaking.

April 2004 USA Today poll of Iraqis. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm)

Click the links to the right - day 1, day 2, etc. for detailed results.

Newsweek report on "Coalition" poll of Iraqis. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newsweek/) You can get pie graphs by clicking on the "full results".

The second is from shortly after the first attack on Falluja, the Sadrist uprising, and the release of the Abu Ghraib photos.

I haven't seen any detailed poll results from more recently. It may have become harder to do them. If anyone else has, that'd be very useful.

Free Palestine

25th June 2005, 20:56

The US doesn't want to admit that it helped fire up sectarian and ethnic hatred in Iraq, and doesn't want the public here to think that Sunni Arab Iraqis aren't as "pro-government" as the other groups the US helped put in power. When Iraq was first occupied, the US had an anti-Ba'athist stance towards allowing people to join the provisional government. They either didn't understand or didn't care that almost all the capable technocrats in Iraqi society were practically forced to join Hizb ul-Ba'ath during the Saddam era in order to work. To be a Sunni during that era either meant you were in Saddam's party, or you were a "practicing" Sunni and thus forced underground. Now with Saddam out of the picture, allegiance to the Ba'ath party doesn't hold as much signifigance as it did before and non-Ba'athist, non-secular Sunnis are now "free to emerge" so the Americans would have us believe.

Unfortunately now that they've all been effectively locked out of having any posts in the government, they don't have access to the largest employment sector in the land. Additionally they are subject to revenge attacks by the new, largely Shi'i Iraqi security and police forces who feel that they have been kept down by the Sunnis under Saddam. Where does this leave the average kid on the block? With a desire to get back at the Americans who made a situation that probably wasn't great to begin with worse, and to get back at the police he sees as corrupt collaborators.

Xiao Banfa

25th June 2005, 23:41

The Iraqi resistance doubtlessly has courageous and mercyful comrades in it's ranks. In fact it's certain. I'm sure you have nationalist arab brothers who wouldn't butcher their own people. Zarqawi is a fucking thug who deserves no support from anyone, least of all socialists. Civilians will die in the crossfire in any insurgency but what kind of disturbed bastard ceaselessy targets the civilian population of his support base- read some fucking Mao, Zarqawi you dickhead.
The politics is not the problem- the insurgents should choose their ideology.
The resistance deserves support unless it's racist which it doesn't have to be and largely isn't. Sovereignty is vital, so is teaching the Americans (again) that you dont invade a country which isn't behaving agressively towards you.
You can't play geopolitical rearanging for profit without getting your fucking arse mangled.

mo7amEd

28th June 2005, 00:54

Originally posted by Severian+Jun 24 2005, 08:26 AM--> (Severian @ Jun 24 2005, 08:26 AM)
[email protected] 23 2005, 10:41 AM
and go please ask them what they ARE,

if they are sunnis or shiites, as my father always says, I'm MUSLIM! In Iraq

its traditionally to just say there is no difference between sunnis or

shiites, they all are Iraqis.
Yes, I know many Iraqis say that. Many people in the U.S. say it doesn't

matter if you're white, Black, or whatever, we're all Americans. So what?

Actions speak louder than words. The social division is real, and cannot be

ended by ignoring it.
tage. [/b]
lets ask how many blacks whos PROUD of being americans... and there is a
different between the iraqi and american comparison. the blacks of america is
originally from africa, and the whites from europe... the shi'a and the sunni
are both the same people, from the same land, the only difference is that
theyre sunnis and shi'as.
for u the social division is real, but for iraqis that have never been
"real", not even if some sheik would say different.
well if u think there is an social division, when did it then start (the
social division)?

See, things suddenly make more sense the more concrete details there
are. Put together Mosul and your hostility to Kurdish nationalism....of
course the main political dividing lines in that area are around whether it
will become part of the Kurdish autonomous region, and the Kurdish
nationalists' efforts to reverse the effects of the Arabization, including
taking back homes and farms. Tends to become Kurds vs everyone else,
certainly Kurds vs Arabs of all sects.
And it sure looks like the smaller nationalities have been screwed by both
sides.

your hostility to Kurdish nationalism....
First of all, i would like to know what u mean with my hostility to Kurdish
nationalism. u have no clue what views i have about kurds or kurdistan...
then i must explain that Mosul (or Nineveh ) will never be a part of the
Kurdish autonomous region, coz the population of the area are mostly arabs.
and there is many different ethnic groups in that area that would not accept
an kurdish ruling.

I do say most Shi'a hate the Ba'ath-Wahhabi resistance, just as it
hates and massacres them.
well the poor shi'a has their own resistance, Sadrs mahdi army...

anyhow, to say that the resistance is baathist or wahhabi is just wrong, coz
the baathists do not controll the resistance. and the only wahhabi
"resistance" is the one that is called terrorism, those who cut the head of
people, who blow up that UN house, and blow up that mosque that killed over
200 shi'a n so on. those are just a few foreign insurgents with their leader
Zarqawi. as i said before and as i think is, the resistance mostly contain
poor avarage iraqi people that are fed up with the occupation.

I'm not an expert on anything, or special in any way. I argue on the
same basis I expect everyone else to.
I've already given more links to sources in this thread, and the other
threads I've linked, than anyone else has. I doubt you've read all of
them.
no i havent, i havent read the entire thread... maybe ill check out some
then. but i still think ur views are twisted.

Betrayed, yes, by supporting the Ba'ath government at one time, as well as
the occupation regime now. Now you say some Iraqis who...consider themselves
communist...are supporting the Ba'athists again.

when did i say that some iraqis that call themselves communists supports baatists again?

The Iraqi C policy at least has the advantage they're selling out as an
organized group, and getting a few crumbs in return. The policy you advocate
is just as class collaborationist, just as class treacherous, but doesn't
even have that advantage

explain that please... how is it class teacherous n so on..?

Severian

28th June 2005, 02:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 05:54 PM

lets ask how many blacks whos PROUD of being americans...
A lot, but I'm not sure what your point is.

and there is a different between the iraqi and american comparison. the blacks of america is originally from africa, and the whites from europe... the shi'a and the sunni are both the same people, from the same land, the only difference is that theyre sunnis and shi'as.

So? More importantly, one is a difference of nationality - so is the Arab-Kurd division - and the other is a religious-sectarian division. Why this matters for the purpose at hand, you don't explain.

for u the social division is real, but for iraqis that have never been "real", not even if some sheik would say different. well if u think there is an social division, when did it then start (the social division)?

See, there's this thing called objective material reality, independent of what anyone subjectively thinks is real. I don't know exactly how old it is; to some extent probably as old as the religious schism; to some extent dating back to the 1920s when the Brits gave power to the Sunni sheiks to counter the mostly Shi'a-backed rebellion. Regardless, it's there now.

First of all, i would like to know what u mean with my hostility to Kurdish
nationalism. u have no clue what views i have about kurds or kurdistan...

From your first post, "the kurdish parties (which is practicully buying and soon ruling my countries),". And you express a little more here:

Then i must explain that Mosul (or Nineveh ) will never be a part of the Kurdish autonomous region, coz the population of the area are mostly arabs.

Thanks in part to Ba'athist Arabization. The Kurdish population is not inclined to accept that as permanent. "Will never"? We'll see.

well the poor shi'a has their own resistance, Sadrs mahdi army...

No longer fighting the U.S., some of them participated in the elections, which the Ba'athist-Sunni Islamist resistance considers a reason for killing someone, etc. On election day the "resistance" shelled a polling station in Sadr City.

The Mahdi Army really tried to achieve some unity with the Ba'athists and Wahhabi, but how do you unite with people who want only to slaughter you and force you back into subjection?

www.opendemocracy.net/content/articles/PDF/1852.pdf+Iraq+insurgents+unite&hl=en]An (http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:4I4v0W55W3YJ:[url) analysis which correctly predicted that brief Sunni-Shi'a unity couldn't last,[/url] and explains the goals of the Ba'athist and Sunni Islamist insurgents.

anyhow, to say that the resistance is baathist or wahhabi is just wrong, coz
the baathists do not controll the resistance. and the only wahhabi
"resistance" is the one that is called terrorism, those who cut the head of
people, who blow up that UN house, and blow up that mosque that killed over
200 shi'a n so on. those are just a few foreign insurgents with their leader
Zarqawi.

In fact, Iraqis are also serving as suicide bombers for "al Qaeda in Iraq". Like this guy for example. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1077288,00.html) Just 'cause Zarqawi's Jordanian, not all of his followers are. That same group conducts many of the most daring and spectacular attacks on military and police targets.

as i said before and as i think is, the resistance mostly contain poor avarage iraqi people that are fed up with the occupation.

That may be. But they're not in charge. Nobody is in a position of leadership who will put a stop to, or even strongly dissociate themselves from, the terrorists.

he U.S. army is mostly composed of working people too. Its the class interests served by the institution, the armed organization, you have to look at.

explain that please... how is it class teacherous n so on..?

The emancipation of the working class can only be the act of the workers ourselves. If we ally with other forces for some common goal, we have to retain our political independence, to make sure our own goals, our class interests, are served in the alliance. We can't trust other class forces to look out for workers' interests. The alliance, like anything else communists do, has to advance the class consciousness and organization of the working class.

The resistance is led by capitalist forces, which are bitterly hostile to the workers' movement and have plenty of our brothers' and sisters' blood on their hands. They are seeking to deepen nationalist and religious-sectarian divisions. They are enemies of the working class just as certainly as the U.S. occupation is. From a class perspective supporting them is just as treacherous as supporting the U.S. occupation.

mo7amEd

5th July 2005, 20:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 01:23 AM
A lot, but I'm not sure what your point is.
that its not the same, coz iraqis are iraqis whatever they belive in, they are the same people. black americans are originally from africa, and the white are originally from europe... both are americans yes, but from the beginning they are not the same people, get it ?

when i say iraqis are iraqis then i do not include kurds. if u'd ask y, its becoz ask any kurd what he is, he/she will never say hes/shes iraqi.

So? More importantly, one is a difference of nationality - so is the Arab-Kurd division - and the other is a religious-sectarian division. Why this matters for the purpose at hand, you don't explain.

i think ive explained that above...

See, there's this thing called objective material reality, independent of what anyone subjectively thinks is real. I don't know exactly how old it is; to some extent probably as old as the religious schism; to some extent dating back to the 1920s when the Brits gave power to the Sunni sheiks to counter the mostly Shi'a-backed rebellion. Regardless, it's there now.

exactly what do u mean with division? u mean like sworn enemies like protestants and catolics in Ireland or what? what im saying is that iraqis have a mentality to see themselves first of all being iraqis, then sunni or shia... but if i understand u, then u mean that this division is so serious that u should split sunnis and shia into two countries or something.

From your first post, "the kurdish parties (which is practicully buying and soon ruling my countries),". And you express a little more here:

what does that have to do with me having hostility to Kurdish nationalism. if u see them as representing kurds them im hostile to iraqi nationalism too...

Then i must explain that Mosul (or Nineveh ) will never be a part of the Kurdish autonomous region, coz the population of the area are mostly arabs.

Thanks in part to Ba'athist Arabization. The Kurdish population is not inclined to accept that as permanent. "Will never"? We'll see.

Thanks in part to the Ba'athist Arabization? man, wtf? what exactly are u saying? that mosul should be kurdish? lissen get this, the main reason that kurds are living in mosul is becoz they moved from arbil, duhook or other cities for work. and this area (Nineveh) has alot of different ethnic groups, but the arabs are majority, and even if they werent, people in mosul consider themselves as iraqis and not kurds.
and do not say that there is kurdish villages outside mosul, becoz yes there is but most of the villages are yazidi or shabak villages.

and still im not hostile against kurds if i say that nineveh will never be kurdish. that is like saying the place u live in is going to belong to sweden and if u say that it wont then ur hostile against swedes.

No longer fighting the U.S., some of them participated in the elections, which the Ba'athist-Sunni Islamist resistance considers a reason for killing someone, etc. On election day the "resistance" shelled a polling station in Sadr City.

The Mahdi Army really tried to achieve some unity with the Ba'athists and Wahhabi, but how do you unite with people who want only to slaughter you and force you back into subjection?

www.opendemocracy.net/content/articles/PDF/1852.pdf+Iraq+insurgents+unite&hl=en]An (http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:4I4v0W55W3YJ:[url) analysis which correctly predicted that brief Sunni-Shi'a unity couldn't last,[/url] and explains the goals of the Ba'athist and Sunni Islamist insurgents.

First of all, they were fighting the americans, second of all, they are still against the occupation. its not like they accept it now, its just that they think they can affect more by participating on the election. they proberly though americans would leave or something (as by the way the most iraqis belived, and thats y they voted).

http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/voi...awadkhalisi.htm (http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/voices/jawadkhalisi.htm)
read this and u will understand the "division" of iraqis, i got u a shia dude, coz sunnis are not good enough for u...

btw, u can read about the resistance here too:
http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/Ira...cfm?Subtopic=14 (http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/IraqCrisis.cfm?Subtopic=14)
that one above was published here too...

In fact, Iraqis are also serving as suicide bombers for "al Qaeda in Iraq". Like this guy for example. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1077288,00.html) Just 'cause Zarqawi's Jordanian, not all of his followers are. That same group conducts many of the most daring and spectacular attacks on military and police targets.

and with that ur saying...?

That may be. But they're not in charge. Nobody is in a position of leadership who will put a stop to, or even strongly dissociate themselves from, the terrorists.

he U.S. army is mostly composed of working people too. Its the class interests served by the institution, the armed organization, you have to look at.

Ur saying they will be in charge if u support the occupation? those who run the biggst resistance may be capitalists (as i said may be) but they are not terrorists.

The emancipation of the working class can only be the act of the workers ourselves. If we ally with other forces for some common goal, we have to retain our political independence, to make sure our own goals, our class interests, are served in the alliance. We can't trust other class forces to look out for workers' interests. The alliance, like anything else communists do, has to advance the class consciousness and organization of the working class.

The resistance is led by capitalist forces, which are bitterly hostile to the workers' movement and have plenty of our brothers' and sisters' blood on their hands. They are seeking to deepen nationalist and religious-sectarian divisions. They are enemies of the working class just as certainly as the U.S. occupation is. From a class perspective supporting them is just as treacherous as supporting the U.S. occupation.

It is not as treacherous as supporting the US occupation, coz u either support iraqi nationalists or american imperilists, which would u rather support? id say the iraqis.

we've been arguing alot without me knowing what ur views are... what do u suggest we should do? support the american imperialists?

id say that the iraqi workers have a bigger change of independence without the americans there...

btw, the iraqi communists were slaughtered by the baathists, and the baathists got alot of help from the CIA to point communists out. did u know that the same day that saddam took power (1979) 600 communists got executed (and that was by help from CIA). my point is that US is atleast as hostile to workers movement as the iraqi islamists.

Severian

5th July 2005, 21:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:51 PM
Thanks in part to the Ba'athist Arabization? man, wtf? what exactly are u saying? that mosul should be kurdish?
I'm saying 1) the Kurds expelled by the Ba'ath regime have the right to return and reclaim their homes and farms and 2) it's reasonable that in seeking an independent and united Kurdistan, that the Kurds want a couple large cities in it...even if they remain majority non-Kurdish. I am of course opposed to the expulsion of non-Kurds.

From Quebec to Kosova, whenever oppressed nations seek their independence, there's usually an attempt to take away part of their territory based on different nationalities present there...the oppressed nation always opposes this attempt to partition it, and understandably so.

http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/voi...awadkhalisi.htm (http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/voices/jawadkhalisi.htm)
read this and u will understand the "division" of iraqis, i got u a shia dude, coz sunnis are not good enough for u...

One individual's opinion, and who knows how much he represents - certainly most of the population didn't listen to that group's call for an election boycott. The article starts out describing a joint Sunni-Shi'a march against the occupation last March. I remember it. And there hasn't been anything like that recently.

In fact, Iraqis are also serving as suicide bombers for "al Qaeda in Iraq". Like this guy for example. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1077288,00.html) Just 'cause Zarqawi's Jordanian, not all of his followers are. That same group conducts many of the most daring and spectacular attacks on military and police targets.
and with that ur saying...?

You said: "those who cut the head of people, who blow up that UN house, and blow up that mosque that killed over 200 shi'a n so on. those are just a few foreign insurgents with their leader Zarqawi." I'm saying that was false.

those who run the biggst resistance may be capitalists (as i said may be) but they are not terrorists.

Evidence? Which groups are you talking about?

coz u either support iraqi nationalists or american imperilists,

I don't agree, as I just explained. I don't accept the "lesser evil" approach, and sometimes the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy.

we've been arguing alot without me knowing what ur views are

U.S. out now. You read the other thread, where I was explained to Noah why I thought so, right?

btw, the iraqi communists were slaughtered by the baathists, and the baathists got alot of help from the CIA to point communists out. did u know that the same day that saddam took power (1979) 600 communists got executed (and that was by help from CIA). my point is that US is atleast as hostile to workers movement as the iraqi islamists.

Yes, I know. How strange, that in arguing for support to the Ba'athist resistance, you bring up their record of bloody anti-working class repression, as well as collaboration with imperialism. Those both seem to me, like excellent reasons not to support them.

bolshevik butcher

5th July 2005, 22:51

I support the iraqi resistance, but not suicide bombings. Targetting civilians is not good.

mo7amEd

6th July 2005, 00:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 08:27 PM
I'm saying 1) the Kurds expelled by the Ba'ath regime have the right to return and reclaim their homes and farms and 2) it's reasonable that in seeking an independent and united Kurdistan, that the Kurds want a couple large cities in it...even if they remain majority non-Kurdish. I am of course opposed to the expulsion of non-Kurds.

From Quebec to Kosova, whenever oppressed nations seek their independence, there's usually an attempt to take away part of their territory based on different nationalities present there...the oppressed nation always opposes this attempt to partition it, and understandably so.

1) yes, they actually did kick out arabs and took back their homes, but in KIRKOOK. now the arabs that have been living there for 14 yrs have no home no more, but they need to blame theirselves for accepting things from the baath regime, right? but that has nothing to do with mosul.
2) i dont get it, so its reasonible to wanting mosul even though its wrong? then ur against explusion or non-Kurds OF COURSE, still im hostile to kurdish nationality? either u think all sunnis are hostile to kurds therefore u predicted that id be the same (even though 70 percent of my friends are kurds) or u just dont know what ur talking about. i think its the first.

One individual's opinion, and who knows how much he represents - certainly most of the population didn't listen to that group's call for an election boycott. The article starts out describing a joint Sunni-Shi'a march against the occupation last March. I remember it. And there hasn't been anything like that recently.

58 percent did vote, and i said becoz they thought the occupation would end, and id say nearly 100 percent of the kurds did vote, therefore that get the percent higher. so id guess 45 of all iraqis did vote.

u say one individual? so what does ur sources represent? some dude gratuated some univerisy in LONDON?!

heres other sources about the resistance:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=15&ItemID=7441 (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7441)
two individuals.... (btw published in green left weekly: http://www.greenleft.org.au/)

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=15&ItemID=7670 (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7670)
three individuals... (published in lefthook, http://www.lefthook.org/)

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=15&ItemID=7985 (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7985)
four individuals.... (he explains the carbombing, and y there would be an division of iraqis at all)

You said: "those who cut the head of people, who blow up that UN house, and blow up that mosque that killed over 200 shi'a n so on. those are just a few foreign insurgents with their leader Zarqawi." I'm saying that was false.

of course he have iraqis with him too, but i said that he DID NOT have any power. and im still saying the terrorist do not have any power.

Evidence? Which groups are you talking about?

im going to link this again:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=15&ItemID=7985 (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7985)

read about "Al-Qaida in Mesopotamia".

coz u either support iraqi nationalists or american imperilists,

I don't agree, as I just explained. I don't accept the "lesser evil" approach, and sometimes the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy.

u can accept what u want, bu the reality is like this: iraqis who wants to rule their own country fights against US imperialists. thats the struggle that is being fought downthere, and therefore i support my people. i do not accept (after all theyve done to us) the presence of US.

U.S. out now. You read the other thread, where I was explained to Noah why I thought so, right?

no but i guess im going to read it now...

Yes, I know. How strange, that in arguing for support to the Ba'athist resistance, you bring up their record of bloody anti-working class repression, as well as collaboration with imperialism. Those both seem to me, like excellen reasons not to support them.

i do not support the baathist resistance, i support the iraqi resistance.

it feels like ur skipping on some of the things. like u dont explain HOW im hostile to kurds. it fells like u chose to argue about only the things u can answer...

enigma2517

6th July 2005, 00:49

Lets avoid overgeneralizations please.

