Greetings from Brisbane, Australia

[youngmarxist]

I am a Marxist who supports the war in Iraq. Sadaam was a fascist and Bush threw him out of power. It is not revolutionary to support fascist dictators or to oppose the people who are destroying them.

The war in Iraq was NOT all about oil. Bush is a very different President to those who have gone before him. Bush really belives that he has a historic mission to transform the Middle East and bring democracy. At last America is rejecting the corrupt foreign policy that it has followed for 50 years.

Eight million Iraqis defied the threats of fascists and religious fundamentalists, and voted. They now have a representative government, which WANTS the USA to stay in Iraq until they are strong enough to crush their own terrorists. I stand in solidarity with the Iraqi people, not the Baathists or Al-Quaedists.

I also am suspicious of Guevara. I think he was a romantic who did not correctly analyse the balance of forces in South America. That is why he died - a failure, not a hero to me.

Hating the USA is _not_ enough to make you a revolutionary. You need to analyse its actions and judge each one on its merits.

David

[slim]

I dont support Saddams regime, if i did then i would be under house arrest under the terror act.

As for supporting fascists... I am against the Bush regime too lol.

[youngmarxist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 02:11 AM
I dont support Saddams regime, if i did then i would be under house arrest under the terror act.

As for supporting fascists... I am against the Bush regime too lol.
If you supported the Sadaam regime, I would hand you over to the socialists in Iraq or Kurdistan and let them try you.

The US is NOT a fascist regime. It is a highly militarised, quite authoritarian regime with a nasty violent streak. It is the world's hegemon (this roughly means 'imperial power') and will intervene with violence wherever it deems violence necessary.

But the constitutional guaranteee of free speech, the hordes of aggressive lawyers and journalists, the ever-changing nature of capitalism and the feeling in the hearts of millions of Americans that they DESERVE to be free means that America has no real similarities to any fascist nation.

If the USA was really fascist, far more activists would be in jail or dead right now. It is not revolutionary to call names, it IS revolutionary to coldly and carefully analyse the balance of forces that stand for and against us. To do so, we need precise definitions.

[workersunity]

as mellon scratchers go, this is a honey doodle. I do not support Saddam, although His country was sovereign and had the right not to be occupied by the imperialists. The US only cares for money and power there, and get a stranglehood in the Mid East

[youngmarxist]

as mellon scratchers go, this is a honey doodle. I do not support Saddam, although His country was sovereign and had the right not to be occupied by the imperialists. The US only cares for money and power there, and get a stranglehood in the Mid East

Thank you for your respectful tone, workersunity.

There are two problems I can see with your comments.

The first is that if a sovereign country has the right not to be invaded, then we can never invade any state, no matter how evil or fascistic it is. That puts us in a bind. I would like to discuss the question:

Can a war of intervention ever be justified? If it can, exactly what conditions are necessary to justify it?

The second problem is that I think that the USA now cares for removing dictators from the middle east as well as money and power. These dictatorships that the USA propped up for 50 years are, more than anything, the reason that the USA is hated throughout the world.

I believe that Bush represents a different faction of the US ruling class to the old criminals like Kissinger, and that Bush really believes he has some sort of god-given mission to bring democracy to the world. If so then good, despite his religion, which I fear.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 07:32 PM

as mellon scratchers go, this is a honey doodle. I do not support Saddam, although His country was sovereign and had the right not to be occupied by the imperialists. The US only cares for money and power there, and get a stranglehood in the Mid East

Thank you for your respectful tone, workersunity.

There are two problems I can see with your comments.

The first is that if a sovereign country has the right not to be invaded, then we can never invade any state, no matter how evil or fascistic it is. That puts us in a bind. I would like to discuss the question:

Can a war of intervention ever be justified? If it can, exactly what conditions are necessary to justify it?

The second problem is that I think that the USA now cares for removing dictators from the middle east as well as money and power. These dictatorships that the USA propped up for 50 years are, more than anything, the reason that the USA is hated throughout the world.

I believe that Bush represents a different faction of the US ruling class to the old criminals like Kissinger, and that Bush really believes he has some sort of god-given mission to bring democracy to the world. If so then good, despite his religion, which I fear.
Greetings from the US,

Is your stance on the Iraq war based on the Iraqi Communist Party's stance?

Imperialists often claim they are "liberating" or "civilizing" the people they are taking over. True, Saddam was horrible, but the US allowed him to do most of his atrocityies and in the first gulf war, Bush Sr. encouraged people to rebell against Saddam, but when they did, the US (while they had troops right outside the capital) made a short truce and allowed Saddam's army to crush the rebellion. The US has no intrest in really seeing liberation now either, if they did, why would they still have the military occupying Iraq?

