The Truth About Iraq

[Capitalist Imperial]

Excellent stuff indeed. I really think you should consider this article as a more comprehensive assessment of the situation in Iraq that what your silly little leftist propoganda brainwashed you to believe.



http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&...=17&m=12&y=2005 (http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=74823&d=17&m=12&y=2005)

Pressure to Withdraw US Troops Lies at Home, Not Iraq
Amir Taheri

It is one of the paradoxes of modern politics that the presence of the US-led coalition in Iraq which was hardly raised during the Iraqi election campaign is emerging as the number one issue in the American mid-term elections in 11 months’ time.

President George W. Bush and his key aides tackle the issue by saying that the whole thing depends on “conditions on the ground in Iraq.”

But anyone with any knowledge of what is going on in Iraq would know things are not as simple as that. In fact, had things depended on “conditions on the ground in Iraq” the issue might not have generated so much heat.

The truth is that this “whole thing” about withdrawal depends on conditions on the ground not in Iraq but in the United States. Calling for withdrawal from Iraq is used by Bush’s opponents at home as a prop to cover their failure to offer a coherent alternative to the administration’s basic domestic and foreign policy options.

Domestically, attempts at inciting people to envy and worse with reference to Bush’s tax cuts have failed to fly. Most Americans seem to like the cuts, although they do not all enjoy them in equal measure. Nor is there any sign of the recession that has been forecast almost daily by the anti-Bush camp for the past three years. Efforts to make an issue of Bush’s educational reform program also failed because the teachers, most of whom vote Democrat, appear to like the measures proposed by the president. Even the Katrina calamity, which seemed so full of promise for a bit of Bush-bashing, faded faster than many had hoped for.

All that is left is Iraq.

And Iraq is an excellent subject for a number of reasons.

First, most Americans get a very narrow view of the whole thing, largely in the form of television images of burned cars used by suicide-bombers. Since Iraq is not covered in any properly journalistic sense, partly because most reporters have left, with those still present keeping a low profile in the “Green Zone”, one can imagine both the best and the worst about what is happening. And, since good news is no news it is always the worst that wins the headlines.

Also, Iraq can be used as the core of a cluster of issues including “Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction”, the “yellow-cake scandal”, the Richard Clarke confessions, the outing of the CIA agent Valerie Plame, the Abu-Ghraib pornographic photo sensation, and the most recent “secret prisons” rumors, among many others.

All of those things, of course, have nothing to do with what is happening in Iraq itself. But the word Iraq covers them all.

That the fuss has little or nothing to do with what is happening inside Iraq, is not hard to demonstrate.

Since March 2003 the US and its allies have achieved all their political objectives— starting with regime change, the dismantling of the Baathist military and security machine, the capture of most Baathist leaders, the writing and approval of a new constitution, a series of elections and, within the next few weeks, the formation of a newly elected government in Baghdad.

Normally, all that should be seen as a series of successes by any standards. Regime change in Germany and Japan in the 1940s took five years of war to achieve. And it took both nations four to five years after liberation before they could have new elected governments of their own.

Well, you might interject, what about the almost daily killings in Iraq?

Well, there is that — to be sure. But anyone familiar with terrorist insurgency would know that Iraq is doing no worse than other nations afflicted by that particular plague. Colombia has been fighting terrorism for more than four decades. Egypt needed almost 20 years to defeat its Islamist terrorists. The terrorist insurgency in Turkey lasted almost as long. In Algeria the terrorists fought for 12 years and caused the death of some quarter of a million people before going down in defeat. Right now at least 22 nations across the globe face some level of terrorist insurgency.

The question, of course, is whether or not the terrorist insurgency in Iraq is in the ascendance or in decline?

It is too early to tell. What is certain however, is that it has failed to disrupt, let alone stop, the political process, including a series of municipal and general elections, in any way. Nor has it been able to seize and control of any chunk of territory which most other terrorist insurgencies achieve. The Iraqi terrorist insurgency appears to have lots of money. But that is largely due not to donations by Iraqi sympathizers but to the half a billion dollars that Izzat Al-Duri, Saddam Hussein’s number-two, managed to steal from the Central Bank in Baghdad a day before the regime collapsed. Some money is also coming from front companies set up by the Baathists, initially in Jordan but also in Austria and Cyprus, during the 1980s. A handful of wealthy Arab businessmen may also be making contributions, largely to the Islamist groups within the insurgency.