The Iraqi resistance is not completely comprised of only hardline Sunni's and other "Islamo-facists"

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_resistance)

Also, even some of the Sunni's participating that want an Islamic state are still against an overtly totalitarian state. In fact, building a "united democratic Iraq for all" seems to be a much more popular goal. Fundementalist Islamists are not your typical Western politician. If they really wanted a theocracy they would vocalize it. Demonizing those fighting for their country's sovereignty isn't what we should be doing.

A more accurate look at the face of resistance in Iraq. (http://www.albasrah.net/maqalat/english/1204/IPA_031204.htm)

At this point and time I don't think its really thesiable to expect the people of Iraq to form leftist resistance campaign. Let the resistance struggle continue and once the US leaves then a capitalist republic will form, allowing globalization to take place and permitting capital to flow in. Its not the ideal solution but its nevertheless a necessary step and certaintly a better alternative to US imperialism. By the time the world erupts in mass civil unrest and begins to resist capitalism despotism Iraq will be right there with us, ready to fight.

mo7amEd

6th July 2005, 02:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 11:49 PM
Lets avoid overgeneralizations please.

The Iraqi resistance is not completely comprised of only hardline Sunni's and other "Islamo-facists"

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_resistance)

Also, even some of the Sunni's participating that want an Islamic state are still against an overtly totalitarian state. In fact, building a "united democratic Iraq for all" seems to be a much more popular goal. Fundementalist Islamists are not your typical Western politician. If they really wanted a theocracy they would vocalize it. Demonizing those fighting for their country's sovereignty isn't what we should be doing.

A more accurate look at the face of resistance in Iraq. (http://www.albasrah.net/maqalat/english/1204/IPA_031204.htm)

At this point and time I don't think its really thesiable to expect the people of Iraq to form leftist resistance campaign. Let the resistance struggle continue and once the US leaves then a capitalist republic will form, allowing globalization to take place and permitting capital to flow in. Its not the ideal solution but its nevertheless a necessary step and certaintly a better alternative to US imperialism. By the time the world erupts in mass civil unrest and begins to resist capitalism despotism Iraq will be right there with us, ready to fight.
im sorry to say this, but dude DO NOT take ur facts from albasrah.net ... sure i go there to download videos of new attacks against the americans. but thats all i do. i do not know who owns this website but they support the Iraqi Patriot Alliance (i think thats the name, but im not sure), and they support the baathists and want saddam to get back in power.

Severian

6th July 2005, 09:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 05:23 PM
1) yes, they actually did kick out arabs and took back their homes, but in KIRKOOK. now the arabs that have been living there for 14 yrs have no home no more, but they need to blame theirselves for accepting things from the baath regime, right? but that has nothing to do with mosul.
How can that be, unless there was no Arabization in the Mosul area? I find that implausible. In fact you said the Shabak in that area were affected by the Arabization campaign, so you seem to be contradicting yourself.

2) i dont get it, so its reasonible to wanting mosul even though its wrong?
Why is that wrong?

- then ur against explusion or non-Kurds OF COURSE, still im hostile to kurdish nationality?

You said the Kurds were buying up and taking over your country. Now you claim not to be hostile to Kurdish nationalism. Please stop being passive-aggressive. If you say something, you should be able to stand by it.

u say one individual? so what does ur sources represent? some dude gratuated some univerisy in LONDON?!

One guy who correctly predicted the breakup of Shi'a-Sunni unity in the resistance. In science, a theory is confirmed by making correct predictions. To the degree possible, this is a good method in politics too.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=15&ItemID=7670 (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7670)
three individuals... (published in lefthook, http://www.lefthook.org/)

This one actually has some useful info. But it's badly out-of-date info...events since then have run counter to what one might expect from its interpretation. To simplify, bad predictions.

And even in that earlier time: "Looking at deaths and injures in the period examined by the CSIS report, we see that 451 “Coalition Forces” were killed and 1,002 injured, whereas 1,981 civilians were killed and 3,467 injured."

And you're linking all this Zmag stuff, how did you miss the Dahr Jamail article on increasing Sunni-Shi'a conflict, which he calls "state sponsored civil war"? He's a reporter who's actually been to Iraq, and taken risks far beyond what the corporate media reporters do, he went into Falluja, etc.

Evidence? Which groups are you talking about?

im going to link this again:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=15&ItemID=7985 (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7985)

read about "Al-Qaida in Mesopotamia".

No, I'm not asking which groups are terrorist. I'm asking, specifically which resistance groups are against terrorism. Preferably groups which have shown this by their actions. I've been asking that throughout this thread, and nobody seems able to answer.

We're probably having some language-barrier problems. I suppose English is probably your third language, and I don't know Arabic or Swedish.

Severian

6th July 2005, 09:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 05:49 PM
Lets avoid overgeneralizations please.

The Iraqi resistance is not completely comprised of only hardline Sunni's and other "Islamo-facists"

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_resistance)
This is one of the times Wikipedia has a pretty decent article I think.

Notice all the major groups are either Ba'athist or fundamentalist-led. Other nationalists are cannon fodder.

Fundementalist Islamists are not your typical Western politician. If they really wanted a theocracy they would vocalize it.

Yeah, right, the great honesty of medieval-minded mullahs is known to all. Christ.

A more accurate look at the face of resistance in Iraq. (http://www.albasrah.net/maqalat/english/1204/IPA_031204.htm)

Oh Christ, not the Iraqi patriotic alliance again. A Ba'athist propaganda face. Does have the merit of sometimes admitting that in fact the Ba'thists are in charge of the resistance. For example:

LIke their Iraqi resistance summaries, which describe one attack after another as carried out by Ba'ath Batallions, Fedayeen Saddam, and Republican Guard (http://www.albasrah.net/moqawama/english/022004/Summary_iraqiresistance_21-271204.htm)

Or: (http://www.albasrah.net/moqawama/english/resistancereport18-21-122003.htm)Friday, 19 December 2003. Vice-Chairman of the Revolution Command Council of the Iraqi Republic, 'Izzat Ibrahim ad-Duri announced on Friday that he had assumed command of the Arab Socialist Baath Party in Iraq as well as command of
Resistance operations against the occupation after the imprisonment of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The announcement came in a statement that was circulating throughout the so-called Sunni triangle of Iraq.

In this one it acknowledges someone else as leading the resistance in Falluja - Shaykh ‘Abdallah al-Janabi. A super-reactionary Taliban-type, widely believed to be allied with Zarqawi's group. Articles which give some idea of his rule in Falluja: [url=http://csmonitor.com/2004/0712/p01s04-woiq.html]CSM (http://www.albasrah.net/moqawama/english/1104/iraqiresistancereport_161104.htm) UK Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1359782_1,00.html)

And that's a voice of the Iraqi resistance, one inexplicably favored by many posters on this board. It flatly acknowledges what I've been saying all along: the resistance is led by Ba'athists and reactionary Islamists.

Intifada

8th July 2005, 08:14

I have just read some of the posts on this thread and if you find me repeating things then I apologise in advance.

The US-led invasion of Iraq was not about WMDs or bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to the Iraqi people. Nor was it about "fighting terrorism." It was, quite simply, about seizing Iraqi assets and selling them off to the highest bidder.

When Paul Bremer began his tenure as head of the occupation in Iraq, the first major act seen was the firing of 500000 state workers, most of them soldiers, but also doctors, nurses, teachers and publishers etc. Then, Bremer simply opened Iraq up to completely unrestricted imports: no taxes, tariffs, duties or inspections. Iraq was, as he declared two weeks after arriving, "open for business."

A month later, Bremer revealed the centrepiece of his reforms. Before the invasion, Iraq's non-oil-related economy had been dominated by 200 state-owned companies, which produced almost everything. In June 2003, Bremer flew to an economic summit in Jordon, announcing that "getting inefficient state enterprises into private hands is essential to Iraq's economic recovery."

In September of that year, the NeoCon dream to rebuild Iraq, as a laissez-faire utopia, began. To attract foreign investors to the country, Bremer enacted a series of laws that would prove too generous an offer to multinational corporations.

There was Order 37, which duly lowered Iraq's corporate tax rate from around 40% to a flat 15%. Order 39 allowed foreign companies to own 100% of Iraq's assets outside of the natural-resources sector. Moreover, investors could take 100% profits they may make in Iraq out of the country; in other words, they would not be expected nor obliged to reinvest in the country, as well as facing no taxes whatsoever. Under Order 39 foreign investors would be able to sign contracts that would last forty years.

The only thing that remained of Saddam Hussein's economic policies was a law restricting trade unions and collective bargaining.

Iraq, formerly one of the world's most isolated nations, became, at least on paper, the world's widest-open market. Indeed, the Economist described Iraq under Bremer as a "capitalist dream."

However, the "dream" was and still hasn't been realised.

This holdup was caused by more than one reason. It was illegal, completely illegal. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907, along with basic international law, prevented the US and Britain, as occupiers of Iraq, from rewriting the rules so that they could economically strip Iraq. There was a way around this, however. International law says nothing about puppet governments giving the orders.

Bremer decided to use the "interim constitution" that would come in force after the "handover of power" that was planned for the 30th of June 2004. One article (26) that he slipped into this constitution, stated that for the duration of the interim government, "the laws, regulations, orders and directives issued by the CPA... shall remain in force" and could only be altered after general elections.

However, Bremer had to face a powerful obstacle to his plans: The Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, who tried to block Bremer's plans at every chance. The most senior Shi'a cleric in Iraq demanded that proper elections take place, and that a constitution be written afterwards only.

However, on March the 2nd, a bomb conveniently exploded in front of Mosques in Baghdad and Karbala, killing nearly 200 people. The Us Army warned of civil war, and frightened by this prospect, the Shi'a politicians duly backed the interim constitution.

But Iraq was descending into violence and chaos, with the resistance against the occupation forces increasing. The physical risks of doing business in Iraq did not seem worth the potential profits. Many of Bremer's first casualties (the soldiers and workers he had laid off without compensation or pensions) took up arms and joined the resistance. Furthermore, the businessmen whose companies were under threat of privatisation decided to make their own investments... in the resistance. Those businessmen that opposed Bremer's plans were, suspisciously, murdered and replaced with people in favour of privatisation.

In addition to the pain of unemployment, Iraqis did not have to look far to witness the stifling occupation causing yet more suffering for the Iraqi population. The resistance is made up of ordinary working Iraqis who have no work and find it hard to simply put food in the stomachs of their starving kids. The resistance led by Moqtada al Sadr was a good example of how such Iraqis, from the Shi'a slums enlisted in his Mahdi Army to fight the occupation.

People have to realise that the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq is the NeoCon method of trying to build a capitalist utopia in a country that thy have destroyed in the past 15 years or so. The Left must make a choice between this dream being fulfilled or backing a resistance made up of ordinary Iraqis, who are being led by those we dislike ("Lions led by Donkeys" kind of comes to mind).

What would you rather have? An Iraq being dominated and controlled by the West and it's business interests, or an Iraq controlled by Iraqis?

Put yourself in the position of the Iraqi that has no job and no money.

As to the terrible tactics of some sections of the resistance, take into account the words of Tariq Ali: If an occupation is ugly, how can one expect the resistance to be pretty?

The US occupation, we all agree, must come to an end. This will not be done by those in charge of the occupation, it can only be done by the Iraqi people, with pressure from us in the Western world.

Severian

8th July 2005, 14:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 01:14 AM
When Paul Bremer began his tenure as head of the occupation in Iraq, the first major act seen was the firing of 500000 state workers, most of them soldiers, but also doctors, nurses, teachers and publishers etc.
Yes, de-Baathification. A common criticism of liberals who feel they could have handled the occupation better than Bush has, is that the old army should have been retained.

Would you, however, like the occupation better if it was using Saddam Hussein's old army to put down rebellion? (Possibly rebellions by the Shi'a and Kurdish populations instead of the present resistance, if Sunni Arab supremacy had been retained and used by the occupation.)

Then, Bremer simply opened Iraq up to completely unrestricted imports: no taxes, tariffs, duties or inspections. Iraq was, as he declared two weeks after arriving, "open for business."

A month later, Bremer revealed the centrepiece of his reforms. Before the invasion, Iraq's non-oil-related economy had been dominated by 200 state-owned companies, which produced almost everything. In June 2003, Bremer flew to an economic summit in Jordon, announcing that "getting inefficient state enterprises into private hands is essential to Iraq's economic recovery."

In September of that year, the NeoCon dream to rebuild Iraq, as a laissez-faire utopia, began. To attract foreign investors to the country, Bremer enacted a series of laws that would prove too generous an offer to multinational corporations.

There was Order 37, which duly lowered Iraq's corporate tax rate from around 40% to a flat 15%. Order 39 allowed foreign companies to own 100% of Iraq's assets outside of the natural-resources sector. Moreover, investors could take 100% profits they may make in Iraq out of the country; in other words, they would not be expected nor obliged to reinvest in the country, as well as facing no taxes whatsoever. Under Order 39 foreign investors would be able to sign contracts that would last forty years.

True, but do you think this is why the resistance is fighting? It's played little role in their propaganda, nor have they put forward some different program. As Rumsfeld accurately put it recently, "They have no Ho Chi Minh, no Mao Tse Tung. They have no vision." As the serious representative of a basic social class, he understands the importance of these things better than some middle-class "leftists".

The only thing that remained of Saddam Hussein's economic policies was a law restricting trade unions and collective bargaining.

Gross overstatement. All kinds of subsidies remain in effect, especially in agriculture. Most industry is still nationalized, and the occupation hasn't dared touch the oil industry. (Which, if the "sanctions" had been lifted, any Iraqi government would have needed foreign investment to rebuild. It's just that the former regime preferred to make deals with French and Russian oil companies, and Washington couldn't have that.)

However, on March the 2nd, a bomb conveniently exploded in front of Mosques in Baghdad and Karbala, killing nearly 200 people. The Us Army warned of civil war, and frightened by this prospect, the Shi'a politicians duly backed the interim constitution.

Convenient, yes. The resistance has often been useful to the occupation. "With enemies like this, who needs friends"?

The resistance led by Moqtada al Sadr was a good example of how such Iraqis, from the Shi'a slums enlisted in his Mahdi Army to fight the ccupation.

Was. Past tense. Now the Sadrists are an example of how the Sunni-supremacist "resistance" has alienated the majority of Iraq's population.

From that Zmag site so beloved of some posters in this thread: (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=8138)
During a press conference that they organized, Falah Hassan Shneishel MP, a member of the "Independent National Bloc," said that "the presence of the occupation forces gives a pretext for the continuation of violence and terrorism that have taken the lives of thousands of Iraqis."

That's the Sadrist parliamentary bloc, of course their mere presence there makes 'em collaborators who oughta be killed. Also the residents of Sadr City who put 'em there. Notice he denounces the occupation for strengthening the Ba'athist-Salafist resistance, an argument I've used but doesn't fit with support for that resistance.

Another Sadrist MP says "Iraqi security and military apparatuses are able to take care of the security issue whereas the continuing deployment of foreign troops in Iraq, in a situation where there is an honourable national resistance ["honourable" is the label designating in Iraq resistance forces that attack only foreign troops], is a threat to stability." If the article author's bracketed comment is accurate, the attacks on "Iraqi security and military apparatuses" are not considered honorable, which would explain the beginning of the MP's comment....which favors the defeat of the Ba'athist resistance by the "collaborator" military, not surprisingly given the history of Ba'athist persecution the Sadrists have experienced, and the current resistance attacks on Shi'a, including residents of Sadr City.

The Left must make a choice between this dream being fulfilled or backing a resistance made up of ordinary Iraqis, who are being led by those we dislike ("Lions led by Donkeys" kind of comes to mind).

Why are those the only choices? And what makes you think this resistance can possibly block the privatization of Iraq (or even wants to)?

I suppose one way to prevent imperialist exploitation is to permanently cripple a country's economy - i.e. hope for indefinite, pointless conflict. But this is not an approach that has anything to do with advancing the interests and self-liberation of working people, in Iraq or worldwide.

As to the terrible tactics of some sections of the resistance, take into account the words of Tariq Ali: If an occupation is ugly, how can one expect the resistance to be pretty?

Yes, rebellions are not tea parties. This truism is not an answer to why the resistance has chosen to treat a majority of Iraq's population as its enemies, or why some leftists internationally (few if any in Iraq) have chosen to place their confidence in this resistance, rather than in the organization and struggle of Iraqi workers.
Again from ZMag - Iraqi Union Leaders Speak About Occupation (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=8127)

redstar2000

8th July 2005, 17:29

Originally posted by Severian
As Rumsfeld accurately put it recently, "They have no Ho Chi Minh, no Mao Tse Tung. They have no vision."

:lol: We all know that Severian and other "leftists" who support the occupation would immediately switch sides and support the resistance if only the resistance would come up with a suitable icon and a revolutionary-sounding ideology.

This is why Severian supports the Maoists in Nepal...

Oh wait, he doesn't support the Maoists in Nepal. :o

If Mao climbed out of his grave, learned Arabic, and traveled to Iraq to "lead the resistance", I somehow think that Severian, et.al., would still oppose the resistance and counsel the Iraqis to submit to the occupation...or use "peaceful methods" to struggle against it, at best.

Shooting and blowing up imperialists and their lackeys is just not nice.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Severian

8th July 2005, 18:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 10:29 AM
If Mao climbed out of his grave, learned Arabic, and traveled to Iraq to "lead the resistance",
The differences between the Iraqi resistance, on the one hand, and the Chinese and Vietnamese Revolutions, on the other, run far deeper than that. Rumsfeld can see that, why can't you? Oh, wait...I already explained why not. He's the serious representative of a basic social class, while you're a middle-class radical who's constantly blowing in the wind.

if only the resistance would come up with a suitable icon and a revolutionary-sounding ideology.

It does have a revolutionary-sounding ideology. Heck, it has two: "socialist" Ba'athism and Islamic fundamentalism. And it has icons: Saddam and Zarqawi. Some people find one or the other set of ideologies and icons suitable. Even some people on this board. And if anything anti-imperialist is good, why shouldn't they?

It does not have a program which reflects the interests of working people in Iraq. The resistance hasn't put forward much of a program at all, and to the degree it has, it's a reactionary program. That matters, 'cause people ain't sheep. They sensibly want to know: what are you fighting for? Why would you be better?

counsel the Iraqis to submit to the occupation...or use "peaceful methods" to struggle against it, at best.

Unlike you, I don't believe I can tell working people in other countries what tactics they must use. What's up with your proclamation that armed struggle is the only way? Why don't you practice what you preach?

enigma2517

8th July 2005, 22:53

It does have a revolutionary-sounding ideology. Heck, it has two: "socialist" Ba'athism and Islamic fundamentalism. And it has icons: Saddam and Zarqawi. Some people find one or the other set of ideologies and icons suitable.

Are you implying that all of the resistance fighters out there are either fundamentalist towel heads or have a strong desire to get Saddam back in power?

(Assuming you live in the US) If an Iranian tank was rolling down your neighborhood street, would you actually not care?

Lets say you do, and you do something about it. Next morning, headlines read "extremist American nationalist blows up tank of occupying forces" and then the rest would go on to say how much "the resistance" wants Mr. Bush back in power as their faithful and righteous President.

This certainetly seems how you are portraying the resistance in Iraq.

I hate to really be "sectarian" here but it always occurs to me that if Leninists see a resistance or revolutionary movement going on somewhere it automatically has to attributed to one leader or another. And typical its either the movement has "no direction" or is completely in the "wrong direction".

Of course, I'd leave it up to the actual people involved to decide that one.

It does not have a program which reflects the interests of working people in Iraq. The resistance hasn't put forward much of a program at all, and to the degree it has, it's a reactionary program. That matters, 'cause people ain't sheep. They sensibly want to know: what are you fighting for? Why would you be better?

Hmm...I think this has been brought up before. Let me just say what I think you're saying and you'll correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't want to get the wrong impression here.

The people of Iraq, which have not yet undergone significant historical advances such as an actual free republic (well as free as they get), globalization, getting free of the shackles of Islam and organized religion in general, are somehow expected to organize a leftist movement that will not only drive out the worldest strongest imperialist nation but at the same time promoting workers struggle.

Whoa buddy one step at a time. I can certainetly name a few very advanced capitalist nations where this has not even materialized yet.

But hey, who cares about material conditions! I'm guessing that if the Ba'athists and Saddam loyalists and fundamentalist nuts were are subdued and a new leader and his platform replaced them, then they would be better off right? Apart from the large improbablity of such an event even happening, what could a workers struggle hope to accomplish there anyway? One half assed job, if you ask me.

The point is, time is of essence, and the longer American forces remain in the Iraq, the shittier its going to get. They won't stop until they seize all the assets possible. So what do we do? Wait around for a "workers resistance" to emerge, just you know, out of thin air and stuff? Because by the time that happens they'll be even more permenant bases there, not to mention a pretty shit (but still existent) domestic police force.

The point is, there is almost nothing worse than continued occupation. Even the most brutal reactionary force would probably be a welcomed change. From there, you let the "locals" work it out. They will, don't worry, have a little "faith".

PRC-UTE

9th July 2005, 05:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 05:05 PM

I can't see how neutrality is defensible at all.
Again, I'm German. My opnion is that every citizen of a western nation should primarily care about the imerialism of it's own nation with a strong anti-national attitude. If I would be American, I would eventually have another stance.
[/quote]
That's an interesting point of view.

Most times when I discuss the National Liberation of Ireland, I am branded by Anarchists as anti-internationalists and going against uniting the proletariat. I'm routinuely told that National identity is an artificial construct, to be overcome. Your position is the opposite of this.

Why do the Trendy Left change their minds as it suits them.

The struggle of Iraqi workers against a “foreign” army does not originate from the concept that this intervention is a violation of their national sanctities! What sanctity is left for us, the workers, that the foreign army can violate!

This type of tripe is just completely wankerific.

I can assure you that removing foreign soldiers who enjoy humiliating and assaulting you at checkpoints daily is a concrete step towards liberating our class. Why are the Trendy Left not interested in this?

Perhaps because it's not avante-garde and is facing concrete reality.

Until the useless segments of the Left decide to deal with objective conditions, not how they wish things were, they'll be useless. And the masses, quite correctly, will ignore you.

As it says in the Communist Manifesto, it is acceptable for the working class to work alongside other classes and social elements to achieve limited goals. This is at it was in Marx's time, when the (then) European middle class were struggling for democratic republics alongside the working class. Bakunin also participated in these struggles.

To defeat imperialism is a necessary part of liberating the working class. Until then, I think it's clear that workers of countries like the USA and Britain will continue to identity with the flag and the empire.

pastradamus

9th July 2005, 05:59

I myself would be of the Impression that the resistance is composed of a mix of people from all persuesions both ethnically, politically, religously & even nationally speaking.

But what must be understood is that the term 'Iraqi resistance' is thrown around a lot on the media.

There are hundread's of different groups with differennt ideals. All it takes is one big shock (e.g beheading) to gain media attention & even still it most likely will be put under the collective banner of 'Iraqi resistance'.

It would be intresting to see/know how these groups react to one another politically speaking. eg:are they just banding together to fight a common enemy? or is it simular to the anarco-communist tension like in the spanish civil war?

Right now all we get is crappy American news reports which are biased to begin with and we will never truely understand the situation in Iraq...In my opinion anyway.

pa

redstar2000

9th July 2005, 06:51

Originally posted by Severian
...you're a middle-class radical who's constantly blowing in the wind.

I :wub: you too.

What's up with your proclamation that armed struggle is the only way? Why don't you practice what you preach?

Do you imagine the Iraqis first asked my opinion before they launched an armed struggle?

I approve of that decision, of course...but it's not as if they did it "because" I told them it was the right thing to do.

Conditions in the United States are obviously unsuitable for armed insurrection at this time. Therefore, I don't tell people here to "get out there and do that" nor do I "do it myself".

But if I were to live long enough, I would expect the time for armed insurrection to emerge...and then, if I were physically able to do so, I would advocate it and participate in it.

And, in the meantime, I will continually remind people that armed struggle is "the only road" to genuine revolution -- both in terms of liberation from imperialism and in terms of a proletarian revolution in the advanced capitalist countries.

Your acceptance of "peaceful means" to attain these ends simply reflects your own lack of seriousness about either.

Now go run for office.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Severian

9th July 2005, 11:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 11:51 PM

What's up with your proclamation that armed struggle is the only way? Why don't you practice what you preach?

Do you imagine the Iraqis first asked my opinion before they launched an armed struggle?
No, I'm sure the resistance would as happily cut your head off as look at you.

Conditions in the United States are obviously unsuitable for armed insurrection at this time. Therefore, I don't tell people here to "get out there and do that" nor do I "do it myself".

Actually, you do tell people that. Tell workers from Iraq to Bolivia, without any analysis of "conditions".

Fortunately the search function is working again, so your real statements are available.

If you (an Iraqi) simply can't find a branch of the resistance that you think worthy of support, your only honorable options are to organize a resistance force that meets your political criteria or go into exile.

Any Iraqi that calls for "peaceful struggle" at this point is just calling for surrender and permanent servility to U.S. imperialism.link (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36839&st=20&#entry1291888164)

and

I suppose I am being "unfair" to the assorted Leninist parties in Bolivia...but none of them have actually launched an armed struggle against the puppet regime.

In other words, none of them have done more than clamor for recognition of their "correct leadership".

If one of them "picks up the gun" and begins an actual insurrection, that changes the picture entirely.

True, they'd still be wanna-be despots -- but now their despotism would potentially overturn the despotism of imperialism.

That would be something that the Bolivarian masses would not ignore...or would be mistaken if they did ignore.link (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36308&st=20&#entry1291882101)

Just as good though not as funny as Jon Stewart showing a clip of some Republican claiming "I never said X", then an old clip of 'em saying X.

Neither in Iraq nor Bolivia has a single workers' or peasants' organization shown any inclination to start an armed struggle at this time. That doesn't stop Redstar from deciding they are all "mistaken" at best or even "calling for surrender and permanent servility to U.S. imperialism". Not based on any analysis of concrete conditions (and it'd take a lot of hubris to think he knows those conditions better than people in those countries).

Since no analysis of conditions is needed in the Third World, but only your desire to see some stuff blown up that might hurt the imperialists, why is the First World different? Try for a remotely convincing reason this time: why don't you practice what you preach?

***

Welcome to the new participants in this thread. Earlier in this thread, I've shown in detail that yes, the resistance is led by Ba'athists and Islamic fundamentalists. Feel free to read through it.

And I've repeatedly asked, without answer, if anyone can point out a specific resistance group led by someone better, or that has taken a clear stand against the terrorist attacks on Iraqi civilians. (Primarily the Shi'a and Kurdish populations.) Can any of you name one?

pastradamus

9th July 2005, 16:03

It makes me laugh when Americans talk about 'Armed Struggle'....Where's that Patriotism that Bush always speaks about! I thought you guys loved him! haha

nah, but on a serious note.

America was & has always been (since washington) Designed Constitutionally & propaganda wise to prevent any form of Idelogical & radicallist militancy from occuring (fuck that joke of a civil war).

One of the main ways of doing this is by the two party state & by using the guise of 'liberalism' & by imbedding Patriotism into the brains of the masses i.e the pledge of allegence .

redstar2000

9th July 2005, 16:48

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Actually, you do tell people that.[/b]

Actually, I don't.

I observe that armed struggle is the only way that imperialism will be driven out of the "third world" and support the people who "pick up the gun" and struggle to do that.

If people in a particular colony/neo-colony are not ready to do that, regardless of their reasoning, then I predict they will accomplish nothing in the way of driving out imperialism until they are ready to do that. There is no "peaceful road" to defeating imperialism.

Conditions in "first world" countries are not presently favorable to armed insurrection and therefore, HERE I do not advocate armed struggle or "do it myself".

But I also observe that nothing will be accomplished in the way of abolishing wage-slavery until a successful armed insurrection takes place.

It's becoming more and more difficult, Severian, to avoid the conclusion that you have simply succumbed to reformism. You may still pay "lip service" to socialism but it increasingly appears that some sort of legal trade-unionism is sufficient to satisfy your "progressive" aspirations.

It's one thing to say that people in another country must decide their own paths of struggle -- no one would disagree with such a banal platitude. It's quite another to advocate "peaceful methods" when an armed struggle against imperialism has already begun!

That is just collaborating with imperialism.

pastradamus
fuck that joke of a civil war

You evidently have a very high threshold for "seriousness". Over 600,000 people died in one of the bloodiest bourgeois revolutions in history.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

pastradamus

9th July 2005, 17:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 03:48 PM
You evidently have a very high threshold for "seriousness". Over 600,000 people died in one of the bloodiest bourgeois revolutions in history.
First of all I dont let those losses which is Sufficiently more than that Including Non-nationals, Civilians & Those who died as a later consequence of the war (ie diesese & starvation) fly over my head.

I was Against the Ideals of the War. You called it a bloody bourgeois revolution yourself, top points for marxmanship comrade :D

Intifada

9th July 2005, 21:32

Yes, de-Baathification. A common criticism of liberals who feel they could have handled the occupation better than Bush has, is that the old army should have been retained.

Indeed "de-Baathification", a term initially coined by the infamous Ahmed Chalabi. His hatred of the Iraqi state for seizing his family's assets during the revolution of 1958 was so great that he wished to see the whole nation crushed, apart from the Oil Ministry which was to become the nucleus, if you like, of the new Iraq.

This process of "de-Baathification" saw hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lose their jobs.

The fact is that there are many state-owned companies in Iraq that can help with the "rebuilding" of the country. For example, there are seventeen state-owned cement factories around the country, but most lie unused or working at up to half capacity. According to the Ministry of Industry, not one of the factories was asked to help with reconstruction, nor given contracts to do so, even though they could provide all the cement needed to produce blast walls (also known as "Bremer walls") and meet other needs for cement at a much cheaper cost. The CPA pays $1000 per imported blast wall; the walls could be made locally for only $100. This neglecting of Iraqi companies is a strategy used by the Americans who wish to "starve and sell" the businesses that attract Western investors.

Would you, however, like the occupation better if it was using Saddam Hussein's old army to put down rebellion?

The occupation has made sure that torture techniques remain within the practices of the "new" security forces and police.

West turns blind eye as police put Saddam's torturers back to work (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1683578,00.html)

True, but do you think this is why the resistance is fighting?

Yes.

Privatisation comes hand-in-hand with massive lay-offs. The Minister of Industry estimated that around 145000 people would have to be fired to make Iraqi firms more attractive to investors in the West. Each worker fired supports, on average, up to five members of his/her family. They then have a choice: Accept this as life after Saddam Hussein, or to fight the occupation that has crippled their country.

During Bremer's first four months in charge of Iraq, 109 US soldiers were killed and 570 wounded. In the following four months, after the "Shock therapy" of the invasion and the aftermath of the completion of it, the Iraqi resistance became much more vicious, claiming the lives of 195 US soldiers while wounding 1633. There are many people, inside Iraq, who believe that this sharp rise in resistance was a direct result of the US reforms and Bremer's plans to make privatisation easier.

All kinds of subsidies remain in effect, especially in agriculture. Most industry is still nationalized, and the occupation hasn't dared touch the oil industry.

Mainly because of the resistance.

What kind of person would go to Iraq and try to make money out of the privatisation of Iraqi assets, when people like Ken Bigley and other contractors have been targeted and killed (in the most brutal of fashions) for trying to do so? Iraq simply isn't a safe place to do business.

(Which, if the "sanctions" had been lifted, any Iraqi government would have needed foreign investment to rebuild. It's just that the former regime preferred to make deals with French and Russian oil companies, and Washington couldn't have that.)

That happens to be one of the major reasons for the invasion, and why countries such as France stayed out of it.

Convenient, yes. The resistance has often been useful to the occupation. "With enemies like this, who needs friends"?

So you deny that there is no possibility - whatsoever - that some attacks have been carried out by people/organisations that wish for a continuation of the imperialist occupation?

You'd have to be crazy to do so.

Was. Past tense. Now the Sadrists are an example of how the Sunni-supremacist "resistance" has alienated the majority of Iraq's population.

The Iraqi people support the resistance and want the occupation to end, as has been proven by many polls. In fact, the tactics used by the majority of the resistance supports the idea that the population itself aids the resistance.

Why are those the only choices?

What other viable choices are there?

And what makes you think this resistance can possibly block the privatization of Iraq (or even wants to)?

They have done a good job of stopping the hijacking of their nation so far, and are motivated by the fact that many of the Iraqi people will face years of exploitation and unemployment if they allow privatisation to occur.

But this is not an approach that has anything to do with advancing the interests and self-liberation of working people, in Iraq or worldwide.

Nor does allowing the US-led occupation to sell Iraq off to Western corporations.

This truism is not an answer to why the resistance has chosen to treat a majority of Iraq's population as its enemies

The resistance, as you know, is not a monolithic entity. It is made up of many various groups with differing ideologies and aims. The fact is, however, that the US has managed to unite all of them against the occupation.

In September of 2004, wrote Sami Ramadani (a respected British-Iraqi academic and commentator) in the Guardian, there were around 2700 military operations against the occupying and puppet forces, of which only six were claimed by al-Zarqawi's group. The fact is that the Islamic extremism of al-Zarqawi's organisation does not make up the majority of those fighting occupation.

The reason I support the Iraqi resistance is the same as why I believe all invaders should be fought and beaten. The US is not a benevolent entity that is in Iraq to make things better, it is there to hijack the country and steal it's assets. It has already done a good job in ruining the country and it's historic sites, while destroying the lives of the ordinary Iraqi.

Like all imperialist ventures, the occupation of Iraq must be defeated.

Severian

10th July 2005, 01:09

Intifada wrote: (I had some trouble with the quote function)

Indeed "de-Baathification", a term initially coined by the infamous Ahmed Chalabi. His hatred of the Iraqi state for seizing his family's assets during the revolution of 1958 was so great that he wished to see the whole nation crushed, apart from the Oil Ministry which was to become the nucleus, if you like, of the new Iraq.
Well, that's an interesting identification of the Iraqi nation with the Iraqi capitalist state machine. If that's what you mean by Iraqi nation, it helps explain why you regard the Ba'athist-led resistance as the representative of the Iraqi nation. May I point out that it wasn't the Ba'ath who led the 1958 revolution. They led the counterrevolution.

A lot of Iraqis beside Chalabi have a profound hatred of the Ba'ath party. Do I need to explain why?

The new government has resumed de-Baathification, in a less extreme way...among other things Allawi's party was basically frozen out of the cabinet because they're all ex-Ba'athists.

This neglecting of Iraqi companies is a strategy used by the Americans who wish to "starve and sell" the businesses that attract Western investors.

True. It'd be interesting to see how it's shifted now with Bremer gone and the new regime in, though. Betcha funds they control are channeled to their (Iraqi) business cronies, not Halliburton. Here and throughout your post, your facts seem badly out of date.

(Severian)Would you, however, like the occupation better if it was using Saddam Hussein's old army to put down rebellion?

(Intifada):The occupation has made sure that torture techniques remain within the practices of the "new" security forces and police.

Yes, I know, but that doesn't answer my question.

During Bremer's first four months in charge of Iraq, 109 US soldiers were killed and 570 wounded. In the following four months, after the "Shock therapy" of the invasion and the aftermath of the completion of it, the Iraqi resistance became much more vicious, claiming the lives of 195 US soldiers while wounding 1633. There are many people, inside Iraq, who believe that this sharp rise in resistance was a direct result of the US reforms and Bremer's plans to make privatisation easier.

Correlation is not causation. And that's a pretty loose correlation.

Can you show me where the resistance has put forward any kind of economic program in opposition to the occupations? So far you've mainly just projected your own attitudes onto the blank screen of the resistance.

Mainly because of the resistance.

What kind of person would go to Iraq and try to make money out of the privatisation of Iraqi assets, when people like Ken Bigley and other contractors have been targeted and killed (in the most brutal of fashions) for trying to do so? Iraq simply isn't a safe place to do business.

What? That doesn't explain why the subsidies remain in place, for example. And here we have again the program of permanently crippling the Iraqi economy as the only means proposed of blocking imperialist exploitation. Not only the resistance, but its foreign leftist sympathizers, seem to have no positive program for the independent development of the economy.

(Severian)(Which, if the "sanctions" had been lifted, any Iraqi government would have needed foreign investment to rebuild. It's just that the former regime preferred to make deals with French and Russian oil companies, and Washington couldn't have that.)
(Intifada):
That happens to be one of the major reasons for the invasion, and why countries such as France stayed out of it.

Glad you agree. So this war is in part an indirect conflict between the different imperialist powers. That has certain implications I think.

So you deny that there is no possibility - whatsoever - that some attacks have been carried out by people/organisations that wish for a continuation of the imperialist occupation?

You'd have to be crazy to do so.

Hmmm...so it's crazy not to accept conspiracy theories, and to use Occam's Razor? In any case, this is the logical fallacy known as the argument from incredulity.

You chose a funny way to put this, by the way, since it can easily be argued that al-Qaeda does want a continuation of the occupation so it has easy access to U.S. targets, and an ongoing recruitment issue.

The Iraqi people support the resistance and want the occupation to end, as has been proven by many polls.
Those two are not the same thing. The polls I've seen only prove the second one..less simplistically than you put it, too. I've linked them on page 6 of this thread. If you've seen a different poll, please show it to me.

In fact, the tactics used by the majority of the resistance supports the idea that the population itself aids the resistance.

The Sunni Arab population, maybe. And which groups are in this "majority of the resistance", and how have they shown that they are opposed to terrorism against the Shi'a and Kurdish populations?

I notice you kinda skipped over the information I gave on the Sadrists' current activities. Ignoring inconvenient facts?

What other viable choices are there?

The working class and its exploited allies are the ONLY "viable" force, the only force potentially strong enough to defeat U.S. imperialism. It wasn't the Vietnamese capitalists who defeated Washington y'know. Iraqi workers are using the political space which has opened up with the destruction of the repressive Ba'athist regime to organize, discuss, recover their strength. It's one of the unintended consequences of Washington's actions, and I'm convinced its unintended consequences like those which will ultimately bite Washington in the ass.

(Severian)But this is not an approach that has anything to do with advancing the interests and self-liberation of working people, in Iraq or worldwide.
(Intifada)Nor does allowing the US-led occupation to sell Iraq off to Western corporations.

So you agree, neither approach is in the interest of working people? Or was that just a slip of the tongue, so to speak?

The resistance, as you know, is not a monolithic entity. It is made up of many various groups with differing ideologies and aims.

Name one major group that is not Ba'athist or Islamist-led. I keep asking this and nobody can. Yet people keep repeating this "various groups" BS. It's the equivalent of saying that the white supremacist movement is not monolithic because it includes Nazis, Klansmen, Aryan Nations, Church of the Creator, etc. So what?

In September of 2004, wrote Sami Ramadani (a respected British-Iraqi academic and commentator) in the Guardian, there were around 2700 military operations against the occupying and puppet forces, of which only six were claimed by al-Zarqawi's group.
Things have changed a lot in the past nine months, then. This fact works against you. In evaluating any political phenomenon, it's direction of motion is decisive. The resistance is becoming more hostile to Shi'a and Kurds, more terrorist, more Taliban-style reactionary, and the role of Zarqawi's group has increased.

The fact is that the Islamic extremism of al-Zarqawi's organisation does not make up the majority of those fighting occupation.

That's right, the Ba'athists (or Ba'athist-led groups) do. And they are allied with Zarqawi. If the majority of the resistance had the slightest interest in uniting all Iraqis against the U.S., they would have put a stop to Zarqawi and his operations long ago. But of course the Ba'athists, over the decades, have murdered even more Shi'a and Kurds than Zarqawi has.

The other groups in the occupation, while less "Islamic extremist" than Zarqawi, also have a reactionary, "fundamentalist" program. C'mon, name one that doesn't. Even the supposedly secular Ba'athists are accomodating in this direction...something that they began even during their last decade in power, greatly accelerated since they were deposed. Insurgent-held Falluja was as medieval as Taliban Afghanistan.

The reason I support the Iraqi resistance is the same as why I believe all invaders should be fought and beaten. The US is not a benevolent entity that is in Iraq to make things better, it is there to hijack the country and steal it's assets. It has already done a good job in ruining the country and it's historic sites, while destroying the lives of the ordinary Iraqi.

Like all imperialist ventures, the occupation of Iraq must be defeated.

These are all purely negative reasons, why the occupation is bad. Apparently you can't point to any positive reason why the resistance is good.

It's what you're for, not who you're against, that's decisive.

Vallegrande

10th July 2005, 04:28

When families died in the very first bombings on Iraq. I think that is a reason for the resistance.

By the way, is resistance really positive in the first place? It takes oppression to know resistance.

Intifada

13th July 2005, 14:13

A lot of Iraqis beside Chalabi have a profound hatred of the Ba'ath party.

Saddam's version of Ba’athism is indeed hated by most Iraqis, and understandably so. In fact, a vast amount of Ba’athists who are fighting against occupation are also anti-Saddam.

The new government has resumed de-Baathification, in a less extreme way...among other things Allawi's party was basically frozen out of the cabinet because they're all ex-Ba'athists.

De-Baathification has more meaning than one. It means, primarily (in the eyes of the White House), that the public sector of Iraq is, in simple terms, bad and that privatisation is good. Like I have shown before (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1683578,00.html), de-Baathification does not necessarily mean "get rid of all the evil Baathists of Saddam's era."

True. It'd be interesting to see how it's shifted now with Bremer gone and the new regime in, though. Betcha funds they control are channeled to their (Iraqi) business cronies, not Halliburton.

Do you have any links that correspond with such a possibility? Either way, the Iraqi people must act to stop their nation's assets being controlled by the West, whether that is done through the Iraqi bourgeoisie, or directly through Western corporations.

Here and throughout your post, your facts seem badly out of date.

Maybe so, but I do not think that the overall aims of the Bush administration have changed much. The methods of achieving these objectives may have changed, as a result of the dangerous and volatile situation that Iraq has been in during the occupation.

Yes, I know, but that doesn't answer my question.

I would have thought that the answer would be obvious.

Correlation is not causation. And that's a pretty loose correlation.

It is simply a possible, yet plausible, explanation for the rise in resistance attacks.

There are, I agree, many reasons for the resistance against occupation, mainly because the resistance itself is made up of many different groups with various long-term objectives and ideologies, yet I do not have any problem with the Iraqi people, who make up the vast majority of the actual fighters, targeting occupation forces.

Can you show me where the resistance has put forward any kind of economic program in opposition to the occupations?

First of all, I don't see why that matters. The main goal should be to rid Iraq of the imperialist aggressors. With that in mind, the Iraqi resistance has my full backing.

The Black Banners Organization, however, has issued calls for the destruction of the Iraqi oil infrastructure to prevent the US from profiting from Iraqi oil revenues.

Not only the resistance, but its foreign leftist sympathizers, seem to have no positive program for the independent development of the economy.

We do have a positive programme for the "independent development of the economy", in that we realise the initial and significant need for the resistance to force out the imperialists, who wish to restructure the whole Iraqi state so that it virtually becomes a puppet of the USA and other colonial powers in the West.

You chose a funny way to put this, by the way, since it can easily be argued that al-Qaeda does want a continuation of the occupation so it has easy access to U.S. targets, and an ongoing recruitment issue.

It is a possibility.

But I would think that the US would stay in Iraq whether or not "al Qaeda" wants them to stay or go.

Much of the resistance has alluded to a conspiracy, conjured by the US-led occupation, of foreign fighters and terrorists trying to control the country (a little ironic). They deny such accusations. Representatives of the groups fighting in the city of Fallujah stated that "We know that this talk about Zarqawi and the fighters is a game that the American invader forces are playing to strike Islam and Muslims in the city of mosques, steadfast Fallujah."

Those two are not the same thing. The polls I've seen only prove the second one..less simplistically than you put it, too. I've linked them on page 6 of this thread. If you've seen a different poll, please show it to me.

I think you have seen this (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm) one before.

[i]The insurgents, by contrast, seem to be gaining broad acceptance, if not outright support. If the Kurds, who make up about 13% of the poll, are taken out of the equation, more than half of Iraqis say killing U.S. troops can be justified in at least some cases.

And which groups are in this "majority of the resistance", and how have they shown that they are opposed to terrorism against the Shi'a and Kurdish populations?

Foreign fighters (not including those occupying the country of course) have been criticised by the Iraqi resistance and have been blamed for terrorist attacks on civilians. Sunni cleric Ahmed Abdul Ghafour Samarrae declared that "We do not need anyone from outside the borders to stand with us and spill the blood of our sons in Iraq. Which religion allows anyone to kill more than 100 Iraqis, destroy 100 families and destroy 100 houses? Who says so? Who are those people who do this? Where did they come from? It is a conspiracy to defame the reputation of the Iraqi resistance by wearing its dress and using its name falsely. These people hurt the Iraqis and Iraq, giving the occupier an excuse to stay longer."

I notice you kinda skipped over the information I gave on the Sadrists' current activities. Ignoring inconvenient facts?

I have no problem with the idea that Sunni extremists have alienated the Shi'a resistance.

The working class and its exploited allies are the ONLY "viable" force, the only force potentially strong enough to defeat U.S. imperialism. It wasn't the Vietnamese capitalists who defeated Washington y'know. Iraqi workers are using the political space which has opened up with the destruction of the repressive Ba'athist regime to organize, discuss, recover their strength. It's one of the unintended consequences of Washington's actions, and I'm convinced its unintended consequences like those which will ultimately bite Washington in the ass.

It isn’t the Iraqi capitalists who make up the resistance. It is quite simply made up of normal working Iraqis who have been affected by the occupation.

There is no time to wait and “discuss.” The situation the Iraqis are in is not acceptable and can only be sorted by kicking out all foreign troops.

The breakaway faction of the Iraqi Communist Party, ICP-Al Kader, took (in my opinion) the best option they could have made after the occupation began.

So you agree, neither approach is in the interest of working people? Or was that just a slip of the tongue, so to speak?

The imperialist occupation of Iraq must first be beaten by the Iraqi people. By doing that, the Iraqis will be advancing the interests and self-liberation of the working-class.

Name one major group that is not Ba'athist or Islamist-led. I keep asking this and nobody can. Yet people keep repeating this "various groups" BS. It's the equivalent of saying that the white supremacist movement is not monolithic because it includes Nazis, Klansmen, Aryan Nations, Church of the Creator, etc. So what?

The Iraqi Resistance (http://www.jihadunspun.net/articles/18122003-Iraqi-Resistence/ir/ailatir01.html)

Most fighters are motivated by the religion of Islam or nationalism, not by support for Saddam Hussein. In fact, some of the groups may not even know who their leaders at the very top are or where their financing is coming from. The ideology of many of the fighters is described as "post-Saddam" and is a simple combination of Islamism and nationalism, covering a wide spectrum of Muslims viewpoints that converge on the common goal of ending US military rule inside the country. The US occupation is an assault on both Islam and the entire Arab World, and is therefore viewed as something that must be resisted. Saddam loyalists may be more active in the command and control, recruiting, planning, hiring, weapons procurement, financial, and logistical end than in the actual fighting within their limited involvement.

The actual fighting is done by normal Iraqis who want an end to occupation. Furthermore, those Ba'athists who are at the top of a particular group, are not necessarily pro-Saddam.

The resistance is becoming more hostile to Shi'a and Kurds, more terrorist, more Taliban-style reactionary, and the role of Zarqawi's group has increased.

I'd like to see some of evidence of this.

Some parts of the resistance may indeed be hostile to particular minorities, but that does not mean that the resistance in general is hostile to particular minorities. Those groups that are do not have my support.

That's right, the Ba'athists (or Ba'athist-led groups) do. And they are allied with Zarqawi.

Again I would like to see some evidence for this claim.

These are all purely negative reasons, why the occupation is bad. Apparently you can't point to any positive reason why the resistance is good.

It's what you're for, not who you're against, that's decisive.

My belief is that the Iraqi people should have the right to rule their own country. The occupation is an imperialist adventure and must be defeated if the working-class of Iraq is to succeed in advancing their own interests and ending exploitation.

The resistance is not monolithic, but it consists of normal Iraqis who have taken up arms against foreign invaders. Moreover, the resistance represents the will of the Iraqi people, who are fed up of US-led occupation.

I cannot see anything wrong in kicking out imperialist forces from Iraq.

Severian

13th July 2005, 15:13

Bold instead of quotes because of UBB Code problems.

(Intifada) Saddam's version of Ba’athism is indeed hated by most Iraqis, and understandably so.
Saddam's version? So the Ba'ath Party was good other than him? Do you know anything about the pre-Saddam Ba'ath regime, and its bloody repression of Iraqi workers? Or the fascist-like Ba'ath ideology? Or the fact that the Ba'ath Party was not a political party in any normal sense, but a part of the repressive machinery, and a club for advancing one's career, modeled on the Stalinist "parties" of the USSR and Eastern Europe?

It begins to appear that Ba'athists don't just lead the Iraqi resistance...they're leading a certain layer of leftists internationally. That's an inevitable consequence of jumping in bed with any reactionary group as long as they're against the U.S....you start to think they're not so reactionary, and then to adopt some of their ideas, and eventually to become like them.

Do you have any links that correspond with such a possibility?

Unfortunately no. I don't know exactly what's happening in this respect, which is why I put things as I did. If you're going to assert something is happening, shouldn't you have current sources?

Either way, the Iraqi people must act to stop their nation's assets being controlled by the West, whether that is done through the Iraqi bourgeoisie, or directly through Western corporations.

They were controlled by the Iraqi bourgeoisie all along. Including through the Iraqi capitalist state.

Maybe so, but I do not think that the overall aims of the Bush administration have changed much.

Of course not. But they are not all-powerful, and their actions have all kinds of unintended consequences. It is not predetermined that the new government will do exactly as Washington wishes...as with many things, that is determined in the course of struggle.

I would have thought that the answer would be obvious.

All kinds of things which seem obvious to me, seem obvious in the opposite way to some people on these boards.

(Severian)Can you show me where the resistance has put forward any kind of economic program in opposition to the occupations?

First of all, I don't see why that matters.

Well, ya said they were fighting to oppose the privatization, so is that true?...and as I pointed out, any government will need foreign investment on some terms to get the oil industry going again. Are they fighting for Iraqi economic sovereignty, or merely so that French and Russian rather than U.S. oil companies will end up controlling Iraqi oil?

The Black Banners Organization, however, has issued calls for the destruction of the Iraqi oil infrastructure to prevent the US from profiting from Iraqi oil revenues.

That's a tactic, not a program. Sabotage and depriving a hostile government of revenue are practiced by rebels of every political hue.

(USA Today/Gallup poll)The insurgents, by contrast, seem to be gaining broad acceptance, if not outright support. If the Kurds, who make up about 13% of the poll, are taken out of the equation, more than half of Iraqis say killing U.S. troops can be justified in at least some cases.

Next sentence: "But attacks against Iraqi police officers, who are U.S.-trained, are strongly condemned by the Iraqi people."

But thanks for pointing to something specific. This page has the question's wordings and a table of responses. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-gallup-iraq-findings.htm) That "more than half" is including the middle answer in that poll. Which asks about actions, not organizations. And was taken in April 2004, near a political high point of support to the resistance and long before the massive upturn in anti-Shia resistance attacks.

Unfortunately, I just haven't seen a poll where they ask an opinion of "the resistance", or particular parts of it, other than Sadr. That might be a question people wouldn't answer freely anyway. Good information's hard to get sometimes.

Foreign fighters (not including those occupying the country of course) have been criticised by the Iraqi resistance and have been blamed for terrorist attacks on civilians. Sunni cleric Ahmed Abdul Ghafour Samarrae declared that "We do not need anyone from outside the borders to stand with us and spill the blood of our sons in Iraq. Which religion allows anyone to kill more than 100 Iraqis, destroy 100 families and destroy 100 houses? Who says so? Who are those people who do this? Where did they come from? It is a conspiracy to defame the reputation of the Iraqi resistance by wearing its dress and using its name falsely. These people hurt the Iraqis and Iraq, giving the occupier an excuse to stay longer."

Samarrae is not a resistance fighter, so doesn't answer my question. He's also called for more Sunni Arabs to join the "new Iraqi army." BTW, as I demonstrated earlier in this thread, some of the terrorists in "al qaeda in iraq" and similar groups are definitely Iraqis not foreign fighters.

I have no problem with the idea that Sunni extremists have alienated the Shi'a resistance.

Glad to hear it. So if they've alienated even Sadr and his followers, how can they possibly unite the majority of Iraqis and force out Washington?

The breakaway faction of the Iraqi Communist Party, ICP-Al Kader, took (in my opinion) the best option they could have made after the occupation began.

These people, who explain why the Ba'ath are not so bad, and defend Saddam against the accusation that he was a tool of the U.S.? (http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2003-December/001135.html)

On their site, they also carry a statement of the pro-Ba'athist exile PR front, the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance. It's the only thing in English I can find on there.

So they've capitulated to the Ba'ath, in the worst past traditions of the Iraqi CP. If they're a significant force, or any force at all, in Iraq, I haven't seen any sign of it.

(Severian)The resistance is becoming more hostile to Shi'a and Kurds, more terrorist, more Taliban-style reactionary, and the role of Zarqawi's group has increased.(Intifada)I'd like to see some of evidence of this. Some parts of the resistance may indeed be hostile to particular minorities, but that does not mean that the resistance in general is hostile to particular minorities.

Read the thread. Or read Free Palestine's post on it in the "Communism and Islam" thread. Or count the attacks on different targets. The trend is clear...even obvious....even undeniable. Again, direction of motion is decisive. Not just what is the resistance now, but what is it becoming.

Again I would like to see some evidence for this claim.

For Ba'athist dominance, read the thread. For the alliance with Zarqawi, consider the coordinated attacks with al-Qaeda suicide bombers followed up by skilled Ba'athist fighters. Also events in Falluja described and linked earlier. And by way of negative evidence, how little opposition to sectarian mass murder which has surfaced within the resistance.

**

Edit: Saw this while reading Google News today. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050713.wiraq0713/BNStory/International/)

At Kindi hospital, where many of the dead and injured were taken, one distraught woman swathed in black sat cross-legged outside the operating room. "May God curse the mujahedeen and their leader,” she cried as she pounded her own head in grief. Hospitals and police said between 11 and 13 children were killed.

She didn't bother to distinguish between the different groups of mujahedeen. And really, why should she?

Vallegrande

13th July 2005, 20:19

I think the people in Iraq don't want soldiers around them anymore because the soldiers just attract suicide or bomb attacks. And we only hear about how many troops have died. What about the troops with 'wounds' (i.e. half of a head, limbs missing, etc.). There are way more wounded than dead, and many of them are not being helped by the gov't like they should. It's no wonder people are less likely to join the military.

And with this 'stop loss' that Bush signed in, it's basically bfe now for the troops.

Ownthink

15th July 2005, 03:17

I side with the Nationalists Of the Iraqi insurgency, because they just want the U.S. out of their country, and to be able to live somewhat peacefully, and that isn't going to happen with the U.S. in Iraq.

pastradamus

15th July 2005, 04:57

The Main tactic behind the resistance is to kill off American troops into withdrawal whilst preventing Iraqi's joining the occupational Army.

The Resistance also claim that US soldier death tolls are MUCH GREATER that the 500 or so figure released by washington. They claim this figure is quadroupled to almost 2000 with many more wounded and out of the fight.

Vallegrande

15th July 2005, 05:15

And the fact that there are soldiers right now who are being held hostage, and the Bush Ad turns a blind eye, because they "don't negotiate with terrorists". The only news station I learned about the soldiers being held hostage was from Al-Jazeera. They were being held, and then next they're all dead. I wonder how many times this happens. But the Bush Ad doesn't care. "They're gettin' the job done" (-Cheney).

pastradamus

15th July 2005, 05:27

i FIND IT impossible to imagine someone could kill shoot me, in my own streets & my own turf without one hell of a fight.

Just getting down to basics, its very easy to jump out with an AK-47 on an unsuspecting US troop when it comes to small dark alleyways you know about.

I dont really trust many western news sources anymore. Too much propaganda and not enough substance anymore.

Hefer

15th July 2005, 05:59

The Resistance also claim that US soldier death tolls are MUCH GREATER that the 500 or so figure released by washington. They claim this figure is quadroupled to almost 2000 with many more wounded and out of the fight.

Comrade, just think about how how have died in the hospitals in foriegn countries. Washington just doesn't mark them down as causalties in Iraq, since they didn't die on Iraqi soil :rolleyes: . Samething happen with vietnam, many GIs died at the ER.

Vallegrande

15th July 2005, 06:34

So all these soldiers who get labeled as 'wounded', and then arrive at the E.R. dead, are still counted out? That is a devious loophole if there is one.

Hefer

15th July 2005, 06:59

So all these soldiers who get labeled as 'wounded', and then arrive at the E.R. dead, are still counted out? That is a devious loophole if there is one.

Aye comrade, thats why they don't have many military hospitals in the states: many are in Germany to aviod american press.

mo7amEd

17th July 2005, 19:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 08:08 AM
How can that be, unless there was no Arabization in the Mosul area? I find that implausible. In fact you said the Shabak in that area were affected by the Arabization campaign, so you seem to be contradicting yourself.
ive been away for awhile but i will answer u now...

the arabization that took place in mosul was not about kicking out people. for example, AS I SAID BEFORE, shabak, assyrians, yazidis and turkomans were forced to choose to either be considers as kurds or arabs. they were not allowed to study their own language and so on. the baathists wanted to erase these nationalities, u see what i mean?

it was not about kicking out people from the city. the difference between mosul and kirkook is that in kirkook there is orginally 50-60 percent kurds, and the rest turkomans, there were very few arabs there. BUT in mosul arabs have always been the majority since the assyrian empires fall (when Nineveh, now Mosul was the capital). but in mosul there is various of people. therefore that city should belong not to arabs or kurds but to IRAQIS. u see what i mean? but what u say is that the kurds have the right to mosul, isnt? go and say that to those who actually live in mosul.

2) i dont get it, so its reasonible to wanting mosul even though its wrong?
Why is that wrong?

are u kidding me? u just said that! u said it was resonible to wanting mosul even though its wrong... and now its not wrong?

may i ask u what ur opinion is about mosul? should it be under kurdish ruling?

- then ur against explusion or non-Kurds OF COURSE, still im hostile to kurdish nationality?

You said the Kurds were buying up and taking over your country. Now you claim not to be hostile to Kurdish nationalism. Please stop being passive-aggressive. If you say something, you should be able to stand by it.

They are buying and taking over MY country. just check all IRAQI embassies u would see that most of them are kurdish. kurds are sitting in the most of the high posts in the iraqi regim. the foreign misiter is kurds. the iraqi president is kurd.

why i say that they are taking over my country is because they DO NOT consider themselves as being iraqis. if they did then id say iraqi president is iraqi, then i would care what ethnicy he belonged.

but being hostile to kurdish nationalism means that i want to stop the kurds from getting the freedom any nation deserve. my opinion is that the kurdish people should get their own country.

now how am i being hostile to kurdish nationalism, i wont u explain?

No, I'm not asking which groups are terrorist. I'm asking, specifically which resistance groups are against terrorism. Preferably groups which have shown this by their actions. I've been asking that throughout this thread, and nobody seems able to answer.

you have read from zmag as i do... so u know that the al zarqawi group is only 5-10 percent, and the baathists are the same. the rest are those who fight with the will to end the occupation. but they do not specify what those groups call themselves, and you know that. but they do exist, and u know that too.

anyhow, you said that your opinion was that the occupatoin should end right know. how do you really want this occupation to end if i may ask?

We're probably having some language-barrier problems. I suppose English is probably your third language, and I don't know Arabic or Swedish.

yes english is my third language, but i do understand you clear.

viva le revolution

17th July 2005, 19:37

I agree with Mo7amed, the Kurds do not regard themselves as being Iraqi. They run the north of Iraq as a de-facto sovreign nation and have their own independant Peshmerga, so a president of Iraq from a group that doesn't consider itself Iraqi is a joke. That's like me being president of the united states.

viva le revolution

17th July 2005, 19:41

Peaceful resistance is pointless, that's what the administration wants, and anybody who tries it violently is called a terrorist and branded as a saddam-loyalist, doesn't leave much room for manouverability does it?

mo7amEd

17th July 2005, 19:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 01:00 PM
Yes, rebellions are not tea parties. This truism is not an answer to why the resistance has chosen to treat a majority of Iraq's population as its enemies, or why some leftists internationally (few if any in Iraq) have chosen to place their confidence in this resistance, rather than in the organization and struggle of Iraqi workers.
Again from ZMag - Iraqi Union Leaders Speak About Occupation (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=8127)
which struggle of workers?

mo7amEd

17th July 2005, 19:47

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 17 2005, 06:37 PM
I agree with Mo7amed, the Kurds do not regard themselves as being Iraqi. They run the north of Iraq as a de-facto sovreign nation and have their own independant Peshmerga, so a president of Iraq from a group that doesn't consider itself Iraqi is a joke. That's like me being president of the united states.
as i said to him before, wouldnt be wrong if ii was ruling the US... still he sees me as being hostile to kurdish nationalism...

he thinks im like that becoz im sunni.... doesnt matter what i say. he have made up his mind that the bad guys are the sunni people (even those who call themselves leftists, communists or whatever).

Severian

17th July 2005, 21:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 12:16 PM
You have read from zmag as i do... so u know that the al zarqawi group is only 5-10 percent, and the baathists are the same. the rest are those who fight with the will to end the occupation. but they do not specify what those groups call themselves, and you know that. but they do exist, and u know that too.
No, I don't know that. And if nobody can name them, they can't know anything else specific about them either. So how do you know they exist? Sounds like an act of faith.

kurds are sitting in the most of the high posts in the iraqi regim. the foreign misiter is kurds. the iraqi president is kurd.

why i say that they are taking over my country is because they DO NOT consider themselves as being iraqis.

The fact is that Kurds do not have an independent country, regardless of what they want; so naturally they want a voice in the Baghdad government if they're going to be under it.

You say that you're not opposed to an independent Kurdish state; good. But then you apparently want to punish them for seeking such a state, which they may not get for some time, by disenfranchising them and denying them a role in the national government. Plus, numerous Kurds live outside that area; there are more Kurds in Baghdad than any other city. Do they have no voice?

Then you exaggerate that role in government; the presidency is a fairly symbolic post and they have only a share of others, but you say Kurds are "taking over". This is a typical example of how it's change that people notice; since Kurds were totally disenfranchised in the past, you perceive any role in government as "taking over". Similarly, the reduction of discrimination is sometimes perceived by privileged groups as "reverse discrimination."

BUT in mosul arabs have always been the majority since the assyrian empires fall (when Nineveh, now Mosul was the capital). but in mosul there is various of people.

The present and past demography of Mosul and other areas is endlessly debated among various factions in Iraq.Certainly some Kurds were expelled from the Mosul area and are now seeking to return. (http://home.cogeco.ca/~kobserver/15-5-03-mosul-debate-issues-kurd-arab.html)
Pre-invasion info on expulsions. (http://www.db.idpproject.org/Sites/IdpProjectDb/idpSurvey.nsf/wViewCountries/D611D3B91DABAEB9C12569E5003575AF)

A serious look at population distribution in northern Iraq (http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistan1/15-1-04-opinion-kirkuk-population.html)

I think that if Kurds want to press for Mosul, they have a right to include it in the Kurdish region. Mosul is the historic capital of the majority-Kurdish area (the Mosul vilayet, it was called by the Ottomans and during the post-WWI discussions that failed to lead to a Kurdish state.) The Kurds are a historically rural people, ruled from majority-Turkmen and Arab cities. (Cities have always ruled the countryside.) Like the Ukrainians to a degree...to say the Kurdish region can't include Mosul is like saying "OK, you can have an independent Ukraine, but not Kharkhov, that's majority-Russian."

therefore that city should belong not to arabs or kurds but to IRAQIS.

Which, according to you, does not include Kurds.

There is no Iraqi nation. Iraq is a multinational state, its borders artificiallly drawn by the British, including Arab and Kurdish nations and smaller national minorities.

u just said that! u said it was resonible to wanting mosul even though its wrong

Where?

viva le revolution

17th July 2005, 22:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 06:47 PM

as i said to him before, wouldnt be wrong if ii was ruling the US... still he sees me as being hostile to kurdish nationalism...

he thinks im like that becoz im sunni.... doesnt matter what i say. he have made up his mind that the bad guys are the sunni people (even those who call themselves leftists, communists or whatever).
I am sure that he didn't mean it like that. I am also Sunni, but religious orientation does not have a part to play in discussions here.

viva le revolution

17th July 2005, 22:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 08:10 PM

No, I don't know that. And if nobody can name them, they can't know anything else specific about them either. So how do you know they exist? Sounds like an act of faith.

The fact is that Kurds do not have an independent country, regardless of what they want; so naturally they want a voice in the Baghdad government if they're going to be under it.

You say that you're not opposed to an independent Kurdish state; good. But then you apparently want to punish them for seeking such a state, which they may not get for some time, by disenfranchising them and denying them a role in the national government. Plus, numerous Kurds live outside that area; there are more Kurds in Baghdad than any other city. Do they have no voice?

Then you exaggerate that role in government; the presidency is a fairly symbolic post and they have only a share of others, but you say Kurds are "taking over". This is a typical example of how it's change that people notice; since Kurds were totally disenfranchised in the past, you perceive any role in government as "taking over". Similarly, the reduction of discrimination is sometimes perceived by privileged groups as "reverse discrimination."
The present and past demography of Mosul and other areas is endlessly debated among various factions in Iraq.Certainly some Kurds were expelled from the Mosul area and are now seeking to return. (http://home.cogeco.ca/~kobserver/15-5-03-mosul-debate-issues-kurd-arab.html)
Pre-invasion info on expulsions. (http://www.db.idpproject.org/Sites/IdpProjectDb/idpSurvey.nsf/wViewCountries/D611D3B91DABAEB9C12569E5003575AF)

A serious look at population distribution in northern Iraq (http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistan1/15-1-04-opinion-kirkuk-population.html)

I think that if Kurds want to press for Mosul, they have a right to include it in the Kurdish region. Mosul is the historic capital of the majority-Kurdish area (the Mosul vilayet, it was called by the Ottomans and during the post-WWI discussions that failed to lead to a Kurdish state.) The Kurds are a historically rural people, ruled from majority-Turkmen and Arab cities. (Cities have always ruled the countryside.) Like the Ukrainians to a degree...to say the Kurdish region can't include Mosul is like saying "OK, you can have an independent Ukraine, but not Kharkhov, that's majority-Russian."

therefore that city should belong not to arabs or kurds but to IRAQIS.

Which, according to you, does not include Kurds.

There is no Iraqi nation. Iraq is a multinational state, its borders artificiallly drawn by the British, including Arab and Kurdish nations and smaller national minorities.

u just said that! u said it was resonible to wanting mosul even though its wrong

Where?
Well branding them ALL as sunni extremeists and baathists sounds like a sweeping generalization. The reason knowledge of the other parties is limited is because this is the one group that is touted in the media constantly. keep in mind that when facing an opposing force you keep the most extreme elements in mind. An example of this is the media's likening of communism with soviet russia. Touting the extreme elements while ignoring the moderate ones.
The kurds run the north independant of Baghdad, they have their own administration and armed forces there. that qualifies them as an independant country in nature if not on paper. Sure they should have a voice but one in proportion to their population. For example, in Afghanistan the northern alliance is given disproportionate power over the ethnic pashtuns. that's a U.S tactic of undermining the independant nationalist movements in the countries by dividing them along ethnic grounds. Rule by the minority is something that we as communists should inherently be opposed to.
They should have a role, but one in proportion to their numbers. Not as the present scenario of disproportionnate power. What do you think will happen after the U.S leaves, the kurds will be seen as collaborators in the occupation and will lead to furthur bad blood between the already divided ethnic communities.
This is an interim government. Real power lies with the U.S therefore the ceremonial figurehead is the highest echelon that any Iraqi can reach to. Much like Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan. There is no privaleged in Iraq right now. Evidence of this is the resistance which comprises of sunni and shia elements that form the bulk of Iraq's population, if the system were fair, what need would there be for anybody to take up arms against the U.S?

Severian

17th July 2005, 23:12

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 17 2005, 03:32 PM

Well branding them ALL as sunni extremeists and baathists sounds like a sweeping generalization.
I'm more willing to look at the concrete details of the resistance than those who keep going on about it's "variety". They seem unwilling to say or look at anything at all except make vague, dare I say sweeping, generalizations about that variety. The truth is always concrete, and the purpose of recognizing variation is to take a concrete look at the nature of that variation.

Which none of the supporters of the resistance are willing to do. The more someone supports the resistance, the less they seem to know about it.

The reason knowledge of the other parties is limited is because this is the one group that is touted in the media constantly. keep in mind that when facing an opposing force you keep the most extreme elements in mind.

True, and Washington identifying Zarqawi as enemy #1 has helped his growing influence in the resistance. The Ba'athist, however, have remained a major factor even when not hyped that much by Washington, as at present, and hiding behind Islamic-colored groups like "Mohammed's Army."

An interesting opinion piece by Scott Ritter, a longtime tactical critic of Washington's policies, on why the Ba'athists are a bigger factor than the overhyped Zarqawi. (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9FA18AFB-F2C9-4678-8E6A-3595D91B83A1.htm)

An example of this is the media's likening of communism with soviet russia. Touting the extreme elements while ignoring the moderate ones.

The USSR was the most moderate, detente-oriented force claiming to stand for communism.

The kurds run the north independant of Baghdad, they have their own administration and armed forces there. that qualifies them as an independant country in nature if not on paper. Sure they should have a voice but one in proportion to their population.

That's more or less what they have. If it is to some degree disproportionate it is only because they turned out and voted while others didn't.

But some Sunni Arabs think they are a majority of Iraq's population so they will always think the representation of others is disproportionate.

For example, in Afghanistan the northern alliance is given disproportionate power over the ethnic pashtuns.

Who are actually 40% of the population, but historically dominant (heck Afghanistan means land of the Pashtuns), and oppressing other nationalities by denying them language rights, etc. Ironically the Pakistani regime supports maximum Pashtun influence in Afghanistan while opposing self-determination for Pashtuns in Pakistan., and historically supressing the aspiration for the unity of the two across an artificial, British-drawn border.

that's a U.S tactic of undermining the independant nationalist movements in the countries by dividing them along ethnic grounds. Rule by the minority is something that we as communists should inherently be opposed to.

Sure. And the resistance has played into that by seeking to restore Sunni-Arab minority rule and attacking Shi'a and Kurds.

The workers' organizations in Iraq are the ones seeking unity across nationality and religious lines. Definitely not the resistance, which has deepened the divisions further the longer it fights, and even alienated their former allies the Sadrists.

Certainly no force in the resistance has expressed support for Kurdish self-determination. How can anyone fight for independence for Iraq while denying it to Kurdistan? As Marx explained, "The nation which oppresses another forges its own chains."

Real power lies with the U.S therefore the ceremonial figurehead is the highest echelon that any Iraqi can reach to.

No, the Prime Minister, Jaafari, from the Dawa Party is the government's leading figure. The Shi'a theocratic UIA holds a majority in parliament and the cabinet. Of course the Sunni-Arab resistance isn't happy about this either, for reasons explained above, and because of the UIA's hard stance against allowing ex-Baathists into positions of power. (Washington would be more willing to strike a deal with the Ba'athist resistance by giving them a larger share of power, and the campaign of bombing may be aimed at forcing the government to agree to this. It's difficult to see what else they could hope to achieve by killing civilians.)

Evidence of this is the resistance which comprises of sunni and shia elements that form the bulk of Iraq's population,

No, it doesn't. People keep saying this in defiance of all evidence. The resistance has declared war against the "bulk of Iraq's population" by threatening anyone who turns out to vote for example. The "bulk of Iraq's population" defied that threat and showed their non-support for the resistance. There is no evidence of "shia elements" still in the resistance.

viva le revolution

17th July 2005, 23:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 10:12 PM

I'm more willing to look at the concrete details of the resistance than those who keep going on about it's "variety". They seem unwilling to say or look at anything at all except make vague, dare I say sweeping, generalizations about that variety. The truth is always concrete, and the purpose of recognizing variation is to take a concrete look at the nature of that variation.

Which none of the supporters of the resistance are willing to do. The more someone supports the resistance, the less they seem to know about it.

The reason knowledge of the other parties is limited is because this is the one group that is touted in the media constantly. keep in mind that when facing an opposing force you keep the most extreme elements in mind.

True, and Washington identifying Zarqawi as enemy #1 has helped his growing influence in the resistance. The Ba'athist, however, have remained a major factor even when not hyped that much by Washington, as at present, and hiding behind Islamic-colored groups like "Mohammed's Army."

An interesting opinion piece by Scott Ritter, a longtime tactical critic of Washington's policies, on why the Ba'athists are a bigger factor than the overhyped Zarqawi. (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9FA18AFB-F2C9-4678-8E6A-3595D91B83A1.htm)

An example of this is the media's likening of communism with soviet russia. Touting the extreme elements while ignoring the moderate ones.

The USSR was the most moderate, detente-oriented force claiming to stand for communism.

The kurds run the north independant of Baghdad, they have their own administration and armed forces there. that qualifies them as an independant country in nature if not on paper. Sure they should have a voice but one in proportion to their population.

That's more or less what they have. If it is to some degree disproportionate it is only because they turned out and voted while others didn't.

But some Sunni Arabs think they are a majority of Iraq's population so they will always think the representation of others is disproportionate.

For example, in Afghanistan the northern alliance is given disproportionate power over the ethnic pashtuns.

Who are actually 40% of the population, but historically dominant (heck Afghanistan means land of the Pashtuns), and oppressing other nationalities by denying them language rights, etc. Ironically the Pakistani regime supports maximum Pashtun influence in Afghanistan while opposing self-determination for Pashtuns in Pakistan., and historically supressing the aspiration for the unity of the two across an artificial, British-drawn border.

Sure. And the resistance has played into that by seeking to restore Sunni-Arab minority rule and attacking Shi'a and Kurds.

The workers' organizations in Iraq are the ones seeking unity across nationality and religious lines. Definitely not the resistance, which has deepened the divisions further the longer it fights, and even alienated their former allies the Sadrists.

Certainly no force in the resistance has expressed support for Kurdish self-determination. How can anyone fight for independence for Iraq while denying it to Kurdistan? As Marx explained, "The nation which oppresses another forges its own chains."

Real power lies with the U.S therefore the ceremonial figurehead is the highest echelon that any Iraqi can reach to.

No, the Prime Minister, Jaafari, from the Dawa Party is the government's leading figure. The Shi'a theocratic UIA holds a majority in parliament and the cabinet. Of course the Sunni-Arab resistance isn't happy about this either, for reasons explained above, and because of the UIA's hard stance against allowing ex-Baathists into positions of power. (Washington would be more willing to strike a deal with the Ba'athist resistance by giving them a larger share of power, and the campaign of bombing may be aimed at forcing the government to agree to this. It's difficult to see what else they could hope to achieve by killing civilians.)

Evidence of this is the resistance which comprises of sunni and shia elements that form the bulk of Iraq's population,

No, it doesn't. People keep saying this in defiance of all evidence. The resistance has declared war against the "bulk of Iraq's population" by threatening anyone who turns out to vote for example. The "bulk of Iraq's population" defied that threat and showed their non-support for the resistance. There is no evidence of "shia elements" still in the resistance.
Where are these concrete truths coming from? The media.
I disagree. the ba'athist element has been touted beyond proportion, as regards the syrian element and influence.
I am sorry, i meant stalin's soviet russia, not when it was founded under Lenin.For example when the gulags and forced labour camps were touted in the western media as synonymous with communism.
The elections were staged, just like in Afghanistan where the leader was nominated. Well with a significant amount of the population not voting, what does that tell you about the credibility of the election. suppose in america if all the whites were the ones voting but blacks and hispaniics were not.
The pashtuns in afghanistan are the ethnic majority in Afghanistan. Pakistan does not support pashtun independance in pakistan because they are living in the N.W.F.P, a mountaneous region with no major population areas nor any natural resources save for small pockets of terrace cultivation. The major chunk of the food that is availible there is coming from Chitral, which is furthur down south almost paralell to the punjab. Therefore the area has no way of supporting itself and the region is in the grips of religious-fundamentalism imported from afghanistan and is significantly backward as compared to chitral, which too has a pashtun population but is more moderate and does not support the creation of a pashtun state which will only be merged with Afghanistan due to subsistence needs.
Well only one branch of the resistance. remember shias also form part of the resistance with linkages to Tehran.
How can they express support for Kurdistan when they themselves are occupied under an occupation army with an interim government headed by a kurd?
as i said earlier this is all a tactic to divide the Iraqis furthur.
Well do you honestly believe that the Iraqi parliament and prime minister has any power in Iraq? This is just an interim government. Saddam hussein had the title of president in iraq, he ruled without ceeding any authority to the parliament which just rubber-stamped his proposals, so to the ordinary Iraqi, who has been living so long under that system, recognizing the lack of power of the interim government, to him it would seem that the president is the higher authority unless the prime minister displays his executive superiority which he cannot thanks to the occupation.
That's the official occupation line that people horded out to vote. did their vote really count, as stated earlier the sunnis did not vote, the kurds hold the presidency despite their own de-facto territory in the north and the shias although the majority in parliament are disproportionally so and so are the sunni. doesn't look at all like a fair election.

viva le revolution

17th July 2005, 23:40

Since the majority of the Iraqi population wants the occupation to end, why would the united states conduct a free and fair election there? it goes aganist all their interests.

Severian

18th July 2005, 00:05

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 17 2005, 04:38 PM

Where are these concrete truths coming from? The media.
And numerous other sources I've given in this thread, including Iraqi resistance websites for crying out loud! You really have to be in denial not to recognize the character and leadership of the resistance.

I am sorry, i meant stalin's soviet russia, not when it was founded under Lenin.

That's what I meant, too. They were moderate and sought detente with the capitalist world. It was the communist Left Opposition that was "extremist" and advocated continued support for world revolution.

The pashtuns in afghanistan are the ethnic majority in Afghanistan.

Nope, 40%. There is no majority in Afghanistan. But you gotta inflate it to support Pashtun political power. So much for your "communists should always oppose minority rule", huh?

Pakistan does not support pashtun independance in pakistan because they are living in the N.W.F.P, a mountaneous region with no major population areas nor any natural resources save for small pockets of terrace cultivation. The major chunk of the food that is availible there is coming from Chitral, which is furthur down south almost paralell to the punjab. Therefore the area has no way of supporting itself and the region is in the grips of religious-fundamentalism imported from afghanistan and is significantly backward as compared to chitral, which too has a pashtun population but is more moderate and does not support the creation of a pashtun state which will only be merged with Afghanistan due to subsistence needs.

And here you are repeating the Pakistani government line. (Why shouldn't it be merged with Afghanistan? Why did Pakistan oppose this long before religious fundamentalism became an issue? How can backwardness be an argument for leaving something under those who have failed to develop it?) Certainly there is nothing communist in this approach to the question, nothing about seeking the unity of working people of different nationalities regardless of borders. Really you should stop and think anytime you find yourself repeating this kind of thing.

Well with a significant amount of the population not voting, what does that tell you about the credibility of the election. suppose in america if all the whites were the ones voting but blacks and hispaniics were not.

Voter turnout was higher in Iraq than in the U.S., despite the risk of death for voting.

How can they express support for Kurdistan when they themselves are occupied under an occupation army with an interim government headed by a kurd?
as i said earlier this is all a tactic to divide the Iraqis furthur.

And the resistance is helping with that tactic. They can't do otherwise given their nature, sure.

Communists, however, always seek unity of working people of different nationalities regardless of the current situation, and favor self-determination for that reason. Which is the stand taken by the workers' organizations in Iraq...in contrast to the resistance's pursuit of civil war. (And, yes, Washington's.)

Well do you honestly believe that the Iraqi parliament and prime minister has any power in Iraq?

Yes, some. More than previous, unelected governments. And you and Mo7amed obviously do too, or you wouldn't care who has what post. The irony of switching from "the Kurds control Iraq, look at the interim government" to "the interim government has no control"....

so to the ordinary Iraqi, who has been living so long under that system, recognizing the lack of power of the interim government, to him it would seem that the president is the higher authority unless the prime minister displays his executive superiority which he cannot thanks to the occupation.

No, everybody knows that Jaafari is the head of the government now, just as Allawi was head of government when he was prime minister. (Do you even remember, off hand, who was president in the Allawi government? I'm having trouble remembering his name myself....)

That's the official occupation line that people horded out to vote.

And if Bush says water is wet, you'll say it's dry? That's a real easy thing to do without even being aware of it, I've fallen into myself in the past.

Since the majority of the Iraqi population wants the occupation to end, why would the united states conduct a free and fair election there? it goes aganist all their interests.

That's a priori reasoning.

I'm not saying the elections were totally free and fair, but they weren't meaningless either, and Iraq is not Afghanistan....the fact is that most of Iraq's population turned out for those elections, defying resistance threats, because they saw those elections as a chance to end Sunni Arab minority rule. Which is exactly why the resistance opposed them.

Allawi, Washington's favorite, lost - his party's even been frozen out of the cabinet because they're ex-Baathists. Parties which are known to have wide support won.

And these results have advanced Washington's interests, despite a certain amount of imperfect obedience from the new government.

If your theory conflicts with these events, change your theory, don't deny the events.

viva le revolution

18th July 2005, 01:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 11:05 PM

And numerous other sources I've given in this thread, including Iraqi resistance websites for crying out loud! You really have to be in denial not to recognize the character and leadership of the resistance.

That's what I meant, too. They were moderate and sought detente with the capitalist world. It was the communist Left Opposition that was "extremist" and advocated continued support for world revolution.

Nope, 40%. There is no majority in Afghanistan. But you gotta inflate it to support Pashtun political power. So much for your "communists should always oppose minority rule", huh?

And here you are repeating the Pakistani government line. (Why shouldn't it be merged with Afghanistan? Why did Pakistan oppose this long before religious fundamentalism became an issue? How can backwardness be an argument for leaving something under those who have failed to develop it?) Certainly there is nothing communist in this approach to the question, nothing about seeking the unity of working people of different nationalities regardless of borders. Really you should stop and think anytime you find yourself repeating this kind of thing.

Voter turnout was higher in Iraq than in the U.S., despite the risk of death for voting.

And the resistance is helping with that tactic. They can't do otherwise given their nature, sure.

Communists, however, always seek unity of working people of different nationalities regardless of the current situation, and favor self-determination for that reason. Which is the stand taken by the workers' organizations in Iraq...in contrast to the resistance's pursuit of civil war. (And, yes, Washington's.)

Yes, some. More than previous, unelected governments. And you and Mo7amed obviously do too, or you wouldn't care who has what post. The irony of switching from "the Kurds control Iraq, look at the interim government" to "the interim government has no control"....

No, everybody knows that Jaafari is the head of the government now, just as Allawi was head of government when he was prime minister. (Do you even remember, off hand, who was president in the Allawi government? I'm having trouble remembering his name myself....)

That's the official occupation line that people horded out to vote.

And if Bush says water is wet, you'll say it's dry? That's a real easy thing to do without even being aware of it, I've fallen into myself in the past.

Since the majority of the Iraqi population wants the occupation to end, why would the united states conduct a free and fair election there? it goes aganist all their interests.

That's a priori reasoning.

I'm not saying the elections were totally free and fair, but they weren't meaningless either, and Iraq is not Afghanistan....the fact is that most of Iraq's population turned out for those elections, defying resistance threats, because they saw those elections as a chance to end Sunni Arab minority rule. Which is exactly why the resistance opposed them.

Allawi, Washington's favorite, lost - his party's even been frozen out of the cabinet because they're ex-Baathists. Parties which are known to have wide support won.

And these results have advanced Washington's interests, despite a certain amount of imperfect obedience from the new government.

If your theory conflicts with these events, change your theory, don't deny the events.
1. Granted the sources may be reliable.
2. My comparison with soviet russia was to highlight the fact that the media often demonises movements and governments by focusing only on the extreme. for example stalin's gulags and not his abolishment of the comintern which served the capitalists well and was applauded during the second world war upon which he was received with praise from winston churchill and franklin delano roosevelt.
3.40% of pashtuns is the largest ethnic group in afghanistan.
4. I was stating the Pakistani government line. The reason it does not support the creation of Pakhtoonistan.Let me state the history of the pathan people, one of whom i am myself, the pathans are actually a mixture of different nationalities and peoples with their roots in other countries,they are a mixture of greeks, Tajikistanis, uzbekistanis, slav, and generally central asian settled and ingrained into afghan and pakistani society. therefore the pashtun are actually a mixture of different nationalities with somewhat european features as compared to the other indigenous people's. Afghanistan, because of it's location suffered numerous invasions from outside so the pashtun people became the largest ethnic group due to migration of different people mixing with the indiginous peoples.However they form 40% of the population which is the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan and northern pakistan(pakistan due to the influx of refugees from the afghan-soviet war).
5. Tell me how is the self-determination of the Iraqis being fulfilled by co-operating with the U.S forces and the interim government?
6. I am sorry but i disagree, no interim government formed and operated under an occupation force can ever exercise any REAL power, not when it comes to dealing with Iraq as a sovreign nation. they can rant and rave about the "evil" insurgents all they like but they themselves cannot give the Iraqi people or workers the national dignity or sovreignity they deserve. Especially since Saddam was given power by the u.s in the first place, then allowed to crush a shia freedom struggle when the U.S had a chance to get rid of him during the first gulf war.
Therefore pardon my suspicion with any moves by the U.S to create any government in Iraq, especially when that government downplays national liberation and an end to occupation.
7. If the Iraqi government has any real authority tell me when has it deviated from the U.S line and called for an end to the occupation so that it can operate as 'elected representatives of the people'. if they were, if the people supported them, then how come their names were not on the ballot cards only their ethnicity? and why do they need their decisions enforced by the U.S military? How come they need to toe washington's line all the time?
8. well bush said that the war WAS fought over WMD's.......okay i say dry!
9. Allawi and chalabi provided false intelligence to the CIA. that's why that whole cadre was deposed. not everything is black and white....

redstar2000

19th July 2005, 16:17

Originally posted by BBC
25,000 civilians 'killed in Iraq'

Nearly 25,000 civilians have died violently in Iraq since the US-led invasion in March 2003, a report says.

Based on more than 10,000 media reports, the dossier is the first detailed account of such deaths.

"The ever-mounting Iraqi death toll is the forgotten cost of the decision to go to war in Iraq," said John Sloboda, one of the report authors.

The Iraq Body Count and Oxford Research Group, made up of academics and peace activists, carried out the survey.

The Dossier on Civilian Casualties in Iraq 2003-2005 says 37% of all non-combatant deaths were caused by US-led forces.

Insurgents are said to have caused 9% of the deaths, while post-invasion criminal violence was responsible for another 36%. -- emphasis added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/4692589.stm

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Severian

19th July 2005, 19:51

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 17 2005, 06:32 PM
I was stating the Pakistani government line. The reason it does not support the creation of Pakhtoonistan.
Why assume its stated reason is its real reason? Especially when likely motives like, not wanting to give up territory, are so obvious.

Tell me how is the self-determination of the Iraqis being fulfilled by co-operating with the U.S forces and the interim government?
Non sequitur. My point was why self-determination for Kurdistan should be supported, and is being supported by at least some of the workers' organizations in Iraq.

I am sorry but i disagree, no interim government formed and operated under an occupation force can ever exercise any REAL power, not when it comes to dealing with Iraq as a sovreign nation.

Then why were you complaining about a Kurd holding the presidency, and agreeing with Mo7amed, who said this meant they were taking over the country?

if they were, if the people supported them, then how come their names were not on the ballot cards only their ethnicity?

Because the resistance was threatening to kill candidates. This is a profoundly hypocritical complaint coming from a supporter of the resistance.

How come they need to toe washington's line all the time?

They don't. All the time. See the thread on Jaafari's visit to Iran.

well bush said that the war WAS fought over WMD's.......okay i say dry!

Hmmm...because Bush lies sometimes, you can safely assume that every sentence that comes out of his mouth is a lie, and use that as a way of determining the truth? If the world was like the island in logic problems, where everyone either tells the truth always or lies always, and you just have to figure out which is which...the world would be a lot simpler and easier, that's for sure.

Allawi and chalabi provided false intelligence to the CIA. that's why that whole cadre was deposed. not everything is black and white....

Your identification of Allawi and Chalabi is mistaken. Chalabi (supported by the Pentagon) was deposed in favor of Allawi (favored by State & CIA). Probably not for the reason you suggest (why would they care? Anyone who was fooled wanted to be fooled.), but because he was useless and favoring drastic de-Baathification polices Washington had turned against.

Allawi is still Washington's favored and most obedient client. Chalabi, incidentally, is now part of the Shi'a theocratic UIA slate...and still in Washington's disfavor.

Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050725fa_fact) recently wrote that the U.S. tried to covertly help Allawi win the election...if true, this was not a great success.

***
Redstar: And? So?

One expects Washington to kill Iraqis in the course of subjugating Iraq....the relative numbers don't explain why the resistance is deliberately killing Iraqi civilians. Doing the best they can, with their limited firepower, to catch up with their imperialist role models....who have a tremendous head start due to the large numbers killed during the initial invasion.

Lemme point out some factual problems here, though, what the heck....
The "insurgent-caused deaths" leaves out "Ministry of Health-defined terrorist attacks" causing another 1.3% of deaths and 11% for "unknown agents, defined as those who do not attack obvious military/strategic or occupation-related targets;"

So, for example, a car-bombing of a Shi'a mosque or neighborhood, carrying out "al Qaeda in Iraq's" stated policy of targeting Shi'a as being a bunch of collaborators, and which they and other resistance groups openly take responsibility for....are put under "unknown agents"!

Counting those, we have over 20% for opponents of the occupation. Maybe more...in murders where the motive may have been political or criminal, they seem to have put it under "predominantly criminal."

And averages including the invasion and the whole time of the occupation don't say much about what's happening now...

PDF of the"Dossier of Civilian Casualties (http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_dossier_of_civilian_casualties_2003-2005.pdf)

Period----US-led Forces--Per day--Others--Per day
Jan 05----------25-----------0.8------848------27.4
Feb 05----------11-----------0.4------981------35.0
1-19 Mar 05-----7-----------0.4------405------21.3

Others is "Anti-occupation forces, unknown agents and crime." The authors choose not to break that down. Combined with their earlier misleading breakdown, with the "unknown agents" and so forth, I'd say the authors are deliberately using statistics in a misleading way to avoid giving a full, accurate picture of the Iraqi resistance's toll on Iraqi civilians.

And if you look at the whole graph (I'd paste more, but then the columns gotta be straightened out by hand) there's a definite upward trend to "others" probably reflecting the rise of car-bombings.

As I've said before, in evaluating a political force its direction of motion is decisive. And the Iraqi resistance is clearly evolving in a reactionary direction, including more and more hostility towards the majority of Iraqis.

Damn, I bet that took a lot longer than Redstar's post. Critical examination and learning before opening one's mouth always do. I do see a certain appeal to his method of ignorance and dogma, I really do.

viva le revolution

19th July 2005, 20:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 06:51 PM

Why assume its stated reason is its real reason? Especially when likely motives like, not wanting to give up territory, are so obvious.

Non sequitur. My point was why self-determination for Kurdistan should be supported, and is being supported by at least some of the workers' organizations in Iraq.

Then why were you complaining about a Kurd holding the presidency, and agreeing with Mo7amed, who said this meant they were taking over the country?

Because the resistance was threatening to kill candidates. This is a profoundly hypocritical complaint coming from a supporter of the resistance.

They don't. All the time. See the thread on Jaafari's visit to Iran.

well bush said that the war WAS fought over WMD's.......okay i say dry!

Hmmm...because Bush lies sometimes, you can safely assume that every sentence that comes out of his mouth is a lie, and use that as a way of determining the truth? If the world was like the island in logic problems, where everyone either tells the truth always or lies always, and you just have to figure out which is which...the world would be a lot simpler and easier, that's for sure.

Allawi and chalabi provided false intelligence to the CIA. that's why that whole cadre was deposed. not everything is black and white....

Your identification of Allawi and Chalabi is mistaken. Chalabi (supported by the Pentagon) was deposed in favor of Allawi (favored by State & CIA). Probably not for the reason you suggest (why would they care? Anyone who was fooled wanted to be fooled.), but because he was useless and favoring drastic de-Baathification polices Washington had turned against.

Allawi is still Washington's favored and most obedient client. Chalabi, incidentally, is now part of the Shi'a theocratic UIA slate...and still in Washington's disfavor.

Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050725fa_fact) recently wrote that the U.S. tried to covertly help Allawi win the election...if true, this was not a great success.

***
Redstar: And? So?

One expects Washington to kill Iraqis in the course of subjugating Iraq....the relative numbers don't explain why the resistance is deliberately killing Iraqi civilians. Doing the best they can, with their limited firepower, to catch up with their imperialist role models....who have a tremendous head start due to the large numbers killed during the initial invasion.

Lemme point out some factual problems here, though, what the heck....
The "insurgent-caused deaths" leaves out "Ministry of Health-defined terrorist attacks" causing another 1.3% of deaths and 11% for "unknown agents, defined as those who do not attack obvious military/strategic or occupation-related targets;"

So, for example, a car-bombing of a Shi'a mosque or neighborhood, carrying out "al Qaeda in Iraq's" stated policy of targeting Shi'a as being a bunch of collaborators, and which they and other resistance groups openly take responsibility for....are put under "unknown agents"!

Counting those, we have over 20% for opponents of the occupation. Maybe more...in murders where the motive may have been political or criminal, they seem to have put it under "predominantly criminal."

And averages including the invasion and the whole time of the occupation don't say much about what's happening now...

PDF of the"Dossier of Civilian Casualties (http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_dossier_of_civilian_casualties_2003-2005.pdf)

Period----US-led Forces--Per day--Others--Per day
Jan 05----------25-----------0.8------848------27.4
Feb 05----------11-----------0.4------981------35.0
1-19 Mar 05-----7-----------0.4------405------21.3

Others is "Anti-occupation forces, unknown agents and crime." The authors choose not to break that down. Combined with their earlier misleading breakdown, with the "unknown agents" and so forth, I'd say the authors are deliberately using statistics in a misleading way to avoid giving a full, accurate picture of the Iraqi resistance's toll on Iraqi civilians.

And if you look at the whole graph (I'd paste more, but then the columns gotta be straightened out by hand) there's a definite upward trend to "others" probably reflecting the rise of car-bombings.

As I've said before, in evaluating a political force its direction of motion is decisive. And the Iraqi resistance is clearly evolving in a reactionary direction, including more and more hostility towards the majority of Iraqis.

Damn, I bet that took a lot longer than Redstar's post. Critical examination and learning before opening one's mouth always do. I do see a certain appeal to his method of ignorance and dogma, I really do.
Again, i was just giving the Pakistani governments arguement, what THEY state. No relation to my own beliefs. Of course they are unwilling to give up territory, what country is?
Well, you are against the resistance currently underway, please give your opinion on how it should be fought.
I will complain about the government of Iraq because it is just a puppet regime. What moves would you support of the interim government?
Then it really wasn't an election was it? the voters did not know who he was supporting was he? Just his ethnic background. Let me guess what the posters must have looked like; Eligible shia. upstanding member of community. please vote. Only a fool would call this a legitimate election.
Jaafari's visit to Iran hmm... So far it's just in the talking stages, let me know when they really take action.
Well he lied about the WMD's, the iraq-al qaeda connection, the brits lied about the half-hour capability of iraq to fire chemical weapons, they were mistaken about the end of hostilities in iraq, they lied about the resistance withering away... want me to go on? Given all these instances, you still are confident in giving them the benefit of the doubt?
Well chalabi favoured drastic de-baathification and was removed from office? And now they say that the resistance they are fighting are saddam-loyalists. something doesn't make sense......

Vallegrande

19th July 2005, 20:32

Hmmm...because Bush lies sometimes, you can safely assume that every sentence that comes out of his mouth is a lie, and use that as a way of determining the truth?

It's just that Bush gets away with a lie in the first place. He lied, and hasn't been impeached yet. Clinton got impeached for lying about sex. Bush is lying about war but is getting away with it.

Severian

19th July 2005, 20:46

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 19 2005, 01:21 PM
Then it really wasn't an election was it? the voters did not know who he was supporting was he? Just his ethnic background. Let me guess what the posters must have looked like; Eligible shia. upstanding member of community. please vote. Only a fool would call this a legitimate election.
Don't be ridiculous. People knew the parties and what they stood for.

Of course it was set up in a way to enhance national and sectarian divisions, like everything Washington's done in Iraq. And it was successful...thanks in part to the resistance's reaction.

While the left internationally has been pretending nothing of significance happened. The Iraqi resistance, by its actions, apparently disagrees.

Well he lied about the WMD's, the iraq-al qaeda connection, the brits lied about the half-hour capability of iraq to fire chemical weapons, they were mistaken about the end of hostilities in iraq, they lied about the resistance withering away... want me to go on? Given all these instances, you still are confident in giving them the benefit of the doubt?

What? No, of course not. I'm not "giving them the benefit of the doubt" or believing anything's true just because they say so. But I don't believe anything's false just because they say it, either, while you just agreed that if Bush says water's wet, you'll say it's dry.

Well chalabi favoured drastic de-baathification and was removed from office? And now they say that the resistance they are fighting are saddam-loyalists. something doesn't make sense......

Why not? Washington wants to coopt the Ba'athists into its client regime and is willing to increase their power at the expense of the Shi'a and Kurdish parties in order to do so. The Shi'a and Kurdish parties don't so much care for this, and point out that Ba'athists allowed into the new regime and its armed forces are likely to covertly aid the Ba'athist resistance...another example of them not always toeing Washington's line BTW.

viva le revolution

19th July 2005, 21:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 07:46 PM

Don't be ridiculous. People knew the parties and what they stood for.

Of course it was set up in a way to enhance national and sectarian divisions, like everything Washington's done in Iraq. And it was successful...thanks in part to the resistance's reaction.

While the left internationally has been pretending nothing of significance happened. The Iraqi resistance, by its actions, apparently disagrees.

What? No, of course not. I'm not "giving them the benefit of the doubt" or believing anything's true just because they say so. But I don't believe anything's false just because they say it, either, while you just agreed that if Bush says water's wet, you'll say it's dry.

Why not? Washington wants to coopt the Ba'athists into its client regime and is willing to increase their power at the expense of the Shi'a and Kurdish parties in order to do so. The Shi'a and Kurdish parties don't so much care for this, and point out that Ba'athists allowed into the new regime and its armed forces are likely to covertly aid the Ba'athist resistance...another example of them not always toeing Washington's line BTW.
Agreed. The resistance was a tad foolish in that regard. But their cause of driving out the american occupation forces is one i agree with. not their methods nor their religious views. Although i am from a wahhabi family myself. kind of weird eh? :D
Well given the track record of the administration when it comes to truthfulness i usually take a grain of salt alongwith the news. As they say the best indication of the future is the past.
As i stated before, washington seeks to follow a divide-and rule policy, which is why it should be booted out of that country as quickly as possible, no matter who does it.

P.s. i apologise to you severian if my above post sounded hostile. I did not intend as such.

Vallegrande

19th July 2005, 21:46

How is this war justified when every boy and man is a suspected terrorist? Women and girls have no males in their household after the Fallujah massacre as all of the males weren't allowed to leave. I'm sure there were some kids that got out but most of the males are dead, whether or not they were terrorist.

Free Palestine

19th July 2005, 22:18

Severian I suggest expending less energy in judging the character of the Iraqi resistance and spending more effort on building a visible resistance to the Iraq occupation from inside the US (which you seem to have no objection to).

redstar2000

20th July 2005, 18:57

Originally posted by Severian
Damn, I bet that took a lot longer than Redstar's post. Critical examination and learning before opening one's mouth always do. I do see a certain appeal to his method of ignorance and dogma, I really do.

By this time, I am beginning to be quite amused at Severian's attempts to "discredit" me.

Whenever he posts something from another site -- which he considers "evidence" -- we are all supposed to flop on our bellies.

When I do likewise...well, that's different. :lol:

The methodology is "flawed"...or they are "fudging the numbers" to make the resistance look better...or..."the trend is reactionary"...or whatever.

You'd almost think he's positioning for an appointment to the quisling "government"...Ambassador to Iran, for example. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Severian

20th July 2005, 21:35

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 20 2005, 11:57 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jul 20 2005, 11:57 AM)
Severian
Damn, I bet that took a lot longer than Redstar's post. Critical examination and learning before opening one's mouth always do. I do see a certain appeal to his method of ignorance and dogma, I really do.

By this time, I am beginning to be quite amused at Severian's attempts to "discredit" me.

Whenever he posts something from another site -- which he considers "evidence" -- we are all supposed to flop on our bellies.[/b]

Bubba, I'd be pleasantly surprised if you did to any of my sources what I just did to yours. Tracing a secondary source back to a primary...I try to do that before I post, and if you could succeed where I'd failed, that'd be a real contribution to our knowledge. Or a detailed critical examination of any of the many sources of evidence I've provided.

But you never do. I don't think you can.

Severian

20th July 2005, 21:49

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 19 2005, 02:04 PM

Agreed. The resistance was a tad foolish in that regard. But their cause of driving out the american occupation forces is one i agree with. not their methods nor their religious views.
I don't think it's foolishness. Clearly there's a lot of clever people in the resistance going by their successful devising of many new effective military tactics. Foolish people couldn't carry out these car-bombings, evade their adversaries, etc.

I think their methods flow from their class character and their goals: on the one hand restoring the Ba'ath regime if possible or regaining as much power as possible for Ba'athists if not. On the other establishing a Taliban-like regime...

Naturally they treat the majority of Iraqis as their enemies...because most Iraqis are their enemies and the enemies of their goals....

***

So, FP, you're giving advice to me when you were calling me a "traitor" (to what?) not long ago?

Opposition to the occupation isn't much in dispute on this board. When occasionally it is, I think I can argue against continuing the occupation far more effectively than any supporter of the resistance. (And my opponent thought so too.)

What kind of movement do you think can be built by supporting people who, you've acknowledged, are behaving in a truly rotten way? How could such people attempting to build such a movement tell the truth?

Judging by Redstar, or even the Iraq Body Count study...they can't. IMO that's crippling in the long or even medium run. You can't fool all the people all the time.

Vallegrande

20th July 2005, 23:07

The soldiers are developing their own mental and physical anguish from this war, and the fact is there will not be enough funds to treat all of them. The only time a soldier gets optimal care is when they have to show up on the news to get attention. We dont see that often enough.

It was foolish to invade Iraq in the first place. Bush was foolish, as he always has been growing up. His own mother said that he never listened anyways. So what's the positivity of this occupation, other than the theory that we are killing terrorism?

Hm, I can imagine the Bush Ad in the office playing their board game 'Iraq' right now.

viva le revolution

20th July 2005, 23:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 08:49 PM

I don't think it's foolishness. Clearly there's a lot of clever people in the resistance going by their successful devising of many new effective military tactics. Foolish people couldn't carry out these car-bombings, evade their adversaries, etc

Naturally they treat the majority of Iraqis as their enemies...because most Iraqis are their enemies and the enemies of their goals....