The US will only support "democracy" in Iraq as long as it is subservient and convienient to US intrests. Look at the US history in Vietnam: the division (noth/South) in VIetnam was only supposed to last a year, and then there would be a vote, but when it was apperent that the North would win the vote, the US installed dictators in the south and prevented that vote from ever happening.

You say Bush is different and is really intrested in making democracy, why then, would the US government (at the same time it was getting ready to "liberate" Iraq from a dictator) support a coup in Venusuela against a democratically elected leader, Chavez? Why, because that democracy was a threat to US intrests, hence (in the US government's view) people there were not "ready" for democracy.

I would urge you to think about democracy and socialism in terms of where it is coming from... I do not think either can be "imposed" or "granted" to a population, rather they are things the population must want and make for themselves, otherwise, that democracy or socialism is only as permanent as the military which installed it want it to be. In my view, "red armies" from the USSR can not invade a country and make it socialist and "US" armies can't invade and occupy people and make it "democratic".

[youngmarxist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 05:56 AM









Greetings from the US,

Is your stance on the Iraq war based on the Iraqi Communist Party's stance?

My stance derives from revolutionary ex-Maoists (but still Marxists) in Australia who occupy a site called lastsuperpower.net. They supported not only this Gulf war, but the previous one. Most of what I am saying has been published on their site and has convinced me.


Imperialists often claim they are "liberating" or "civilizing" the people they are taking over. True, Saddam was horrible, but the US allowed him to do most of his atrocityies and in the first gulf war, Bush Sr. encouraged people to rebell against Saddam, but when they did, the US (while they had troops right outside the capital) made a short truce and allowed Saddam's army to crush the rebellion.

This marks a crucial point in the debate. The point is that President George W Bush (Jr) has policies that are 100% opposite to those of his father. There are people in the US ruling class who have many crimes to answer for when it comes to propping up Sadaam, including General/Secretary Powell and President George HW Bush (Sr). George W Bush's policy in Iraq is to redeem the USA of those crimes.

You are correct that imperialists like to cloak their bad intentions in good words. But take WWII as an example. The USA used its power at the end of WWII to expand its grip on many of the nations of the world. But the invasion of France was still a war of liberation. despite America's ulterior motives.



The US has no intrest in really seeing liberation now either, if they did, why would they still have the military occupying Iraq?

Because, in my opinion, the democratically elected government wants them to be there.


The US will only support "democracy" in Iraq as long as it is subservient and convienient to US intrests. Look at the US history in Vietnam: the division (noth/South) in VIetnam was only supposed to last a year, and then there would be a vote, but when it was apperent that the North would win the vote, the US installed dictators in the south and prevented that vote from ever happening.

But in Iraq, the USA called an election which its puppet did NOT win. That is a profound difference between the two wars.


You say Bush is different and is really intrested in making democracy, why then, would the US government (at the same time it was getting ready to "liberate" Iraq from a dictator) support a coup in Venusuela against a democratically elected leader, Chavez? Why, because that democracy was a threat to US intrests, hence (in the US government's view) people there were not "ready" for democracy.

I do not have a detailed answer. My simple answer is that life is full of contradictions. Perhaps Bush could see what he needed to do in Iraq but thought that the bad old ways would work in Venzuela. If anyone could point me to an analysis of the US ruling class' motivations towards Venezuela, I would be greatful.



I would urge you to think about democracy and socialism in terms of where it is coming from... I do not think either can be "imposed" or "granted" to a population, rather they are things the population must want and make for themselves, otherwise, that democracy or socialism is only as permanent as the military which installed it want it to be. In my view, "red armies" from the USSR can not invade a country and make it socialist and "US" armies can't invade and occupy people and make it "democratic".

You are correct, and this final statement of yours will be the crucial test of my argument. It all depends on what the Iraqi and Afghani and Kurdish people do with the space that the US has blasted for them.

If they take the chance and build secular democracies, then I suspect that will prove me right.

If on the other hand, the Iraqis and Afghanis and Kurds decide that they do not want democracy, that they prefer being run by military dictators or dictatorial priests, then I will be wrong. Certainly, the political system in a country comes ultimately from the people

[Jimmie Higgins]

I did not mean to suggest that I thought people in Iraq want a dictatorship. I don't think they do. From what I've read and pictures I've seen of Iraqi protests, they want Saddam and the US out.