More importantly, perhaps, the terrorist insurgency has failed to develop anything resembling a political program. It kills lots of people but consistently fails to translate those murders into any form of political gain. Pushing the Americans out of Iraq has never been spelled out as the central goal of the terrorist insurgency. Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi is more focused on killing Shiites and Kurds and envisaging a global jihad against all states, including Muslim ones, rather than forcing the Americans to leave Iraq.

In any case, one of the many paradoxes of this situation is that the US-led coalition may have become something of an insurance policy for the insurgents. As long as the US-led coalition is there, the Shiites and the Kurds would not be able to use their own considerable past experience in insurgency against Zarqawi and the remnants of the Baath party.

While all Iraqis want the US-led coalition to leave almost no one wants an early withdrawal. More than a dozen polls and anecdotal evidence gathered during visits to many parts of Iraq show that most Iraqis want the coalition to hang on for a bit longer. Had this not been the case there would have been nothing to prevent thousands, or millions, of Iraqis to march in Baghdad and Basra shouting “Yankee! Go Home!”

The cry we hear is “ Yankee! Come Home!” emanating from Bush’s opponents in Washington, Crawford, and San Francisco.

Many Iraqis want the coalition to stay for a while longer as a deterrent to predatory neighbors already positioning themselves for greater intervention in Iraq.

It is in the US and not in Iraq that the idea of a speedy withdrawal is gaining popularity. This is why the newly elected leadership in Baghdad must turn its attention to the real battlefield where the future of Iraq may be shaped — that is to say the United States.

Once the new parliament is formed they should send emissaries on barn-storming visits throughout the US both to thank the American people for their sacrifices and to inform them about what is really happening in Iraq.

Their message should be straightforward: We are grateful for your help and want you to stay until we feel that we no longer need you!


Your futile claims that Iraqis simply want America gone are misleading. Lets look at the abstract and understand what they really want.

[JKP]

The British ministry of defence did a study a few months ago, leaked to the right-wing press in England and then reported by other journals, which provided some interesting information. According to their findings, 82% are opposed to presence of coalition troops, 1% think they improve security, 70% have no confidence in them, 45% of all Iraqis think attacks against the occupying forces are legitimate—if that really means “all Iraqis,” as reported, then the figure must be considerably higher among Iraqi Arabs.

We can’t find out for sure what Iraqis want—or what Americans want. But there are some general principles that ought to be observed. One is that invaders have no rights, only responsibilities, and among those responsibilities is to follow the will of the victims (and to provide reparations, trials for the criminals who ordered the invasion, and others). A subsidiary principle is that unless there is strong evidence that the victims want the invaders to remain, they should withdraw. US-UK policy is the opposite, with bipartisan and media support: We decide, and we will “stay the course” as long as we—not they—decide to do so.

That aside, there’s a small point that doesn’t enter into public discussion. It would be an utter catastrophe for the US if it were to withdraw and leave a sovereign and partially democratic Iraq in place. That’s why comparisons to Vietnam are so meaningless, and why the exit strategies that are proposed are a waste of time. The Pentagon can easily think them up, without help, but can’t execute them because the US must somehow maintain control of Iraq through a dependable client regime, with basing rights, etc.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 01:36 AM
The British ministry of defence did a study a few months ago, leaked to the right-wing press in England and then reported by other journals, which provided some interesting information. According to their findings, 82% are opposed to presence of coalition troops, 1% think they improve security, 70% have no confidence in them, 45% of all Iraqis think attacks against the occupying forces are legitimate—if that really means “all Iraqis,” as reported, then the figure must be considerably higher among Iraqi Arabs.

We can’t find out for sure what Iraqis want—or what Americans want. But there are some general principles that ought to be observed. One is that invaders have no rights, only responsibilities, and among those responsibilities is to follow the will of the victims (and to provide reparations, trials for the criminals who ordered the invasion, and others). A subsidiary principle is that unless there is strong evidence that the victims want the invaders to remain, they should withdraw. US-UK policy is the opposite, with bipartisan and media support: We decide, and we will “stay the course” as long as we—not they—decide to do so.

That aside, there’s a small point that doesn’t enter into public discussion. It would be an utter catastrophe for the US if it were to withdraw and leave a sovereign and partially democratic Iraq in place. That’s why comparisons to Vietnam are so meaningless, and why the exit strategies that are proposed are a waste of time. The Pentagon can easily think them up, without help, but can’t execute them because the US must somehow maintain control of Iraq through a dependable client regime, with basing rights, etc.
Good respone. I like that you concede that no one really knows (including me) what most Iraqis want and I would argue even Iraqis don't really know. I appreciate your objectiveness in this respect.

However, I can say with a fair amount of confidence that immediate withdrawl would likely lead to worse turmoil than exists now, turmoil that would eventually plunge the nation into full-blown civil war.

[Guerrilla22]

Great, news coming from a news agency owned by the Saudi Royal family, real objective.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 01:51 AM
Great, news coming from a news agency owned by the Saudi Royal family, real objective.
Come on, man. That dooesn't change that sme very good points were made.

[Guerrilla22]

Amongst the headlines: Prince Ahmad Bin Salman and 20 years of King Fahd.

[Free Palestine]

I can say with a fair amount of confidence that immediate withdrawl would likely lead to worse turmoil than exists now

Such as?


..turmoil that would eventually plunge the nation into full-blown civil war

Iraqis are already fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil war. We created the civil war when we invaded; we can’t prevent a civil war by staying.

[Manic_Fist]

it's rather stupid to even consider what the Iraqi's want...after 30+ years under a tyrant, i doubt they'd know what they want...besides,it's a matter of international peace, if say the coalition troops were to leave, iraq with it's weak new defense forces and government would most likely be taken over by another dictator...or may become a haven for terrorists and fanatics.....and if you think otherwise, look at what happened to most of the countries Africa after the colonial powers pulled out.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Manic_Fist
...or may become a haven for terrorists and fanatics.

At the present time, the outstanding planetary "haven for terrorists and fanatics" is located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C.

It's rather oddly known as the "white house"...though it was actually built by black slave labor.

Here's an account of its latest terrorist attack...

Thousands of Pakistanis have taken part in anti-American protests after an attack on a village near the Afghan border that killed 18 people. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/south_asia/4614486.stm)

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

[Manic_Fist]

but you agree to the rest of my arguement? lol...and just so you know,i'm not really a supporter of the United States, i just think that leaving iraq wouldn't be the wisest thing to do...for the moment,atleast.

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 17 2005, 01:24 AM
Excellent stuff indeed. I really think you should consider this article as a more comprehensive assessment of the situation in Iraq that what your silly little leftist propoganda brainwashed you to believe.
Capitalist Imperial, I know not where you are, but I do know that I am in the United States. And the question is not so much now whether we should be in Iraq, a lot of it is based on the million dollar question: "was the public misled about pre-iraq intelligence to persuade them to support the war?"

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?f...nder%20Reported (http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=11272&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported)

Notice, 6/10 want us to still be here. BUT!

It is generally known that he misled the public.
It is also a general consensus that the public supports impeachment if he did mislead us.
Finally, it is generally known that the US Government is founded on John Locke's contract theory of government (you know, that the gov. has sovereignty because the people give it, and the gov only serves the needs and wants of the people)

So the pressure now is to investigate and impeach.

[redstar2000]

Some more truth about Iraq...


Originally posted by San Francisco Chronicle
Since 2003, the United States has been pushing for rapid free-market reforms in Iraq. Such policies, U.S. officials say, are necessary to spur development and revive Iraq's moribund economy, which is still suffering from sanctions and decades of Baath Party mismanagement.

But rapid economic liberalization here is taking a toll on ordinary Iraqis. They've seen prices skyrocket for everything from shampoo to vegetables to heating oil. Food rations meant to help the estimated 8 million Iraqis who live on less than $1 a day have been cut by 25 percent.

Ordinary Iraqis feel pinch of free-market reforms - Grocery prices jump as cost of gasoline soars threefold (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/01/23/MNGBNGRIF81.DTL)

Hmmm...Baath Party "mismanagement" kept people fed; "free market reforms" can't manage the trick.

Unintended consequence: lots and lots of Iraqis join the resistance!

Yet another example of how "our own" ruling class displays an incapacity to rationally act even in its own class interests.

