War in Iraq: Not "all bad"

[Karl Marx's Camel]

The resistance in Iraq keep holding US, and other nation's forces, in Iraq. The US has invested many of their resources to Iraq, and as a result, the oppositional governments in Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and other anti-US and anti-imperialist states, have more room for manoeuvre. The revolutionary groups in Colombia, Nepal, the Phillipines and elsewhere, can now also excercise a greater degree of flexibility. Iraq has become a victim, but other's may have gained an advantage. We should not feel sorry for the fall of Saddam. He massacred communists in Iraq, and was a US puppet.

We should hope more troops are deployed in Iraq; that Iraq turns into a new Vietnam, while resisting imperialism.

[bolshevik butcher]

I dont support north korea or iran. While they might be anti-imperialist there just as reactionary as teh U$ is.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Partly agree. However, Iran and North Korea is not a threat to the world, and we should aim at defeating US imperialism. Iran and North Korea are pieces in the puzzle.

[communist mercy]

I disagree although I am intoxicated with the Iraqi war as a form of resistance to U.S. imperialism.

We should work to permanently withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. The price the Iraqi people have paid is just too great.

[dopediana]

I'm sorry but the original premise of this post is absolutely inaccurate and naive. The US is already manoevring to leave Iraq (notice the rushed elections and heavy training of the local police and security forces). We are talking about the biggest and most advanced system in the world, with thousands of extremely clever men and women involved in monitoring the globe (especially those deemed "un-American") and consequently, policy-making. The idea that nations can kinda slip under their eye is wholly fallacious.

I am quite sure that in the event of said nations acting against American interests, the US will be outta Iraq and in their backyard faster that you can say "chemical weapons activated on 45 minutes' notice".

And incidentally, I wouldn't call these nations allies.

Alan (guerrillaradio)

[barret]

I don't belive that this statement is even remotely true. First off, the revolutionary groups in South America and Asia aren't sucessful enough to even worry about the war in Iraq. Secondly, there are already plans drawn for the removal of troups, reguardless of how long the time frame is. Lastly, if these revolutionary groups were causing enough damage, you know the U.S would get involved, reguardless of its current situation in Iraq.

[Decolonize The Left]

The US will not succeed in Iraq. The elections will occur, yet they will bring nothing to the country. It's in ruins, and deeply divided.

As for North Korea and Iran, both these nations viciously oppress their people, and engage in horrible human rights abuses. There should be no support for these governments.

Cuba is an entirely different matter. I hope Casto lives many more years, as he has lifted the Cuban people from dictatorship to socialism with great leadership. I also hope the US embargo is lifted, as it will help thousands of people on that island.

Venezuala is also a different matter, which I won't go into now, there are threads on it everywhere.

Therefore, I think after the withdrawl from Iraq, there will be a brief respite from battle, until the administration draws up some more lies about some other country (*cough* Iran). Then the workers will be dressed in uniform and sent to kill other workers in other countries, and we will see more innocent deaths.

-- August

[Seeker]

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050821/481/bag...082701iraqplane (http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050821/481/bag10808211307&g=events/iraq/082701iraqplane)

During the posturing and DeLaying, a bit of information slips out of the MSM regarding the movement in Iraq. Apparently there is somthing called an Iraqi Workers-Communist Party, and apparently the reporters in bed with the Occupation have taken pictures of them.

[Mr Brightside]

I don't hope for more American troops to be deployed to Iraq, I would much rather their were none there at all. More American troops in Iraq means more dead working people on both the American and Iraqi side. There's a working class man at each end of a rifle, to paraphrase.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Haven't you heard? They plan to stay four more years in Iraq Link. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050821/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_chief_interview_11)


I dont support north korea or iran. While they might be anti-imperialist there just as reactionary as teh U$ is.

You can support them against imperialism without lending them an ounce of political support.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 20 2005, 05:41 PM
I dont support north korea or iran. While they might be anti-imperialist there just as reactionary as teh U$ is.
I am also against them, but I also recognize that in those deformed workers' states, they are better off than they would have been under captialism. Despite its horrible deformation, the USSR was a major world power, and things like unemployment and simple diseases were not a problem. Now look at Russia today. All of the "old crap" has returned. Stalinist regimes must either succumb to captialist imperialism or be overthrown by the Proletariat in the name of genuine socialism. We should oppose capitalist action aganist deformed workers' states, recognizing some good accomplishments of them, and strongly support the struggle agains them in the name of genuie socialism.

Saddam also shows the true nature of the USA; everything they do in the name of "freedom," in reality, is a game of cynical calculation! Saddam was their little buddy in the past, and they only went after him when he stepped on their toes in 1991, as he had his own plans for the oil. The US also supported many reactionary dictatorships in Latin America. The US also hated Stalin because the deformed workers' state did not allow room for bankers, corporations, etc, not because of his brutality. Most people hate brutality, and the US only points out brutality to win public opinion against her foes. I will lay odds that the Pope himself would have made Stalin a saint if he did all of his brutality in the name of captialism. We must also keep in mind that the captialists won't admit that Fascism is a reactionary form of Bourgeois dictatorship, and that nations like England and her allies only "switched sides" when Hitler started attacking them. They viewed Fascism as an ideology that would help them crush the USSR.

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 07:18 AM
The US will not succeed in Iraq. The elections will occur, yet they will bring nothing to the country.
I dunno where you've been living for the past 7 months. The elections happened in February!!

One thing that is worth noting about the new Iraqi constitution is that Shia insistence that no law should be contrary to Islamic law. This is predicted to impact especially on women's rights, since we all know that Islamic teaching does not view them as equals (let's quit being PC here and accept the facts). Does this mean that Iraqi women (that's 50% of the Iraqi population) will be worse off under the new government than under the famously secularist Saddam??

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Of course.

Under Sadaam, Iraqi women had more rights than in any other middle eastern state.

[Andy Bowden]

I wonder if Christopher Hitchens *****ing about islamofascists will apply to the Iraqi puppet govt, if they indeed accept Shariah law <_<

[Insomniac]

I wonder if Christopher Hitchens *****ing about islamofascists will apply to the Iraqi puppet govt, if they indeed accept Shariah law

Don&#39;t even waste time with him.

He is a hardline neo-conservative and I don&#39;t know why the media calls him a pro war liberal/leftist.

So what if he was in the SWP in his youth, Paul Wolfowitz was a Trotskyite when he was young as well, it means fuck all&#33;

And in good neo-conservative tradition, Hitchens will support the pro-US Islamofascists from the Shia parties.

He come up with the bullshit about how Shia fundamentalist oppression will be democratic as they got &#39;votes&#39; for their Islamic regime. So what, Hitler got German&#39;s votes to do all the wars and genocides he did.

Just beacuse a political system gets an X on some sheet of paper does NOT make it democratic.

I just wish Hitchens would come clean and say that he is a racist imperialist shit who believes that Iraq and other Arab nations should be reduced to US colonies, to be plundered by every crooked corporation in the world and for it&#39;s people to have their lives dictated to be unaccountable US backed &#39;tribal leaders&#39; hangers on and US military officers.

Of course he will never do that.

So ignore him, that fat shit is not even worth our anger or time&#33;

[Anarchist Freedom]

The war in Iraq is going to end bad every way I can concieve it to be.

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by EagleEyeNuñ[email protected] 29 2005, 04:38 PM
Millions of Iraqis are being freed, the Iraqis will reap the benefits of their oil, and they will finally have a voice in their own government. The U.S. is indeed protecting its interests, as every nation has a duty to do, but the benefits to the Iraqi people are countless. These include equality for women, democracy, and a better way of life. Some of the comments here are extremely misguided and show a real lack of understanding of world politics and history.
Namely yours.

[Intifada]

I disagree. The views expressed here are a fringe minority.

The majority of Americans (namely 56%) now hold the belief that invading Iraq was a mistake.

Follow... (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/s_367921.html)

The more dead soldiers that come home, the better.

[Decolonize The Left]

EagleEye, let&#39;s look at your first post, and talk about misguided:

Millions of Iraqis are being freed

Freed? I see people dying everyday. Many many many innocent deaths... they are not free are they? And what freedom has come to the rest? The freedom to wake up each morning in fear of death? Do you consider that freedom?


the Iraqis will reap the benefits of their oil

Ok, this has "misguided" and "lack of understanding" written all over it. Firstly, "the Iraqis" won&#39;t reap a fucking dime from their oil. A few men whole will negociate with US corporations will reap a lot, but the vast mojoroty of profits will go to the US who will exploit this newly conquered terrirtory as much as possible.


and they will finally have a voice in their own government

Really? All I&#39;ve been reading about is how no one can fucking decide on anything. The groups might have a &#39;voice&#39;, but it&#39;s now a power struggle for who will control the country. Those who lose this power struggle will see their voice disappear rather quickly...


The U.S. is indeed protecting its interests, as every nation has a duty to do

Every single nation on earth has a responsibility to protect its interests, period.

Do you know what "national interests" mean in the US? It means large, multinational, coroporations that exploit the common, poor, worker for astronmical profits while polluting the environment and shafting the people. So.... sounds like some solid shit to protect no?
And no nation has any duty to protect foreign international investments. Why? Because they&#39;re fucking foreign international investments&#33; They&#39;re not the safety of the people, they are not the health of the people, they arn&#39;t even the fucking interest of the people&#33;


but the benefits to the Iraqi people are countless. These include equality for women, democracy, and a better way of life.

Well... it would appear that the benefits certainly are not countless. As you mentioned three earlier, and now three more, that makes six (although I&#39;m tempted to mesh democracy and voice in government together), so let&#39;s say five.

Now, equality for women? What? I&#39;m sorry, but isn&#39;t it part of the Muslim culture for women to be treated the way they are? So how will this change? You actually think a bunch of men who are elected to government are going to say: "Well, I really do enjoy having my wife as my slave, but, let them all be equal citizens now"?
Democracy.. see above.
Better way of life? As a slave country to US businesses?


Some of the comments here are extremely misguided and show a real lack of understanding of world politics and history.

Quite a tough statement after your thoughts earlier. It would seem you are the misguided one, who shows an enormous lack of understanding of reality.

-- August

[Intifada]

What an idiotic thing to say.

I assume you are referring to the statement I made about the US and other occupying forces.

I stand by it.


Only a miserable person would say something like that.

Anti-imperialist more like.


I&#39;d venture to guess you&#39;re a prime candidate for drug abuse or suicide.


If you wish to put it that way...


I sure hope you don&#39;t get drafted.

Fat chance of that.

I don&#39;t live in the United Snakes of America.

[Commie Girl]

The majority of oil profits will not go to U.S. businessmen. Where is your proof of this? Or does it just sound good alongside your anti-U.S. government rhetoric? Show me the proof and make it from a reputable source, not one of these left wing wackjob rags.


Just a sampling of proof:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1224-05.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/0425mold.htm

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Jan2004/gupta0104.html

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/D...t-Fund-for-Iraq (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Development-Fund-for-Iraq)

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/C...ional-Authority (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Coalition-Provisional-Authority)

...."CPA Order 39, entitled "Foreign Investment," provided that "A foreign investor shall be entitled to make foreign investments in Iraq on terms no less favorable than those applicable to an Iraqi investor," and that "[t]he amount of foreign participation in newly formed or existing business entities in Iraq shall not be limited...." Additionally, the foreign investor "shall be authorized to...transfer abroad without delay all funds associated with its foreign investment, including shares or profits and dividends..." A planned economy is an economic system in which economic decisions are made by centralized planners, who determine what sorts of goods and services to produce, and how they are to be priced and allocated. ... A tariff is a tax placed on imported and/or exported goods, sometimes called a customs duty. ... Profit is defined as the residual value gained from business operations. ... A dividend is the distribution of profits to a companys shareholders. ... "

" CPA drastically altered Iraq&#39;s economy, allowing virtually unlimited and unrestricted foreign investment and placing no limitations on the expatriation of profit. "

"the controversial policies are fundamentally anti-democratic in that it is not for the United States or any other country or coalition of countries to determine what trade laws Iraqis must live by, and that such rules can only be legitimate if passed initially by an elected Iraqi government free of foreign occupation and domination"

"CPA Order 17 granted all foreign contractors operating in Iraq immunity from "Iraqi legal process," effectively granting immunity from any kind of suit, civil or criminal, for actions the contractors engaged in within Iraq. [6] CPA Order 49 provided a tax cut for corporations operating within Iraq. It reduced the rate from a maximum of 40% to a maximum of 15% on income. Corporations working with the CPA were exempted from owing any tax. [7] CPA Order 12, amended by Order 54, suspended all tariffs, thus removing the advantage that domestic Iraqi producers had over foreign producers. [8] [9]. However, a 5% "reconstruction levy" on all imported goods was later reimposed to help finance Iraqi-initiated reconstruction projects. [10] In a medical sense, immunity is a state of having sufficient biological defenses to avoid infection, disease, or other unwanted biological invasion. ... Service of process is the term given to a court or administrative bodys exercise of its jurisdiction over individuals who are the subject of proceedings or actions bought before such court, body or other tribunal. "

"these policies were not only rather blatant attempts to shape Iraq&#39;s economy in the interests of American (and other) investors and against the interests of Iraqis themselves, but also that they were illegal under international law, because an occupying power is prohibited from rewriting the laws of the occupied country.... "

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 05:14 PM
The more dead soldiers that come home, the better.
I think people who make comments like that should be locked in a cage with a collection of leftist and communist theory and not allowed to come out till their politics actually make sense and aren&#39;t the result of teen angst. Soundbites like that reflect EXTREMELY BADLY on this site.

In short, what a load of misanthropic shite.

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by guerrillaradio+Aug 29 2005, 02:35 PM--> (guerrillaradio @ Aug 29 2005, 02:35 PM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 05:14 PM
The more dead soldiers that come home, the better.
I think people who make comments like that should be locked in a cage with a collection of leftist and communist theory and not allowed to come out till their politics actually make sense and aren&#39;t the result of teen angst. Soundbites like that reflect EXTREMELY BADLY on this site.

In short, what a load of misanthropic shite. [/b]
I think what he meant is the more dead soldiers, the more the U&#036; public demands an end to the war...?

[Decolonize The Left]

Firstly, thanks to Commie Girl for the links to info, helpful and informative.

Now to Eagle Eye,

War is ugly, people do die. It&#39;s a fact of life.


This is not a fact of life, it&#39;s a fact of war. Most wars are not necessary, and the War in Iraq was certainly an example of unnecessary war based on lies, and distorting information. Now almost 2,000 of your precious American soldiers are dead, for lies... Glad to see you support freedom and justice.
How do people have freedom when they are lied to constantly? How is there justice when the president lies about WMDs and thousands upon thousands of people die?
There&#39;s a word for this, it&#39;s called hypocrisy, and you seem to worship it like the fucking flag you pray in front of every night.


You seem to be ignoring the fear under which the Iraqis were living under Saddam.

I&#39;m not arguing Saddam wasn&#39;t a horrible dictator. But he was secular, and he didn&#39;t tolerate Al Qaeda... so, ummm, why did we bomb his country? It was a sovereign nation wasn&#39;t it? There were no terrorists, or WMDs... Again, hypocrisy. The original rhetoric behind the war was terrorists with WMDs, but that was all lies, so now it is freeing the Iraqi people. Will this prove to be lies too?


And in the long run, they will be free.

You don&#39;t know this. I could argue simply: No they won&#39;t.


The majority of oil profits will not go to U.S. businessmen. Where is your proof of this? Or does it just sound good alongside your anti-U.S. government rhetoric? Show me the proof and make it from a reputable source, not one of these left wing wackjob rags.


Commie Girl provided this info with wonderful accuracy and even quoted some for you. :D


As far as equality for women, yeah, it will happen. Women flocked to the voting booth right? What was that? Right wing propaganda? No, it&#39;s a fact.

Yeah they voted. I didn&#39;t say they didn&#39;t. But how many women will be elected into the government? (Hint: few to none) How much power will they have? (Hint: None) So you can glory it all up and show those cute pictures of them with paint on their figures and yell: "Ah ha&#33; Equality&#33;" But you know it isn&#39;t true equality. Look how long it took for the women&#39;s movement to gain ground here in America, and look at how society still isn&#39;t equal. All you&#39;ve got is speculation: "They will be free, I know it.... There will be equality, I just know there will....". I&#39;ve got history though, and facts.


I am firmly rooted in reality.

I think I just proved you are not.


For one, I understand that war is ugly and people will die. Once you accept that, you will realize that 1800 deaths over a few year span is acceptable in the big picture. Yes, it&#39;s terrible but it is what it is.

Justified war is ugly and people die. Unjustified war = unnecessary deaths. And that is what we have in Iraq.


The radical left is a fringe entity filled with leftover dope smoking hippies, pedophiles who are protected by the ACLU, traitors, homosexuals and seditious, mutated gene freaks. If that is who you choose to side with, hey, knock yourself out. I&#39;d rather just side with common sense, respect for family, country and neighbor.

So you have admitted that you are a homophobic, insecure, blindly patriotic, weak American. Congrats, admittion is the first step to change.

You have also proved that you do not excerise common sense or rational judgement, you just &#39;roll over&#39; on command from the government. You&#39;re like a sheep following the flock, not really knowing what is happening, or where you&#39;re going, but you&#39;re happy to be "safe". When in fact you don&#39;t know where the wolves are, or where your sheperd is, because you don&#39;t have one.

I&#39;m sorry if that metaphor was too much for you. I think you understood the rest though.

-- August

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 05:12 PM
But how many women will be elected into the government? (Hint: few to none)
Actually there are a number of women in the "National Assembly".....including representatives of the Shi&#39;a theocratic parties. They&#39;re seeking to roll back the legal rights of Iraqi women.

Neatly illustrates the emptiness of seeking more women, Black people, etc., in political office, by itself.

[Commie Girl]

;)



Iraqi activist taken up by Bush recants her views

By Andrew Buncombe
Published: 28 August 2005


She was the Iraqi activist who became a symbol of the possibility of a brighter future for Iraq.

Back in February, with blue ink on her finger symbolising the recent Iraqi election in which she had just voted, Safia Taleb al-Souhail was invited to sit with the first lady, Laura Bush, and listen to the President claim in his state of the union address that success was being achieved in Iraq. Her picture went round the world after she turned to hug Janet Norwood, a Texas woman whose son had been killed in Iraq.

But now it appears Ms Souhail, an anti-Saddam activist who became Iraq&#39;s ambassador to Egypt, may be having second thoughts about the "success" she celebrated with a two-fingered victory sign.

Having seen the negotiations for the country&#39;s constitution fall into disarray and the prospect of a secular constitution severely undermined, she expressed her concerns last week.

"When we came back from exile, we thought we were going to improve rights and the position of women. But look what has happened: we have lost all the gains we made over the past 30 years. It&#39;s a big disappointment. Human rights should not be linked to Islamic sharia law at all. They should be listed separately in the constitution."

Although, in practice, many Iraqis end up having recourse to religious authorities or informal tribal law, the idea of a united civil code is central to the modern state, she said.

Ms Souhail, whose actions during Mr Bush&#39;s February address were noted by Billmon.Org, a political website, added: "This will lead to creating religious courts. But we should be giving priority to the law."

Mr Bush claimed last week that women&#39;s rights were not being threatened by the negotiations in Baghdad.

"There is not, as I understand it, the way the constitution is written, is that women have got rights, inherent rights recognised in the constitution, and that the constitution talks about, you know, not &#39;the religion&#39; but &#39;a religion&#39;," he said.

"Twenty-five per cent of the assembly is going to be women, which is embedded in the constitution."

She was the Iraqi activist who became a symbol of the possibility of a brighter future for Iraq.

Back in February, with blue ink on her finger symbolising the recent Iraqi election in which she had just voted, Safia Taleb al-Souhail was invited to sit with the first lady, Laura Bush, and listen to the President claim in his state of the union address that success was being achieved in Iraq. Her picture went round the world after she turned to hug Janet Norwood, a Texas woman whose son had been killed in Iraq.

But now it appears Ms Souhail, an anti-Saddam activist who became Iraq&#39;s ambassador to Egypt, may be having second thoughts about the "success" she celebrated with a two-fingered victory sign.

Having seen the negotiations for the country&#39;s constitution fall into disarray and the prospect of a secular constitution severely undermined, she expressed her concerns last week.

"When we came back from exile, we thought we were going to improve rights and the position of women. But look what has happened: we have lost all the gains we made over the past 30 years. It&#39;s a big disappointment. Human rights should not be linked to Islamic sharia law at all. They should be listed separately in the constitution." Although, in practice, many Iraqis end up having recourse to religious authorities or informal tribal law, the idea of a united civil code is central to the modern state, she said.

Ms Souhail, whose actions during Mr Bush&#39;s February address were noted by Billmon.Org, a political website, added: "This will lead to creating religious courts. But we should be giving priority to the law."

Mr Bush claimed last week that women&#39;s rights were not being threatened by the negotiations in Baghdad.

"There is not, as I understand it, the way the constitution is written, is that women have got rights, inherent rights recognised in the constitution, and that the constitution talks about, you know, not &#39;the religion&#39; but &#39;a religion&#39;," he said.

"Twenty-five per cent of the assembly is going to be women, which is embedded in the constitution."

[Commie Girl]

<_< This idiot got himself restricted to OI....I restarted this thread there so he could make his (lame) points.

[Decolonize The Left]

Thanks Commie Girl, you are clearly on top of this matter.

In solidarity,
August

[Intifada]

Originally posted by guerrillaradio+Aug 29 2005, 08:35 PM--> (guerrillaradio @ Aug 29 2005, 08:35 PM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 05:14 PM
The more dead soldiers that come home, the better.
I think people who make comments like that should be locked in a cage with a collection of leftist and communist theory and not allowed to come out till their politics actually make sense and aren&#39;t the result of teen angst. Soundbites like that reflect EXTREMELY BADLY on this site.

In short, what a load of misanthropic shite. [/b]
Oh no&#33;

I wish for the imperialist forces in Iraq to die&#33;

What a sin&#33;

They are the enemy and I couldn&#39;t care less about them.

Moreover, the more bodies returning to the US/UK without life, the better. People who were indifferent to the invasion will begin to question it.

[Decolonize The Left]

People who were indifferent to the invasion will begin to question it.

This would be true if the public saw the caskets returning draped with flags, but they don&#39;t (upon request from the white house). And so we have an indifferent public, who receives little real news from Iraq, and doesn&#39;t hear about the deaths unless someone like Sheehan says something...

My point being the public will not begin to question the War until the death count breaks 2K or something drastic happens, like another terrorist attack in the US. The latter will also depend on how the media spins it, is it reason to favor Bush more, and get firmer on terrorism? Or is it a result of the unnecessary war in Iraq?

-- August

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 07:47 PM

People who were indifferent to the invasion will begin to question it.

This would be true if the public saw the caskets returning draped with flags, but they don&#39;t (upon request from the white house). And so we have an indifferent public, who receives little real news from Iraq, and doesn&#39;t hear about the deaths unless someone like Sheehan says something...

My point being the public will not begin to question the War until the death count breaks 2K or something drastic happens, like another terrorist attack in the US. The latter will also depend on how the media spins it, is it reason to favor Bush more, and get firmer on terrorism? Or is it a result of the unnecessary war in Iraq?

-- August
I agree that the US media is blacking out the real story in Iraq, but the latest polls show that more Americans (56% to be precise) are now beginning to feel that the invasion was a mistake.

Most do find out about the deaths.