So the question is, why isn't the US leaving?

Why is the US building permanent military bases?

Why are Iraqis resisting?

If the "liberators" are intersted in sovernty for Iraqis and the new government they made for the Iraqis, why did the British troops attack Iraq police when Iraqi police tried to imprison two people in the British military (this happened 2 weeks ago)? What if the autstralian government arrested two americans on suspicion of spying and then the US sent tank in and broke down the walls of a Australian prison to free them... would you say the US was respecting the Australien sovernty?

-Aside from all this, why is GW Bush "trying to undo the 'bad imperialism' of the past"? What incentive does the US ruling class, the only superpower have in doing this? I think that history will back me up and show that the US ruling class's intrests are in maintaining their power in the states as well as in the rest of the world and adding to that power, rather than giving it away selflessly.

It's utopianism to think that the rulers will ever, of their own accord, give up their power. History has shown this to be true.

[workersunity]

attacking other coutries isnt justified, only if your coutry is invaded do you have the right to counter it, and further these imperialistic wars use the working class as their fodder, obviously the people at the top dont think the war is important enough if they dont go themselves, or rarely have their kids go.

[Hiero]

Hello i am Australian from Newcastle and a member of Communist Party of Australia.


I am a Marxist who supports the war in Iraq.

Im sorry your'e not. You should also remove the picture of Ho Chi Minhn before you embarrass yourself even more.

You can't be a serious Marxist and support imperialism. The US only invaded Iraq to install a government that would control the flow of oil that is in line with the needs of the imperialist countries.

The US has killed more people, and brought more tryanny than Saddam. Saddam wasn't a good guy, but the US can never replace him with something that is in the Iraqi's peoples needs. The US also helped Saddam crush the Communist movement in the South of Iraqi.

You have a lot of reading to do before you can call yourself a Marxist.


I believe that Bush represents a different faction of the US ruling class to the old criminals like Kissinger, and that Bush really believes he has some sort of god-given mission to bring democracy to the world. If so then good, despite his religion, which I fear.

Your mistake here is that you truely believe that different rulers of Capitalism mean a different system. Being the Marxist that i am, i know that history is a mechanism, and capitalism needs imperialism. This war was about expanded the US influence in the middle east to gain long term profit.


My stance derives from revolutionary ex-Maoists (but still Marxists) in Australia who occupy a site called lastsuperpower.net. They supported not only this Gulf war, but the previous one. Most of what I am saying has been published on their site and has convinced me.

They are a load of trash, and i doubt they were Maoist, they are just chauvunists.


The point is that President George W Bush (Jr) has policies that are 100% opposite to those of his father.

No they don't. The both represented the ruling class of the US, both had policies of US imperialism.


Because, in my opinion, the democratically elected government wants them to be there.

This "democratically" elected government is a bogus pupert state which betrayed the people who voted for them.

I have spoken to, and watch a presentation by a lady from Maitland (i can't believe it but i have forgotten her name), she was in the news when the war broke out. She went over there to protest in Iraq. She now works for a group called "our home Iraq". They work with youth who are now orphaned by the war.

She told us that every single party in Iraq that went in the election ran their campaign on how quick they can remove the US forces from Iraq. It was basically a competiton on who could get the US out of Iraq.


But in Iraq, the USA called an election which its puppet did NOT win. That is a profound difference between the two wars.


There is no difference, both were a foriegn policy of Imperialist USA.

In conclusion. You and your group lastsuperpower.net are the most reactionary vile that there every is. You lack any class conscious in your analysis and causes me such pain to see you call yourself a Marxist, and have the picture of Uncle Ho in your avator.

Another thing Fascism is a developement of fast growing capitalism when it reaches a high stage, like that of Italy and Nazi Germany. Saddam's IRaq could of never reached true fascism. Though he was a dictator, he wasn't a fascist. This is another example of your anti Marxist thinking.


I wish you add me on msn [email protected], so we can talk further.

Edit: I just read that site, seriously it is very disturbing and its anaylsis is just random. I encourage you to leave that group.

[darth_revan]

i like neither saddam nor bush... Saddam is fascist, bush is imperialist... Both are my enemies...