***

Opposition to the occupation isn't much in dispute on this board. When occasionally it is, I think I can argue against continuing the occupation far more effectively than any supporter of the resistance. (And my opponent thought so too.)

What i meant by that was not their intelligence per se but their tactics and the attacks by the extremist minority on shias, that just undermines support for them when they need unity the most. however i approve of the majority which are just people who want the U.S out of their country.
On a more personal note Severian, i never doubted your intelligence nor your capablities of conducting an intelligent debate.

mo7amEd

21st July 2005, 01:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 08:10 PM

kurds are sitting in the most of the high posts in the iraqi regim. the foreign misiter is kurds. the iraqi president is kurd.

why i say that they are taking over my country is because they DO NOT consider themselves as being iraqis.

The fact is that Kurds do not have an independent country, regardless of what they want; so naturally they want a voice in the Baghdad government if they're going to be under it.

You say that you're not opposed to an independent Kurdish state; good. But then you apparently want to punish them for seeking such a state, which they may not get for some time, by disenfranchising them and denying them a role in the national government. Plus, numerous Kurds live outside that area; there are more Kurds in Baghdad than any other city. Do they have no voice?

i dont know how long i will keep on answering these threads, coz this seems really unnesserly, its getting no1 nowhere, and same things are said again and again, anyhow

first of all, yes the kurds should have a voice, but not like this. they should be able to do whatever they want in their own area until they could get an own country (coz right now they cant, coz iran, syria or turkey will proberly attack). but why should they have the power to decide over an iraqi when an iraqi cannot decide anything over them?

they should choose either they are WITH iraq, and in that case there shouldnt be anything called kurdistan, or they have their own federation til the day theyre able to get an own country.

Then you exaggerate that role in government; the presidency is a fairly symbolic post and they have only a share of others, but you say Kurds are "taking over". This is a typical example of how it's change that people notice; since Kurds were totally disenfranchised in the past, you perceive any role in government as "taking over". Similarly, the reduction of discrimination is sometimes perceived by privileged groups as "reverse discrimination."

since kurds were totally disenfranchised? they have been living better than any iraqi for 15 years now... they have been independent since the flyzone in 91 started. ofcourse they are taking over, cause they have nothing to do in baghdad. by the way, those kurds u are referring to in baghdad. first of all there are more kurds in arbil. second of all referring to fayleen, i do not think they see the kurds from the north as their representives.

and i do not exaggerate their role, they do have the most embasseys,

BUT in mosul arabs have always been the majority since the assyrian empires fall (when Nineveh, now Mosul was the capital). but in mosul there is various of people.

The present and past demography of Mosul and other areas is endlessly debated among various factions in Iraq.Certainly some Kurds were expelled from the Mosul area and are now seeking to return. (http://home.cogeco.ca/~kobserver/15-5-03-mosul-debate-issues-kurd-arab.html)
Pre-invasion info on expulsions. (http://www.db.idpproject.org/Sites/IdpProjectDb/idpSurvey.nsf/wViewCountries/D611D3B91DABAEB9C12569E5003575AF)

A serious look at population distribution in northern Iraq (http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistan1/15-1-04-opinion-kirkuk-population.html)

I think that if Kurds want to press for Mosul, they have a right to include it in the Kurdish region. Mosul is the historic capital of the majority-Kurdish area (the Mosul vilayet, it was called by the Ottomans and during the post-WWI discussions that failed to lead to a Kurdish state.) The Kurds are a historically rural people, ruled from majority-Turkmen and Arab cities. (Cities have always ruled the countryside.) Like the Ukrainians to a degree...to say the Kurdish region can't include Mosul is like saying "OK, you can have an independent Ukraine, but not Kharkhov, that's majority-Russian."

yes i read these articles.

so u are saying we should follow these facts written one sentury ago. by the way, in these facts shabak and yazidis are counted as kurds so the amount should increase. anyhwo, if the kurds always was the majority of the mosul vilayet ehn how is it that its lots more arabs there today? coz there have not been any outkicking of kurds in large amounts like in kirkook.

then this dude who is writing the article is saying that the yazidis was later counted as an own ethnicity athough they are kurds, i just wish for him to go ask any yazidi in the entire iraq if he is kurd, then he'll know the answer...

therefore that city should belong not to arabs or kurds but to IRAQIS.

Which, according to you, does not include Kurds.

No, which according to kurds... they do not consider themsleves as iraqis, is that so hard to see?

There is no Iraqi nation. Iraq is a multinational state, its borders artificiallly drawn by the British, including Arab and Kurdish nations and smaller national minorities.

So you mean the name iraq was made up? that name existed before Islam, so no not really invented by Britain, they were only occupied first by ottamans then later the brits.

well iraq is a multinational state, and people think iraqi means arab, but it dont. kurds, arabs, turkomans, assyrians, shabak and all other ethnicity are counted as iraqis, until this arabization campagn begun.

saying there is no Iraqi nation is like saying there is no American nation.

u just said that! u said it was resonible to wanting mosul even though its wrong

Where?

Here…
Posted: Jul 5 2005, 08:27 PM

I'm saying 1) the Kurds expelled by the Ba'ath regime have the right to return and reclaim their homes and farms and 2) it's reasonable that in seeking an independent and united Kurdistan, that the Kurds want a couple large cities in it...even if they remain majority non-Kurdish. I am of course opposed to the expulsion of non-Kurds.

mo7amEd

21st July 2005, 01:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 11:05 PM

Well do you honestly believe that the Iraqi parliament and prime minister has any power in Iraq?

Yes, some. More than previous, unelected governments. And you and Mo7amed obviously do too, or you wouldn't care who has what post. The irony of switching from "the Kurds control Iraq, look at the interim government" to "the interim government has no control"....
What i am saying is that the kurds should not do anything im Baghdad if they do not consider themselves as kurds. When they are sitting in Baghdad they are not there for the sake of the Iraqi people (the entire Iraqi people), they are there for the kurdish people. But its not like Allawi or Chalabi or anyone else is better.

anyhow, i read that u said the only reason the kurds have their power is because they voted (i have other things to say about that but i leave it until i have sources, all the sources i have right now is iraqi newspapers).

So you DO consider this voting to be justified and fair?

btw 58 percent voted...

last thing, u said earlier that that u want the US occupation to end right now, may i ask how u want that to happen and what do u think we should support instead of the resistance?

viva le revolution

21st July 2005, 08:45

However misguided the minority in the resistance's goals may be the resistance is the only alternative to kicking the U.S out of Iraq. neo-syndacalist strikes will not do the job, it will only make the U.S look to alternate foreign pools of labour.
As regards the Kurd question, i agree with mo7amed, unless an arab parliament has some degree of authority over the kurdish territories, the kurds should not have any power over arab territory.
Saying that most Iraqi people are the enemies of the resistance is a little mistaken in my view.Given the death and destruction imposed on them by the american forces the people would more than willing to support any movement to end the occupation. i mean the worker's parties in Iraq are still in the minority, why? because they have not taken the fight over to the american forces. it's just naive to expect them to stop supporting the resistance and adopt more peaceful measures towards the united states. violent insurrection is the right of every people as a means of expelling invaders. There is no other serious alternative for the iraqi people to turn to.

Free Palestine

21st July 2005, 20:46

Originally posted by Severian
What kind of movement do you think can be built by supporting people who, you've acknowledged, are behaving in a truly rotten way? How could such people attempting to build such a movement tell the truth?

Sorry, I tend to support the right of self-determination in the struggle against imperialist domination. All communists should. The Iraqi people have the right to resist the occupation by any means at their disposal, rotten as they are (and believe me, some certainly are rotten). However, the issue of the tactics of war is diversionary. Tactics are not the issue, colonialism in Iraq and elsewhere is the issue One side is fighting a war against colonialism and occupation, and on the other side are the colonialists engaged in a brutal occupation murdering and torturing innocent civilians. In that struggle all Communists must take an unambiguous position opposing the colonizers.

Were it not for the resistance, the U.S. would've swiftly achieved victory in Iraq and implemented the Bush administration's neo-conservative plan to extend American hegemony throughout the entire M.E. under the false veneer of "promoting democracy." Is this what you want? If Iraq simply surrendered, as you seem to prefer, this example of the Pentagon's invincibility would have demoralized the entire region and tempted the White House to barge into Syria and Iran to replace their governments with subordinate regimes to corporate globalization and multinational capital. Is that what you want?

Severian

22nd July 2005, 16:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 06:36 PM
first of all, yes the kurds should have a voice, but not like this. they should be able to do whatever they want in their own area until they could get an own country (coz right now they cant, coz iran, syria or turkey will proberly attack). but why should they have the power to decide over an iraqi when an iraqi cannot decide anything over them?
If Kurdistan remains in Iraq the Baghdad government will have some power over them; they'll end up giving up their de facto independence in exchange for recognized autonomy.

so u are saying we should follow these facts written one sentury ago. by the way, in these facts shabak and yazidis are counted as kurds so the amount should increase. anyhwo, if the kurds always was the majority of the mosul vilayet ehn how is it that its lots more arabs there today?

I'm saying the subject is endlessly debatable, and there's probably as much truth in these claims as in yours. Mosul vilayet refers to a Ottoman district which was a large area of present-day northern Iraq, not just Mosul city or Nineveh province...

saying there is no Iraqi nation is like saying there is no American nation.

There isn't. The U.S. is also a multinational state, and America is a continent stretching from Alaska to Argentina.

u just said that! u said it was resonible to wanting mosul even though its wrong

Where?

Here…
Posted: Jul 5 2005, 08:27 PM

I'm saying 1) the Kurds expelled by the Ba'ath regime have the right to return and reclaim their homes and farms and 2) it's reasonable that in seeking an independent and united Kurdistan, that the Kurds want a couple large cities in it...even if they remain majority non-Kurdish. I am of course opposed to the expulsion of non-Kurds.

What's the contradiction? Neither the return of the expelled nor the inclusion of Mosul and Kirkuk in a Kurdish autonomous region necessarily has to mean the expulsion of anyone else. Have other nationalities been expelled from the current Kurdish-controlled region?

ast thing, u said earlier that that u want the US occupation to end right now, may i ask how u want that to happen and what do u think we should support instead of the resistance?

I support the workers' organization in Iraq...which are in conflict with the "resistance" and other fundamentalist groups, as well as the occupation, its client regime, and employers both Iraqi and foreign.

Severian

22nd July 2005, 16:39

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 21 2005, 01:46 PM
Sorry, I tend to support the right of self-determination in the struggle against imperialist domination. All communists should. The Iraqi people have the right to resist the occupation by any means at their disposal, rotten as they are (and believe me, some certainly are rotten).
But the resistance is not "the Iraqi people." It has declared war on a majority of Iraqis.

However, the issue of the tactics of war is diversionary. Tactics are not the issue,

I agree. In evaluating the resistance, is class character and goals are the issue...its "tactics" reflect this.

colonialism in Iraq and elsewhere is the issue One side is fighting a war against colonialism and occupation, and on the other side are the colonialists engaged in a brutal occupation murdering and torturing innocent civilians.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

In that struggle all Communists must take an unambiguous position opposing the colonizers.

Sure. Not the question in dispute.

Were it not for the resistance, the U.S. would've swiftly achieved victory in Iraq and implemented the Bush administration's neo-conservative plan to extend American hegemony throughout the entire M.E. under the false veneer of "promoting democracy."

Which leaves working people out of the equation, as well as other forces opposing Washington, and the unintended consequences of Washington's actions. IMO all this paranoid ultraright crap about the "neo-conservative plan" is just another anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, like your theory that Jewish bankers engineered the Napoleonic wars...and, like all conspiracy theories which try to explain world history, overestimates the power of the alleged secret masters of the world. (In this case, the "Zionists".)

If Iraq simply surrendered, as you seem to prefer, this example of the Pentagon's invincibility would have demoralized the entire region and tempted the White House to barge into Syria and Iran to replace their governments with subordinate regimes to corporate globalization and multinational capital. Is that what you want?

Nope. But the prospect of Washington, through overconfidence, further overextending itself doesn't fill me with terror, either.

Nor have Washington's repeated lopsided military victories so disoriented me, that I'll abandon all political principle. And hail as a savior, anyone who happens to give them some military trouble.

The resistance is actually doing Washington a favor in one respect...in order to overcome the "Vietnam syndrome", they need to win a victory after a prolonged and bloody conflict, in order to teach the lesson that perseverance pays off. The capable, stubborn, desperate, but politically hopeless enemy which Washington is facing now, is the perfect adversary for that longstanding political goal....

mo7amEd

22nd July 2005, 17:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 03:19 PM
If Kurdistan remains in Iraq the Baghdad government will have some power over them; they'll end up giving up their de facto independence in exchange for recognized autonomy.

If Saddam couldnt control the kurdish areas you serously think the new Baghdad gouvernment that can't even controll Fallujah would even try to control the kurdish areas? I'm not sure if you know how much power Al-Talabani or Al-Barzani have, or had before the invasion.

Btw, I don't see how you support the workers movement in Iraq and at the same time sees those two fellows as representives for Kurds.

I dunno if you read this but it's a good article that shows the difference between those you support and the other communist party of Iraq:
http://www.wpiraq.net/english/rebwar010803.htm

This shows the face of PUK:
http://www.wpiraq.net/english/rebwar_arif_appeal.html

I'm saying the subject is endlessly debatable, and there's probably as much truth in these claims as in yours. Mosul vilayet refers to a Ottoman district which was a large area of present-day northern Iraq, not just Mosul city or Nineveh province...

If what you mean with Mosul Vilayet the area from Mosul up to Duhook and Zakho then I would see how it would be so many kurds living there. But you are saying that kurds have the right to claim on THE CITY Mosul because they were majority of an area existed under the Ottomans ruling, right? Because this Mosul Vilayet does not exist today, and the Nineveh Province used to include Duhook and Zakho but since there were living so many kurds there (proberly 99-100 percent) they instead created an own province called Duhook Province. That was the solution, so today most kurds of northern Iraq do live in "Kurdistan". Even though there is still kurds in the province of Nineveh. Now you are claiming they still have right to claim on Mosul and the Nineveh Province.

check out this map then you will see what I'm talking about:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...p-province1.gif (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/images/iraq-map-province1.gif)

There isn't. The U.S. is also a multinational state, and America is a continent stretching from Alaska to Argentina.

Only because it's a multinational state does not mean it's not a nation. All the ethnicities belongs to one nationalityl. Btw, America is not a continent, North America is and South America is another...

u just said that! u said it was resonible to wanting mosul even though its wrong

Where?

Here…
Posted: Jul 5 2005, 08:27 PM

I'm saying 1) the Kurds expelled by the Ba'ath regime have the right to return and reclaim their homes and farms and 2) it's reasonable that in seeking an independent and united Kurdistan, that the Kurds want a couple large cities in it...even if they remain majority non-Kurdish. I am of course opposed to the expulsion of non-Kurds.

What's the contradiction? Neither the return of the expelled nor the inclusion of Mosul and Kirkuk in a Kurdish autonomous region necessarily has to mean the expulsion of anyone else. Have other nationalities been expelled from the current Kurdish-controlled region?

What's the contradiction? You are saying that it's reasonble that in seeking an independent Kurdistan it's ok to wanting a couple large cities even though kurds aren't the majority. Doesn't that sound a bit stupid? So maybe they want Tikrit too, should they include that into Kurdistan?

I support the workers' organization in Iraq...which are in conflict with the "resistance" and other fundamentalist groups, as well as the occupation, its client regime, and employers both Iraqi and foreign.

Oh I see, because some workers in Basrah (Observe! A shia City) feels like this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1417222,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1417222,00.html)

Severian

22nd July 2005, 20:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 10:28 AM
Btw, I don't see how you support the workers movement in Iraq and at the same time sees those two fellows as representives for Kurds.
They are the representatives of most Kurds, whether or not you or I like it......not because I say so, but because most Kurds say so.

Oh I see, because some workers in Basrah (Observe! A shia City) feels like this:http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1417222,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1417222,00.html)

I agree with most of that. I doubt that you'd find any of the armed resistance groups, other than the Sadrists, making statements like fighting the "still powerful Saddamist elite" for example.

mo7amEd

22nd July 2005, 20:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 07:40 PM
They are the representatives of most Kurds, whether or not you or I like it......not because I say so, but because most Kurds say so.

Well, it felt like you were supporting them or something... are you?

Oh I see, because some workers in Basrah (Observe! A shia City) feels like this:http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1417222,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1417222,00.html)

I agree with most of that. I doubt that you'd find any of the armed resistance groups, other than the Sadrists, making statements like fighting the "still powerful Saddamist elite" for example.

Well, I agree with all this:
"The occupation has deliberately fomented a sectarian division of Sunni and Shia. We never knew this sort of division before. Our families intermarried, we lived and worked together. And today we are resisting this brutal occupation together, from Falluja to Najaf to Sadr City. The resistance to the occupation forces is a God-given right of Iraqis, and we, as a union, see ourselves as a necessary part of this resistance - although we will fight using our industrial power, our collective strength as a union, and as a part of civil society which needs to grow in order to defeat both still-powerful Saddamist elites and the foreign occupation of our country."

That you only aswered these two issues I take it as you agree with me with the rest of the content in my post (or that you don't have time to answer the rest?).

Severian

22nd July 2005, 21:23

I felt we were repeating ourselves, like you were saying earlier.

Free Palestine

22nd July 2005, 22:31

The masses of Iraqis oppose the occupation and want U.S. troops to get out. Contrary to Severian's delusions, the resistance mostly enjoys support from the people of Iraq, despite U.S. efforts to neutralize various constituencies through pressure, manipulation, grandiose promises, threats and bribery. Tell me, how else can an armed urban guerrilla force function in heavily occupied territory without the support of the people?

In evaluating the resistance, is class character and goals are the issue...

..All of which is a reflection of the historic nature of the country. The reason there are no discernable left socialists or communists in the resistance's leadership is largely because the left has been suppressed for decades. Yet you consistently fail to factor in the historical and political context into your little equation of approval.

Nor have Washington's repeated lopsided military victories so disoriented me, that I'll abandon all political principle. And hail as a savior, anyone who happens to give them some military trouble...

If you are to only support pristine movements then I'm afraid no resistance will ever be worthy of your "purity." You will wait forever. The Minutemen of the American revolution were slave-owners and capitalists too, do you deny that justice was still on their side compared with the yoke of England?

The resistance is actually doing Washington a favor in one respect...

Speaking of which, your reluctance to support the resistance does Washington a favor in that it strengthens Bush's contention that the resistance is composed of nothing but unworthy terrorists intent upon crushing Iraq's nascent "democracy," the latest justification for keeping the army of occupation in Iraq indefinitely.

mo7amEd

23rd July 2005, 13:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 08:23 PM
I felt we were repeating ourselves, like you were saying earlier.
So in conclusion:

You only support the workers union.
I support them I see them as a part of the resistance.
You appose this islamist-baathist resistance.
i support those who are fighting to get rid of the US occupation.
We both agreed that first step to liberty for Iraqis is that the occupation ends.

If you agree with this then I think there is not much more discussion from my side.

EDIT
--------------------
Mosul belongs to Kurdistan... :P

redstar2000

23rd July 2005, 16:11

Seymour Hersh on the Iraqi "elections"...

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050725fa_fact

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

mo7amEd

24th July 2005, 00:11

Even though Severian is going to take this as a hostility against kurds I still going to say it:

According to my reletivies many villages outside Mosul was "bought up". Kurds came to the village and took the ballot and gave the villages money in exchange (many were forced to give up their ballots), and replaced it with their votes. And no of my reletivies made it to the voting, they waited but the time was over before they could vote.

Severian

24th July 2005, 07:25

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 22 2005, 03:31 PM
Tell me, how else can an armed urban guerrilla force function in heavily occupied territory without the support of the people?
The resistance mostly operates as guerillas in Sunni Arab areas.

They operate as terrorists in majority-Shi'a areas. Car bombs are driven in and detonated, mostly. Are you going to suggest that they can only do this because most Iraqis like being blown up?

The reason there are no discernable left socialists or communists in the resistance's leadership is largely because the left has been suppressed for decades.

You left out: By the same people now leading the resistance. That's why Iraqi communists would be sucidal to join it.

If you are to only support pristine movements then I'm afraid no resistance will ever be worthy of your "purity." You will wait forever. The Minutemen of the American revolution were slave-owners and capitalists too, do you deny that justice was still on their side compared with the yoke of England?

No. Capitalism was a progressive system at that time. Not anymore. The era of bourgeois-democratic revolutions is over. This is a fairly fundamental political point.

Speaking of which, your reluctance to support the resistance does Washington a favor in that it strengthens Bush's contention that the resistance is composed of nothing but unworthy terrorists intent upon crushing Iraq's nascent "democracy," the latest justification for keeping the army of occupation in Iraq indefinitely.

Should I claim water is dry because Bush says its wet? Do you think you can oppose imperialism's justifications more effectively that way? Seems to me that by saying things that are false, and which most people will easily recognize as false, you damage your own credibility and effectiveness.

Severian

24th July 2005, 07:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 05:11 PM
Even though Severian is going to take this as a hostility against kurds I still going to say it:

According to my reletivies many villages outside Mosul was "bought up". Kurds came to the village and took the ballot and gave the villages money in exchange (many were forced to give up their ballots), and replaced it with their votes. And no of my reletivies made it to the voting, they waited but the time was over before they could vote.
If you think that kind of thing was the main reason the Kurdish nationalist parties did well in the election, that sure sounds like a conspiracy theory. (That is, an attempt to explain a social phenomenon with deeper causes by means of an improbably large and perfect evil conspiracy.)

May I point out the resistance was doing its damnedest to keep your relatives and everyone else from voting, was fairly successful in areas where it was strong, and was willing to kill people for voting (and actually did kill as many people as it could on election day.)

***

And (not for the first time) Redstar posts something I already linked! As I said before, if Hersh's report is accurate, Washington's efforts to help Allawi...were not so successful.

mo7amEd

24th July 2005, 13:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 06:37 AM
If you think that kind of thing was the main reason the Kurdish nationalist parties did well in the election, that sure sounds like a conspiracy theory. (That is, an attempt to explain a social phenomenon with deeper causes by means of an improbably large and perfect evil conspiracy.)
No I do not think that's the main reason, please I am not stupid. I do know that there is a population of 3-4 million kurds in Iraq (2 million over 18, and with the right to vote). But what I was saying is that they did cheat (other parties in Iraq did cheat as well). There is places in Nineveh Province where kurds got 100 percent of the votes even though the population was 80-90 percent assyrians.

My point is that this election that you seem to defend was not an valid election. It was not an honest election. If an army could march in and steal ballots then there is something really wrong.

May I point out the resistance was doing its damnedest to keep your relatives and everyone else from voting, was fairly successful in areas where it was strong, and was willing to kill people for voting (and actually did kill as many people as it could on election day.)

I know the resistance did everything they could to scare people from voting in this election, even killing people. But that wasn't the reason my relatives or many other in Iraq didn't vote. There were simply no time left.

redstar2000

24th July 2005, 16:09

Originally posted by Severian
Capitalism was a progressive system at that time. Not anymore. The era of bourgeois-democratic revolutions is over. This is a fairly fundamental political point.

Trotskyist dogma!

And worse, just plain wrong.

Any country in the world today that is not already a modern capitalist country -- which is to say, most of the countries in the world -- must have, in one form or another, a bourgeois revolution and develop such a modern capitalist economy.

The stupid idea that backward countries can "skip over" the capitalist epoch of production deserves summary rejection for the idealist crap that it is.

It has never happened, and I see no material reason why it ever should.

The only way you (and Trotsky) can "justify" this fiction is by conflating a state capitalist path of economic development with the chimera of a "workers' state" in which the working class has no power.

Evidently finding no way to fit the Iraqi resistance into this bizarre "world-view", you simply denounce it as "reactionary"...even at the very moment that the quisling regime is revealing its genuinely reactionary character -- see its "rules for women" (or Taliban Lite) in its "draft constitution", for example.

Bizarre hardly even begins to describe your position.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Free Palestine

24th July 2005, 22:26

They operate as terrorists in majority-Shi'a areas. Car bombs are driven in and detonated, mostly.

This is because there are no hiding places for combatants, such as forests and mountains, which forces them to fight almost exclusively in heavily populated cities, towns and along certain highways. That is why the car bomb and suicide bombers are deployed in the towns and cities.

Also note the car bombings target military checkpoints, U.S. patrols, police stations, and officials who collaborate with the occupation. The nature of the car bombings results in civilian casualties by perforce, but they are rarely if ever the primary target. Some of the attacks that seem to be directed at only civilians reflect sectarian religious provocations, not necessarily associated with the resistance.

What else do you expect them to fight with if not small arms and homemade bombs? No countries will dare supply more powerful weapons for fear of instant retaliation from the US. You go on and on and on about car bombs yet make no mention of the occupying power possessing the greatest arsenal of weapons, tanks, planes, communications equipment and surveillance devices in human history, murdering as many as 100,000 Iraqis. You really are one imperialism-loving, Zionism-loving stooge, aren't you?

Severian

25th July 2005, 23:20

Originally posted by mo7amEd+Jul 24 2005, 06:14 AM--> (mo7amEd @ Jul 24 2005, 06:14 AM)
[email protected] 24 2005, 06:37 AM
If you think that kind of thing was the main reason the Kurdish nationalist parties did well in the election, that sure sounds like a conspiracy theory. (That is, an attempt to explain a social phenomenon with deeper causes by means of an improbably large and perfect evil conspiracy.)
No I do not think that's the main reason, please I am not stupid. [/b]
Heh. OK.

A lot of the supporters of the resistance do seem to think the election results were primarily the result of rigging, describe it as a "farce", etc.

I know the resistance did everything they could to scare people from voting in this election, even killing people. But that wasn't the reason my relatives or many other in Iraq didn't vote. There were simply no time left.

OK. It does seem kinda funny that you support the resistance, and say your relatives in Iraq do too, when the resistance woulda killed 'em for trying to vote, if it could....

Severian

25th July 2005, 23:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 09:09 AM
Evidently finding no way to fit the Iraqi resistance into this bizarre "world-view", you simply denounce it as "reactionary"...even at the very moment that the quisling regime is revealing its genuinely reactionary character -- see its "rules for women" (or Taliban Lite) in its "draft constitution", for example.
As opposed to the "Taliban Heavy" of the resistance, including the once-supposedly-secular Ba'athists?

The Iraqi resistance doesn't fit into your view of the Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban, etc., revolutions as "state capitalist" bourgeois revolutions either...since it bears no resemblance to the forces that made those revolutions, nor does it advocate any such policy..

Really none of your concrete positions on the world today bear any relationship to your theory of those revolutions; your thinking lacks even internal consistency never mind a relationship to facts.

mo7amEd

26th July 2005, 00:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 10:20 PM
A lot of the supporters of the resistance do seem to think the election results were primarily the result of rigging, describe it as a "farce", etc.

Dunno about that, but I do know there have been cheating, even though I don't think in such big scales that it would matter. Still cheating is cheating, and that should be enough to say that this election was not valid.

OK. It does seem kinda funny that you support the resistance, and say your relatives in Iraq do too, when the resistance woulda killed 'em for trying to vote, if it could....

I support those who fight to get rid of the occupation, and I always will. None of my relatives like living with the occupation, therefore they support those who oppose the occupation. It's that simple. But they did want to vote (proberly thinking it will end the occupation, I don't know...) but couldn't.

As far as I know, those who wanted to kill civilians to prevent them from voting was Al Zarqawis group. The same people that would kill shia civilians because they're shia.

Yet again, therefore I support those who FIGHT the occupation, not blow up civilians to gain power.

viva le revolution

26th July 2005, 01:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 03:09 PM

Trotskyist dogma!

And worse, just plain wrong.

Any country in the world today that is not already a modern capitalist country -- which is to say, most of the countries in the world -- must have, in one form or another, a bourgeois revolution and develop such a modern capitalist economy.

The stupid idea that backward countries can "skip over" the capitalist epoch of production deserves summary rejection for the idealist crap that it is.

It has never happened, and I see no material reason why it ever should.

The only way you (and Trotsky) can "justify" this fiction is by conflating a state capitalist path of economic development with the chimera of a "workers' state" in which the working class has no power.

Wht you are stating Redstar is an absolute impossibility.
Bourgeois revolutions in the first-world took place at the time of the birth of capitalism shortly after the industrial revolution. When nowhere was capitalism prevalent. in today's day and age, bourgeois revolutions that take place in the third-world only allow for more penetration of the first-world into the third-world. As a result spawning reactionary movements in opposition to this. indeed the islamic fundamentalist movements arose out of this phenomena. Any bourgeois revolution won't bring growth or development in the third world. why? because the first-world enjoyed those bourgeois revolutions in a time of feudalism, when there was no barrier to growth nor the spectre of exploitation from an outside power.
Today's world is much more different and has been for the most part of the century. The third-world due to it's suffering of exploitation is in a much more eager for revolution partially out of nationalistic protectionism of it's industries economic protectionism from first-world exploitation. Waiting for bourgeois revolution? That is not realistic, capitalist systems have been demonized by colonial and economic oppression, more likely we can expect reactionary movements(islamic fundamentalism, nationalistic movements etc.) more than bourgeois democracy because your theory discounts the ability of the third-world to learn and adapt. Given the economic web of the first-world it is unrealistic to expect for the third-world to develop in the same way when the conditions and political climate are vastly different, given the state of exploitation and subserviance it is impossible for any indigenous industry to grow without some sort of protectionism or barrier against the first world.
Bourgeois systems of government do exist in the third-world, however they are completely subserviant to the superpower, which is why they are opposed in the first place. Bourgeois revolutions will only make that dependance even greater forcing the third-world, if anything furthur down the economic scale. The myth of development under the influence of a foriegn power has largely been disspelled.
Quite a thought, the third-world cannot prosper because they are not developed enough yet. Historically all signs of revolution and struggle have only taken place the third-world. Any serious attempt at revolution has been attempted in the third-world, because the symptoms of capitalism have been the most profound there.
Any serious revolutionary movement in the first-world i have yet to see.

Severian

26th July 2005, 02:06

The political reality is that the whole armed resistance, as well as Sunni Arab groups sympathetic to it, endorsed the election boycott which was enforced with the car bombs of Zarqawi's group as well as rocket and mortar attacks probably carried out by others.

The resistance groups, including the Ba'athists who lead most of it, don't seem to make the distinction you do (http://www.albasrah.net/moqawama/english/0105/iraqiresistancereport_300105.htm) according to their own website.

Hm. You can read the Arabic-language resistance websites also...what did they have to say about the election boycott and its enforcement?

redstar2000

26th July 2005, 05:41

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)The Iraqi resistance doesn't fit into your view of the Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban, etc., revolutions as "state capitalist" bourgeois revolutions either...since it bears no resemblance to the forces that made those revolutions, nor does it advocate any such policy...[/b]

Doesn't matter...material conditions demand that after they win, the Iraqi resistance will do what the Maoists have done -- or be, in turn, overthrown by real Maoists who will do those things.

Before anything progressive can happen in Iraq, the imperialists must be expelled and their clerical quislings overthrown.

viva le revolution
In today's day and age, bourgeois revolutions that take place in the third-world only allow for more penetration of the first-world into the third-world.

But "penetration" is not the same as "control".

It is imperialist control of third-world countries that does the real damage; that hyper-develops a small part of the economy while leaving the rest to rot.

When, following the expulsion of the imperialists, a vigorous native bourgeoisie emerges, they are free to develop the whole economy towards modern capitalism. When they re-enter the world market, they can negotiate a better deal with the imperialists...up to and including "making it themselves" if the imperialists get too greedy.

They cannot stand as equals to the imperialists...unless they are large enough and rich enough to become imperialists themselves (like China).

But they will have escaped absolute bondage to the imperialists. What most "third-world" countries are today is the equivalent of slaves...and that is what must be overcome first.

Slaves cannot make a proletarian revolution...that's asking "too much". But they can throw off the chains of slavery...and they do.

Waiting for bourgeois revolution? That is not realistic, capitalist systems have been demonized by colonial and economic oppression, more likely we can expect reactionary movements (Islamic fundamentalism, nationalistic movements, etc.) more than bourgeois democracy because your theory discounts the ability of the third-world to learn and adapt.

I'm not arguing that bourgeois revolutions in the "third world" will be "like" the ones that happened in 19th century Europe. They will likely be, as you suggested, ideologically anti-capitalist and may be mixed with nationalism (progressive under the circumstances) and religious fundamentalism (reactionary).

What matters is not what "they think they are doing" but rather what objective conditions demand that they do.

The objective conditions in those countries demand modern capitalism (and all that goes with that)...and that is what is going to happen, without regard for how the people who do that conceptualize themselves or their goals.

Material reality prevails.

Historically all signs of revolution and struggle have only taken place the third-world.

Yes...and the outcome of successful struggle and revolution? Modern capitalism.

Any serious revolutionary movement in the first-world I have yet to see.

But if Marx was right, that's where real proletarian revolution must and will take place first.

My guess is the events of May 1968 will be regarded by future historians as the first modern "proto-revolution"...and that when the real thing emerges, it will be "like France" only much more so.

It certainly won't be anything like Russia or China at all.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Severian

26th July 2005, 19:40

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 25 2005, 10:41 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jul 25 2005, 10:41 PM)
Severian
The Iraqi resistance doesn't fit into your view of the Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban, etc., revolutions as "state capitalist" bourgeois revolutions either...since it bears no resemblance to the forces that made those revolutions, nor does it advocate any such policy...

Doesn't matter...material conditions demand that after they win, the Iraqi resistance will do what the Maoists have done -- [/b]
Hmmmm...."objective conditions" might impel a standard bourgeois nationalist regime to carry out measures like the Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban, etc. revolutions? Not only reformist, but contrary to all historical experience...including the fact that the Ba'athists didn't do anything of the kind when they were in power before. Nor have "Islamic fundamentalists" done that in the countries where they've held power...

or be, in turn, overthrown by real Maoists who will do those things.

Also didn't happen when the Ba'athists took power before. On the contrary, that was a great, bloody, setback for working people in Iraq.

Before anything progressive can happen in Iraq, the imperialists must be expelled and their clerical quislings overthrown.

A theory that's already been disproved by events. Something progressive is happening: workers are beginning to organize and recover from decades of Ba'athist police-state rule.

And of course from China to Vietnam to Cuba, revolutions occurred in struggle against imperialist troops and puppet regimes...not through bourgeois nationalist regimes taking over first and real revolution postponed to somewhere down the line.

It is imperialist control of third-world countries that does the real damage; that hyper-develops a small part of the economy while leaving the rest to rot.

Schematic. South Korea? Taiwan?

But if Marx was right, that's where real proletarian revolution must and will take place first.

Again, schematic oversimplification of Marx...e.g. the Communist Manifesto anticipates revolution first in Germany, at that time a less-developed country which had not had its industrial revolution...a bourgeois revolution immediately followed by a proletarian revolution. And of course what happened: the German bourgeoisie proved incapable of leading a revolution, due to fear of the workers. It fell to the workers leading the peasants, Marx and Engels concluded, to carry out the tasks of bourgeoisie's revolution as well as their own.

That situation exists throughout the Third World today: the working class exists, is a factor in the situation, and so is the bosses' fear of the workers...they cannot play a progressive role or lead the masses in a bourgeois revolution.

However, the workers can lead the peasants, take power, and carry out the unfinished business of the bourgeois revolution more thoroughly than the bourgeoisie ever did....and necessarily, in order to do so, they'll have to tackle some socialist tasks as well. Given the opposition of the capitalists to even the bourgeois-democratic revolutionary measures, they cannot be left in control of the economy.

My guess is the events of May 1968 will be regarded by future historians as the first modern "proto-revolution"...and that when the real thing emerges, it will be "like France" only much more so.

It certainly won't be anything like Russia or China at all.[/b]

Lemme just suggest that schematic sectarian fantasizing about repeating the patterns of past revolutions is harmful regardless of what past revolution is involved....the role of students in sparking May 1968 may not be repeated any more than the main role of peasants in the Chinese Revolution.

1968 was during an atypical period of prolonged capitalist prosperity combined with worldwide youth radicalization, after all...rather different that the current long-running structural economic malaise of capitalism.

redstar2000

27th July 2005, 02:43

Originally posted by Severian
Something progressive is happening: workers are beginning to organize and recover from decades of Ba'athist police-state rule.

And if the resistance did not exist, how long do you think the occupation authorities and their quislings would permit that?

The usual penalty for simply trying to organize a trade union in an imperial quisling regime is summary execution.

However, the workers can lead the peasants, take power, and carry out the unfinished business of the bourgeois revolution more thoroughly than the bourgeoisie ever did....and necessarily, in order to do so, they'll have to tackle some socialist tasks as well.

1. Third world revolutions are not "led by workers" but by middle class (and even upper class) dissidents...often of a distinctly nationalist character.

There are occasions when organized workers play an important role in events...but rarely a "leading role" and, even then, not for very long.

2. The revolutionary dissidents do not "lead the peasants"...they simply remove the traditional obstacles to the peasantry's own agenda ("land to he who works it")...an agenda that is not socialist in any respect.

3. The "socialist" measures taken as a consequence of third world revolutions are either not socialist at all (really bourgeois) or they fail -- they are "out of sync" with material conditions.

The "colonial bourgeoisie" generated by imperialism is indeed normally incapable of making a real bourgeois revolution (though it was evidently accomplished in South Korea and Taiwan...and you could probably add Malaysia to the list). Normally, it is happily subservient to its colonial masters and deeply corrupted as well.

But what happens as a consequence of third world revolutions is not "socialism", it is the emergence of a vigorous new native bourgeoisie...that is capable of a real bourgeoisie revolution even though it flies the red flag...or even the green flag of Islam.

Iran is developing into a modern capitalist country...to the dismay of the mullahs, I suspect. They must be aware, however dimly, that their efforts to preserve the "cultural and religious purity" of Iran are doomed.

Capitalism, by its necessary fixation on profit, undermines all pre-capitalist traditions. All that was solid melts into air.

You know who said that.

Lemme just suggest that schematic sectarian fantasizing about repeating the patterns of past revolutions is harmful regardless of what past revolution is involved.

As you wish. Proletarian revolution may well take completely innovative and unexpected forms...in fact, we should expect some "new features and characteristics".

But anyone counting on a "real" Leninist party to emerge and "lead" us to "victory" is engaging in fantasy on a scale far beyond my own modest efforts.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Severian

27th July 2005, 05:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 07:43 PM
The usual penalty for simply trying to organize a trade union in an imperial quisling regime is summary execution.
Schematic. South Korea? Most of Latin America today?

I can't see any basis for suggesting the resistance is responsible for increased political space for workers...and you don't give any. If anything, they provide an excuse for increased repression by the occupation and by the new regime in Baghdad...one likely to be accepted by a lot of Iraqis, given that they probably want something done to stop the people blowing 'em up wholesale.

1. Third world revolutions are not "led by workers" but by middle class (and even upper class) dissidents...often of a distinctly nationalist character.

There are occasions when organized workers play an important role in events...but rarely a "leading role" and, even then, not for very long.

2. The revolutionary dissidents do not "lead the peasants"...they simply remove the traditional obstacles to the peasantry's own agenda ("land to he who works it")...an agenda that is not socialist in any respect.

3. The "socialist" measures taken as a consequence of third world revolutions are either not socialist at all (really bourgeois) or they fail -- they are "out of sync" with material conditions.

Yeah, whatever. We're both talking about revolutions of the Russian, Chinese, Cuban, etc., pattern. You may choose to label 'em bourgeois revolutions but obviously they are different from a mere ordinary bourgeois coup. If you don't accept my terminology, make up your own...that recognizes this necessary distinction. Otherwise, you're just insisting on maximum confusion of different things.

The "colonial bourgeoisie" generated by imperialism is indeed normally incapable of making a real bourgeois revolution (though it was evidently accomplished in South Korea and Taiwan...and you could probably add Malaysia to the list).

Why do you say it was accomplished there? Industrial development does not equal the eradication of pre-capitalist forms of exploitation, liberation from imperialist domination, etc......

Normally, it is happily subservient to its colonial masters and deeply corrupted as well.

Yes, in the examples you gave as well.

But what happens as a consequence of third world revolutions is not "socialism", it is the emergence of a vigorous new native bourgeoisie...that is capable of a real bourgeoisie revolution even though it flies the red flag...or even the green flag of Islam.

Yes, yes, I know you think that. The question at issue is, what does it take to make those revolutions.

Iran is developing into a modern capitalist country...to the dismay of the mullahs, I suspect. They must be aware, however dimly, that their efforts to preserve the "cultural and religious purity" of Iran are doomed.

Nevertheless, they are not "dismayed", on the contrary they are working, from nationalist motives, to advance the industrial development of Iran. Including their pursuit of nuclear power.

They are not carrying, on the contrary in 1979 they blocked, a social revolution that would eradicate semifeudal exploitation on the land, deal blows to national oppression of the Kurds, Azeris, Arabs, etc., liberate women, etc...on the pattern of Russia, China, etc.

Capitalism, by its necessary fixation on profit, undermines all pre-capitalist traditions. All that was solid melts into air.

Yes, it undermines them. But they don't disappear by a gradual, peaceful process. Debt peonage and other forms of peonage occur in factories producing for the world market. Alll kinds of precapitalist crap is put into service of capital.

Capitalist economic development undermines all kinds of precapitalist crap. It creates the conditions for a revolution that will sweep all that away.

It does not eliminate the need for that revolution.