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

[Capitalist Lawyer]

The media's war

Dec 13, 2005
by Thomas Sowell

The media seem to have come up with a formula that would make any war in history unwinnable and unbearable: They simply emphasize the enemy's victories and our losses.

Losses suffered by the enemy are not news, no matter how large, how persistent, or how clearly they indicate the enemy's declining strength.

What are the enemy's victories in Iraq? The killing of Americans and the killing of Iraqi civilians. Both are big news in the mainstream media, day in and day out, around the clock.

Has anyone ever believed that any war could be fought without deaths on both sides? Every death is a tragedy to the individual killed and to his loved ones. But is there anything about American casualty rates in Iraq that makes them more severe than casualty rates in any other war we have fought?

On the contrary, the American deaths in Iraqi are a fraction of what they have been in other wars in our history. The media have made a big production about the cumulative fatalities in Iraq, hyping the thousandth death with multiple full-page features in the New York Times and comparable coverage on TV.

The two-thousandth death was similarly anticipated almost impatiently in the media and then made another big splash. But does media hype make 2,000 wartime fatalities in more than two years unusual?

The Marines lost more than 5,000 men taking one island in the Pacific during a three-month period in World War II. In the Civil War, the Confederates lost 5,000 men in one battle in one day.

Yet there was Jim Lehrer on the "News Hour" last week earnestly asking Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld about the ten Americans killed that day. It is hard to imagine anybody in any previous war asking any such question of anyone responsible for fighting a war.

We have lost more men than that in our most overwhelming and one-sided victories in previous wars. During an aerial battle over the Mariannas islands in World War II, Americans shot down hundreds of Japanese planes while losing about 30 of their own.

If the media of that era had been reporting the way the media report today, all we would have heard about would have been that more than two dozen Americans were killed that day.

Neither our troops nor the terrorists are in Iraq just to be killed. Both have objectives. But any objectives we achieve get short shrift in the mainstream media, if they are mentioned at all.

Our troops can kill ten times as many of the enemy as they kill and it just isn't news worth featuring, if it is mentioned at all, in much of the media. No matter how many towns are wrested from the control of the terrorists by American or Iraqi troops, it just isn't front-page news like the casualty reports or even the doom-saying of some politicians.

The fact that these doom-saying politicians have been proved wrong, again and again, does not keep their latest outcries from overshadowing the hard-won victories of American troops on the ground in Iraq.

The doom-sayers claimed that terrorist attacks would make it impossible to hold the elections last January because so many Iraqis would be afraid to go vote. The doom-sayers urged that the elections be postponed.

But a higher percentage of Iraqis voted in that election -- and in a subsequent election -- than the percentage of Americans who voted in last year's Presidential elections.

Utter ignorance of history enables any war with any casualties to be depicted in the media as an unmitigated disaster.

Even after Nazi Germany surrendered at the end of World War II, die-hard Nazi guerrilla units terrorized and assassinated both German officials and German civilians who cooperated with Allied occupation authorities.

But nobody suggested that we abandon the country. Nobody was foolish enough to think that you could say in advance when you would pull out or that you should encourage your enemies by announcing a timetable.

There has never been the slightest doubt that we would begin pulling troops out of Iraq when it was feasible. Only time and circumstances can tell when that will be. And only irresponsible politicians and the media think otherwise.


http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/tho.../13/178822.html (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/thomassowell/2005/12/13/178822.html)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Thomas Sowell
Blah, blah, blah...when we lose in Iraq it will be the media's fault.

That's called "setting up the scapegoats" in advance. :lol:

It fools no one with an IQ in three digits.

But it's a good sign...shows that even the most pugnacious right ideologues are anticipating defeat and already lining up their excuses.

Nothing new about that. :lol:

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

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Hmmm...Baath Party "mismanagement" kept people fed; "free market reforms" can't manage the trick.

Unintended consequence: lots and lots of Iraqis join the resistance!

Yet another example of how "our own" ruling class displays an incapacity to rationally act even in its own class interests.


What a discovery Redstar!!! To think that no one foresaw growing pains in a transition from dicatatorship to democracy.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Democracy my ass. Please, how is a nation that is not even a democracy force a nation to become a democracy? Oh yeah by some fixed elections, Gawd bless Amerikkka.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Democracy my ass. Please, how is a nation that is not even a democracy force a nation to become a democracy? Oh yeah by some fixed elections, Gawd bless Amerikkka.

This didn't make any sense, please refrain from punching your keyboard.

Or better yet, let one of the more intelligent communists respond.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
To think that no one foresaw growing pains in a transition from dicatatorship to democracy.

Evidently not.

Or if they did, they proved outstandingly inept in planning to deal with them.

I think Iraqis would probably choose a different phrase than "growing pains" to describle their plight.

I'd tell you what they probably say, but I know nothing at all of Arabic profanity.

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

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:14 PM




That's called "setting up the scapegoats" in advance. :lol:

It fools no one with an IQ in three digits.

But it's a good sign...shows that even the most pugnacious right ideologues are anticipating defeat and already lining up their excuses.

Nothing new about that. :lol:

I don't know where Sowell went from brilliant economist to neo-con ideologue.

It's dissapointing.

Basic Economics is an amazing book and he's a very smart guy.

Similar, but opposite, to Hitchens.

Hitchens is absolutely brilliant and is a fabulous writer, maybe the best alive, and he goes off and supports the Iraq.

Very strange.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 09:41 PM
Hitchens is absolutely brilliant and is a fabulous writer, maybe the best alive, and he goes off and supports the Iraq.

Hitchens is an arrogant middle class toad.

Every time I hear him speak, especially when he talks of the Socialist movement, it makes my blood boil. Mainly because of his attitude towards working class Socialists, something of course that he never was.

Here's hoping to a slow and painful death for Mr. Hitchens and his vile brother.

[Publius]

Hitchens is an arrogant middle class toad.

Arrogant, certainly, but he has a reason to be: he's fucking sharp.



Every time I hear him speak, especially when he talks of the Socialist movement, it makes my blood boil. Mainly because of his attitude towards working class Socialists, something of course that he never was.

He wasn't a 'real' Trotskyite I guess?

I venture to say he's more knowledgeable than you about any and every aspect of socialism, so I don't think you're qualified to doubt his 'socialist credentials'.



Here's hoping to a slow and painful death for Mr. Hitchens and his vile brother.

He was the best guy you had for a while.

Shame he quit the team.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius)He wasn't a 'real' Trotskyite I guess?[/b]

I see no reason to question his "Trotskyite" credentials.


Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius)I venture to say he's more knowledgeable than you about any and every aspect of socialism, so I don't think you're qualified to doubt his 'socialist credentials'.[/b]

Well for all my faults, I'd say my Communist politics were better than his ever were.

Plus his Marxism is, well... poor (to say the least)....


Originally posted by Hitchens
Since I do still find that I use the method of historical materialism (not yet surpassed by any rival) I think it’s worth stating some unarguable propositions. First - all jihads have always failed. The last serious one, which was the declaration of a holy war by the Ottoman Empire in 1914, ended by the loss of that empire as well as the loss of the war, and was a defeat and erasure so complete that many people who hear Osama bin Laden’s call for the restoration of the Caliphate don’t even know what he’s screeching about. Lesser jihads tend to consume themselves in quarrels over spoils or doctrines: an irrational view of the world will tell against you in the end, as is shown by the crazy and self-destructive tactics now being pursued by Islamists in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkey and elsewhere. They wish to be martyrs - we should be willing to help.

And....


Originally posted by Hitchens: Emphasis added
My self-criticism here would be a different one from the one you solicit. I was more pessimistic than I should have been about the likelihood of the United States reforming itself. In the long run, the constitutional and democratic impulses reasserted themselves. To put it shortly, I much prefer an America that removes Saddam Hussein to the America that helped install and nurture him - and unlike you I am not willing to overlook these important pre-existing facts.

Link (http://hnn.us/articles/1881.html).

If that is how Mr. Hitchens uses the "tools of Marxism" and the results he produces through their use. Then I'd say that his skill level with regards the use of those "tools", is about the same as a plumber who doesn't know how to solder joints.


[email protected]
He was the best guy you had for a while.

Don't be silly. There are "better" Marxists on this board than Hitchens is, or ever was.


Publius
Shame he quit the team.

Bush can have him.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 25 2006, 04:03 PM

Democracy my ass. Please, how is a nation that is not even a democracy force a nation to become a democracy? Oh yeah by some fixed elections, Gawd bless Amerikkka.

This didn't make any sense, please refrain from punching your keyboard.

Or better yet, let one of the more intelligent communists respond.
Ok braniac, first of all by my avatar it is pretty obvious to all but you that I am an Anarchist not a Communist(all those years of holding your breath until you pass out have finally taken its toll, Im sorry for you man). Secondly, the United States is a plutocracy not a democracy and turning Iraq into a democracy was number four or five on the bullshit reason to invade Iraq list after the previous ones were proven to be false. The last sentence in my previous statement was a joke just like the Iraq elections.

Here is a link to an article about the Iraq elections

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4552846.stm

I know your comprehension skills are not the greatest but read slowly and repeatedly and you will eventually grasp it(have faith, you can do it!).


tggtt4356u9u9,kvc47i8u

By the way the line above is what punching the keyboard looks like I hope you can avoid any more confusion in the future.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 26 2006, 08:57 PM






Well for all my faults, I'd say my Communist politics were better than his ever were.

Plus his Marxism is, well... poor (to say the least)....

I'm not so certain.

He's written for quite a few leftist journals, important ones, I believe.

I would venture to say his understanding of Marxism surpasses yours and probably surpasses that of every member of this forum.

It's no slieght, its just the way things are.

Just as I'll never be as a good a writer as Hitchens (Though I'd like to be) you'll never be as good a 'leftist' as he was.

I think they fact that someone as imminently intelligent and educated as Hitchens repudiates the modern left should serve as some clue about its precepts, namely that they are faulty.

Though actually, I disagree with him about the Iraq war; I don't see how that follows from his premise about Islamo-fascism.

I think Iraq is a seperate problem.



If that is how Mr. Hitchens uses the "tools of Marxism" and the results he produces through their use. Then I'd say that his skill level with regards the use of those "tools", is about the same as a plumber who doesn't know how to solder joints.

Just because he doesn't reach the same conclusions as you doesn't mean he isn't using them properly.

I would say he knows full well how to use historical materialism.

In saying that modern leftists are weak towards modern fascism, and in primarily asserting himself as an anti-fascist, I think he has full claim to the leniage of leftist thought in his position for a war against Islamofascism.

Though I again fail to see how Iraq is a symptom of this, I fully with agree with him that modern fascism needs to be dealt with, and that any 'leftist' who supports this form of fascism, inadvertantly or overtly, has no right to call themselves a 'leftist' in the anti-authoritarian sense. I think that his position more fully and accurately expresses traditional leftist politics than isolationist or dovish stances.



Don't be silly. There are "better" Marxists on this board than Hitchens is, or ever was.


There aren't many (Any?) people alive who can writ better than Hitchens; that's just a fact.

They may be 'better Marxists' in that their absorbation of Marxist schema is more complete, but that's hardly something to be proud of.

'Better Marxist' is a term just ignoble as 'better neo-con', not just becaue the ideology is bad, but because it implies a doctrinary approach, which is something I loathe and something I thought was decidedly un-Marxian.


Bush can have him.

I doubt he'd want him.

Too much 'book learnin'.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius)I would venture to say his understanding of Marxism surpasses yours and probably surpasses that of every member of this forum.[/b]

Well given that he was a Trotskyist and (from what I can gather) essentially viewed the working class as a charity case. I'd say your assertions about the brilliance of "Hitchens Marxism" are dubious at best.


Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius)....you'll never be as good a 'leftist' as he was.[/b]

Well for a start, my class makes me a "better" Communist in many ways.


Originally posted by Publius
I think they fact that someone as imminently intelligent and educated as Hitchens repudiates the modern left should serve as some clue about its precepts, namely that they are faulty.

Well it may say something about the "modern left" (lackeys for the Democrat Party), but it says very little about the Communist (and Anarchist) movement, which Hitchens was never really a part of.

Plus, the main reason Hitchens quit the "modern left" was that it didn't pay as well.


Originally posted by Publius
I would say he knows full well how to use historical materialism.

And I would say (based on those two little quotes I linked) that his skills are limited at best.


Originally posted by Publius
I think that his position more fully and accurately expresses traditional leftist politics than isolationist or dovish stances.

Well it shows how little you know about "traditional leftist politics" (the revolutionary left at least). The revolutionary left has been (since 1920 or so) completely opposed to the major Empire of that day, the "Fortress of World Reaction".

Hitchens new found love for the American Empire, has about as much to do with the "traditional left" as Gay Rights has to do with the "traditional right".

Plus, another motto of the "traditional left" has been to oppose as best you can, the Imperialism of your own country. Hitchens isn't exactly doing that now is he?


[email protected]
They may be 'better Marxists' in that their absorbation of Marxist schema is more complete, but that's hardly something to be proud of.

That's not what makes a "better" Marxist. A "better" Marxist is someone who looks at the world today using the same "tool of analysis" as Marx set forth. They look at the prevailing social order in the same critical sense that Marx and Engels did.

If you think Hitchens is doing anything like that, then I suggest you find out what being a Marxist actually means.


Publius
....but because it implies a doctrinary approach, which is something I loathe and something I thought was decidedly un-Marxian.

It is "decidedly un-Marxian", but thinking America is in Iraq to bring "democracy and freedom" is also something that is "decidedly un-Marxian". In fact, it's "decidedly" naive.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Publius
In saying that modern leftists are weak towards modern fascism, and in primarily asserting himself as an anti-fascist, I think he [Hitchens] has full claim to the lineage of leftist thought in his position for a war against Islamofascism.

What has Mr. Hitchens had to say about America's Christian Fascism?

Nothing???

I suppose it does not impossibly stretch the bounds of credibility to refer to the present regime in Iran as "Islamo-fascist".

There is no way you can use the term in any credible sense to refer to the Ba'ath Party's Iraq...it was one of the most clearly secular regimes in that part of the world.

Al Qaeda, of course, is not "fascist" in any sense of the word...they are medievalists and, in the long run, simply doomed to "fade away".

Mr. Hitchens' expressed faith in "American constitutional democracy" is a violent rupture with historical materialism...which always focuses on which class actually rules, not the ceremonial formalities.

Even an ordinary bourgeois sociologist -- with his terminology of "socio-economic status" -- has a better grasp of historical materialism than Mr. Hitchens.


I would venture to say his understanding of Marxism surpasses yours and probably surpasses that of every member of this forum.

I immodestly disagree. :P


There aren't many (any?) people alive who can write better than Hitchens; that's just a fact.

I write enormously better than Hitchens! :D

But if you balk at that, I suggest the monthly essays of Lewis P. Lapham, the editor of Harper's Magazine.

He is a "left" petty-bourgeois who writes scathing critiques of America's imperial pretension and its advocates. Sometimes quite funny as well.

He "really believes" in bourgeois "democracy"...and is appalled at its naked prostitution in the present era.

Compared to Lapham, Hitchens is a mere scribbler...or as the old expression once went, a "penny a liner".

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

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 09:28 AM




What has Mr. Hitchens had to say about America's Christian Fascism?

Nothing???

Quite a lot.

He's an ardent atheist, as you know.



I suppose it does not impossibly stretch the bounds of credibility to refer to the present regime in Iran as "Islamo-fascist".

No, no it doesn't.



There is no way you can use the term in any credible sense to refer to the Ba'ath Party's Iraq...it was one of the most clearly secular regimes in that part of the world.

I agree.

I think he's mis-applying his own rules in regards to the Iraq war, and I don't know why.



Al Qaeda, of course, is not "fascist" in any sense of the word...they are medievalists and, in the long run, simply doomed to "fade away".

Mr. Hitchens' expressed faith in "American constitutional democracy" is a violent rupture with historical materialism...which always focuses on which class actually rules, not the ceremonial formalities.

Even an ordinary bourgeois sociologist -- with his terminology of "socio-economic status" -- has a better grasp of historical materialism than Mr. Hitchens.

Hitchens at one point agreed with this assessment, but he no longer does.

I'm not certain you can name the point at which he stopped using 'historical materialism'.


I immodestly disagree. :P

Perhaps not yours, but almost certainly everyone elses.





I write enormously better than Hitchens! :D

Oh, I very much doubt that.

What scale are you judging this by? Hitchens is one of the few writers that utterly impresses me every I time I read him.



But if you balk at that, I suggest the monthly essays of Lewis P. Lapham, the editor of Harper's Magazine.

He is a "left" petty-bourgeois who writes scathing critiques of America's imperial pretension and its advocates. Sometimes quite funny as well.

He "really believes" in bourgeois "democracy"...and is appalled at its naked prostitution in the present era.

Compared to Lapham, Hitchens is a mere scribbler...or as the old expression once went, a "penny a liner".


Of course, Hitchens has written for Harpers before.

Hitchens has written his fair share of scathing critiques of american pretentions.

REmember when Clinton bombed the medicine factory? Hitchens.

Author of the Trial of Henry Kissinger? Hitchens.

I don't think you're going to find a more vocal, at least a better, 'anti-american' writer than Hitchens, with the probable exception of Noam Chomsky.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Publius+Jan 28 2006, 01:48 PM--> (Publius @ Jan 28 2006, 01:48 PM) Quite a lot.

He's an ardent atheist, as you know. [/b]

Yes, an "ardent atheist" who fawns over the truly pious Mr. Bush and speaks in very nice ways about Mr. Bush's Presidency (I recall him describing it as "spectacular").

No tell me, how many "ardent" (militant) atheists do you know that associate (and praise) people who have "doubts" about Evolution, and have Medieval views about womens reproductive systems?

Plus, I haven't even heard a whisper of discontent from Hitchens regarding Mr. Blair's infatuation with faith schools.

"[A]rdent atheist" my arse! :lol:


Originally posted by [email protected]
I think he's mis-applying his own rules in regards to the Iraq war, and I don't know why.

It pays well! :lol:


Publius
I don't think you're going to find a more vocal, at least a better, 'anti-american' writer than Hitchens, with the probable exception of Noam Chomsky.

Probably true.

However, what you need to remember is that you are describing a specific section of the left, the middle class "intellectual" left, which has almost always been a "no go area" for working class militants.

We're just too damn crude. :lol:

[redstar2000]

Still more truth about Iraq...


Originally posted by Associated Press
Official to Plead Guilty in Iraq Scheme

A former U.S. occupation official in Iraq has agreed to plead guilty to conspiring to steal more than $2 million in reconstruction money and award contracts to a businessman in exchange for more than $1 million in cash and goods.

Robert J. Stein Jr., 50, of Fayetteville, N.C., is scheduled to enter his guilty plea in U.S. District Court in Washington on Thursday. Stein, a former contracting official for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, acknowledged his role in the conspiracy in a signed statement that has been filed with the court.

The U.S.-controlled CPA ran Iraq from shortly after the March 2003 invasion until June 2004. It had final say over spending from the Development Fund for Iraq, made up mainly of Iraqi oil revenues.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n.../w080837S05.DTL (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/02/01/national/w080837S05.DTL)

And this little piggie went to prison. :lol:

The big hogs over at Haliburton must be laughing their asses off.

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

[FULL METAL JACKET]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 1 2006, 11:45 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 1 2006, 11:45 PM) Still more truth about Iraq...


Associated Press
Official to Plead Guilty in Iraq Scheme

A former U.S. occupation official in Iraq has agreed to plead guilty to conspiring to steal more than $2 million in reconstruction money and award contracts to a businessman in exchange for more than $1 million in cash and goods.

Robert J. Stein Jr., 50, of Fayetteville, N.C., is scheduled to enter his guilty plea in U.S. District Court in Washington on Thursday. Stein, a former contracting official for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, acknowledged his role in the conspiracy in a signed statement that has been filed with the court.

The U.S.-controlled CPA ran Iraq from shortly after the March 2003 invasion until June 2004. It had final say over spending from the Development Fund for Iraq, made up mainly of Iraqi oil revenues.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n.../w080837S05.DTL (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/02/01/national/w080837S05.DTL)

And this little piggie went to prison. :lol:

The big hogs over at Haliburton must be laughing their asses off.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
No newspaper reports, no tv media report. :angry:

Funny how the corruption all comes up only online. I'll try to find a newslink of the congressman bribed by a company late this year. It only showed up online!

Heres the link to Senator Duke Cunningham who took a more than 2 million dollars in Bribe and took the plea: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/28/cunningham/

I did not see that anywhere on tv! :angry:

Edit: newslink