[Tekun]

^Yep, mos definitely

Bush is an imperialistic racist determined to impose "democracy" upon others in order to dominate the Middle East, gain reconstruction/oil profits, and eradicate Islam

Sadaam was murderous dictator who was put in power by the American gov (Reagan gave him chemical weapons to fight the Iranians, which he later used on the Kurds), and oppressed his people in order to profit off their misery

Both are scum that have and will fall

As far as Che, your entitled to your own opinions, but u gotta realize that about 75% of ppl in this forum look up to Che

IMO, his sacrifices helped organize the people and gave them the will to fight against imperialists/capitalists (revolutionaries from my homeland, Guatemala, took up arms kuz he inspired them)

[RevolucioN NoW]

Young "marxist", Brisbane IS a hole, and you are an idiot, America had nought but imperial intentions towards Iraq, they never ment to liberate it and for all of Bush's flowery rhetoric about "democracy", its almost certain that Iraq will end up with a compliant dictator (like pre 1990 Saddam) or an Iranian style theocracy.

As to your comments on Brendon Nelson and "freedom of speech" in another thread, no we will not let Brendon Nelson rant his tory diatriabes on ANY university, he is forcing students to pay 10,000's of dollars for a service that should be free, so politely, fuck Brendon Nelson and fuck you

[rioters bloc]

haha. nice one. nelson shits me to tears. one time we went and occupied his electoral office, funniest day ever. there were only 8 of us and despite high security they didnt manage to keep us out or kick us out. not only does his politics suck, but hes an arrogant bastard too. and when we'd call him 'nelson' he was all 'thats DR. NELSON'. like i gave a rat's arse.

anywhos, here's something inspiring: from the top of our 28 storey uni building. enjoy.

[rioters bloc]

this one's funny

[i didnt take it]

[RevolucioN NoW]

Yes, Nelson is indeed a twat and i regret not shooting him when i had the chance (he spoke several years ago at my high school, mouthing platitudes about how much respect he has for indigenous people, while being a key minister in a government which oversees third world health services for indigenous people and is revoking various land rights agreements)...so yeah, he pisses me off too

Unfortunately Nelson has never visited Brisbane since then...at least not publically, though earlier in the year we blockaded kevin andrews (IR ministers) motorcade as he tried to speak at customs house. According to his secretary, he was literally shitting himself, a job well done.

[Someone]

Comrades,

Dont ya all forget that saddam hussein was formed by the CIA and was placed as a dictator in iraq BY HE US GOVERNEMANT !

And whoever is the president of the US it is not him who rules and decides. Do you realy think that the most powerful country in the world would let one man sais who to attaque the first and when ?

bye

:ph34r:

[darth_revan]

You are right but that cannot make attacking iraq right... They kill people there and you say that they have rights to do that. Its good that saddam is powerful no more, But its bad that USA is still powerful... They dont like each other, thats good (enemy against enemy:D) but they kill innocent people in the name of "peace"... Their peace brings only death...

[chebol]

RevolucioN Now, shooting one representative of the bourgeoisie, especially one as pointless as Nelson, ain't gonna bring down the system. In fcat, it's counterproductive. ;-)

Hiero, basically agreed. It wasn't Donna Mulhearn was it?

"youngmarxist", hiero's right, despite his often mistaken politics. (I'm from Sydney and NOT from the CPA, but from the DSP, resistance and the Socialist Alliance, as well as being part of the Stop The War Coalition).

I don't know whether you've just read the stuff on their website, or if you've ever met these people, but, believe me, they're about as marxist as the ALP left (which isn't saying much), and they've got their head screwed on backwards.

If you want to be a marxist, start with a proper study of marxist principles, beginning with the man himself, and follow the evolution of different 'forms' of 'marxism', and why they occurred.

I also find it very disturbing that you could encourage and support the US "redeeming" itself by
1. breaking international law AGAIN
2. killing over 100,000 innocent civilians
3. poisoning the middle east for millenia with depleted uranium
4. occupying an oil rich country when the price of oil is at a global high and still believe that they are doing it for "noble" reasons and sentiments.

5. It's actually questionable whether maoists really are marxists anyway, or at least some of them, and particularly the australian ones.

As far as I can tell, this lot is a poor leftover of those who have split from the CPA (ML), namely Albert langer.

NOt worth the bandwidth it's mirrored on.

[RevolucioN NoW]

RevolucioN Now, shooting one representative of the bourgeoisie, especially one as pointless as Nelson, ain't gonna bring down the system. In fcat, it's counterproductive. ;-)

Twas a joke comrade, im more than aware of the folly of ultraleftism

[JKP]

Saddam wouldn't even be in power if it weren't for us. After we allowed him to supress the shi-ite rebellion in 1991, I don't think anyone could support the U.S on this issue.



http://ice.citizenlab.org/archives/images/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg