Apparently I'm a fascist

[jaycee]

I was restricted for opposing anti facism as a bourgeois ideology which aims to justify the 'democratic' capitalist regime.

apparently being oppossed to workers being murdered in the name of 'fighting fascism' is the same thing as supporting facism. The point is that anti-facism along with the equation of Stalinism with 'socialism' were the single biggest lies of the 20th centrury. and were both used to justify the Second World slaughter.

fighting Fascism as the ultimate evil helps peddle the lie that 'democratic' capitalism is something seperate to fascism, when in fact they are two side of the same coin and are intimately linked.

I don't really know why i care so much but i think i should fight against this as it shows a level of censorship on this forum of what i see as a fundamentall aspect of marxism in capitalisms decedant phase.

In this era of permanent crisis of capitalism in which the continuation of all forms capitalism, 'democratic' or not threatens humanitys survival of the next century it is important to see the fight against capitalism as against the social order and not the particualr ideology and style of government which they choose is best for their particualr situation.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 07:10 PM
The point is that anti-facism along with the equation of Stalinism with 'socialism' were the single biggest lies of the 20th centrury. and were both used to justify the Second World slaughter.

fighting Fascism as the ultimate evil helps peddle the lie that 'democratic' capitalism is something seperate to fascism, when in fact they are two side of the same coin and are intimately linked.

Honestly, you're pathetic.

[violencia.Proletariat]

The point is that anti-facism along with the equation of Stalinism with 'socialism' were the single biggest lies of the 20th centrury. and were both used to justify the Second World slaughter.

Yes because all of those Spanish anarchists were just chomping at the bit to sign up for the allied side in WWII :rolleyes:

Nor does any anti-fa group support the bourgeois state that I know of, most of the members are radicals!


fighting Fascism as the ultimate evil helps peddle the lie that 'democratic' capitalism is something seperate to fascism, when in fact they are two side of the same coin and are intimately linked.

I'm sorry but protesting the state does not get rid of fascists groups, pyshical confrontation does. The fact is that in reality, the bourgeois arent marching around waiting for us to pounce, but the fascsits are, we can phsyically confront them at this point in time!

[JudeObscure84]

Yes because all of those Spanish anarchists were just chomping at the bit to sign up for the allied side in WWII

Nor does any anti-fa group support the bourgeois state that I know of, most of the members are radicals!

Maybe not the Spanish Anarchists, ideologically, the bulk of Allied troops were socialists. Leo Blum, a famous socialist supported the Allied struggle against Fascism.

Apparently, the French Socialists, the ones who advocated anti-war ended up joining the Vichy Regime!

[Disciple of Prometheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 10:10 PM
I was restricted for opposing anti facism as a bourgeois ideology which aims to justify the 'democratic' capitalist regime.

apparently being oppossed to workers being murdered in the name of 'fighting fascism' is the same thing as supporting facism.



Your either for or against the revolution; you either join us or your fight against us, there is no middle ground. Sure some comrades will be lost in the good fight, thus is the nature of war, either traditional, or guerilla warfare, but something must be down. Would rather sit idley by, and let oppression, and do nothing or fight with all our collective might to overthrow the oppressors regardless if we make it back or not? I for one will always support the later.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 07:30 PM

Yes because all of those Spanish anarchists were just chomping at the bit to sign up for the allied side in WWII

Nor does any anti-fa group support the bourgeois state that I know of, most of the members are radicals!

Maybe not the Spanish Anarchists, ideologically, the bulk of Allied troops were socialists. Leo Blum, a famous socialist supported the Allied struggle against Fascism.

Apparently, the French Socialists, the ones who advocated anti-war ended up joining the Vichy Regime!
I'm not responsible for what reformists do.

[JudeObscure84]

I'm not responsible for what reformists do.

thats great but that doesnt change the fact that commies and leftists of all stripes allied themselves with the allies.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by jaycee
Apparently I'm a fascist...

Well, no. You see if an admin thought you were a fascist, then you would be immediately banned!

You've instead been restricted to Opposing Ideologies.

There's a difference.

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

[jaycee]

desciple, what makes you think i'm against revolution when i cleaarly said we need to overthrow capitalism. :blink: You seem to be suggesting that WW2 was some sort of 'good fight' which wasn't imperialist.

Obviously if workers are attacked by a fascist group i would support the workers resisting these attacks, but that is not the same as supporting anti-fascist ideolgy.

For me war is a definig moment in seperating the real revolutionarys from the bourgeois movements, WW1 showed the social democratic movement to be as reactionary as all other sections of the ruling class, WW2 showed Trotskyism and anti-fasciam in a similar way. To be oppossed to imperialist war, internationalism is required, this means recognising that it is not in the workers interests to die for any bourgeois side.

This isn't the same as saying that there isn't aspects which are different between fascist regimes and democratic regimes, (under a Nazi government i wouldn't last 5 minutes with a name as jewish as mine) but the point is that the difference between them is not great enough to warrant an inch of workers blood for either side. History has shown that stalinist and fascists can't teach the democratic powers anything about brutality, when push comes to shove they are capable of being every bit as brutal and murderous.

[Atlas Swallowed]

I despise all the governments that were fighting against Hitler and the Nazis but I would have joined the military of any of them to oppose the Nazis. Hitlers lust for power and war would never cease if he were unopposed and he would have wiped two races of people off the face of the earth(Gypsys being the second)and countless others for his twisted ideology. I disagree with you strongly but fail to see how your views are pro-Faschist. Communists and Anarchists were battling Faschism from its inception. I do not see opposing Faschism as pro-Democracy or pro-Imperilistic but as pro-humanity. Your views are not pro-anything just foolishly apathetic and neutral.

[JudeObscure84]

I despise all the governments that were fighting against Hitler and the Nazis but I would have joined the military of any of them to oppose the Nazis.

I like this logic. Why doesnt this transfer over to the current battle against Islamic extremists in Iraq?

George Orwell, the greatest of anti-totalitarian leftists, chided socio/political pacifism as essentially anti-democratic in nature because when there was a battle between democratic states and totalitarian ones, the pacifists would indirectly side with the latter because of thier disdain for thier own societies.

[Martyr]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 31 2006, 11:30 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 31 2006, 11:30 PM)
jaycee
Apparently I'm a fascist...

Well, no. You see if an admin thought you were a fascist, then you would be immediately banned!

You've instead been restricted to Opposing Ideologies.

There's a difference.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Yes the freedom of speech runs smoothly here

[Dark Exodus]

Yes the freedom of speech runs smoothly here

You can be bitter once you have stopped worshipping your false-god.

[Nicky Scarfo]

I like this logic. Why doesnt this transfer over to the current battle against Islamic extremists in Iraq?


Well, for the record I'm a pretty staunch anti-capitalist and I do not practically oppose "the current battle against Islamic extremists in Iraq", for the simple reason that I know US military, intelligence and economic capital are going to be expended in an imperialist venture somewhere and I just assume our resources be tied up fighting Islamists in the Near East rather than fighting leftists in South America. Christian wackos fighting Islamic wackos sounds almost win-win to me.

There are also several long-term consequences of this war for leftists to consider. For one, the blatant US aggression has led to a reordering of global alliances to counter US hegemony. Examples-- the recent Sino-Russian military pact, and the increasing diplomatic ties between Venezuela, Iran and Brazil. Secondly, the war is stretching America's resources thin. These factors, I believe, will lead to the decline of America's imperial hegemony within the next fifty years. History shows that empires in decay are crucibles for revolutionary change. I believe the so-called "War on Terror" in the long-run will accelerate that decay.

Of course, the short-term consequences are such that leftists do have good reason to oppose the war. The massive loss of life, not to mention that the working-class will end up bearing the brunt of this war. Not just the poor bastard who signed up for the reserves 5 years ago to help pay for college and ends up catching a piece of shrapnel in his throat from an IED, but the huge budget deficits and expenditure of government capital on a losing war will come back to bite the American working-class in a big, big way within the next ten years. Arguably, the suffering of the most oppressed sectors of American society has already been increased substantially by the war.


George Orwell, the greatest of anti-totalitarian leftists, chided socio/political pacifism as essentially anti-democratic in nature because when there was a battle between democratic states and totalitarian ones, the pacifists would indirectly side with the latter because of thier disdain for thier own societies.

Please provide some context here. When and where did Orwell write this?

[Martyr]

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 1 2006, 01:20 PM

Yes the freedom of speech runs smoothly here

You can be bitter once you have stopped worshipping your false-god.
Whats this?

[JudeObscure84]

Well, for the record I'm a pretty staunch anti-capitalist and I do not practically oppose "the current battle against Islamic extremists in Iraq", for the simple reason that I know US military, intelligence and economic capital are going to be expended in an imperialist venture somewhere and I just assume our resources be tied up fighting Islamists in the Near East rather than fighting leftists in South America. Christian wackos fighting Islamic wackos sounds almost win-win to me.

You would have to first pre-suppose that the US is an imperialist nation that seeks to steal mid-east resources. This is a view propounded by Islamists and Marxists to denounce the war. While Islamists are the ones actually doing the fighting.



There are also several long-term consequences of this war for leftists to consider. For one, the blatant US aggression has led to a reordering of global alliances to counter US hegemony. Examples-- the recent Sino-Russian military pact, and the increasing diplomatic ties between Venezuela, Iran and Brazil. Secondly, the war is stretching America's resources thin. These factors, I believe, will lead to the decline of America's imperial hegemony within the next fifty years. History shows that empires in decay are crucibles for revolutionary change. I believe the so-called "War on Terror" in the long-run will accelerate that decay

Could be. But this is mostly a rejection of US and western principles in favor of Marxist and or Islamist ones. Again, the assumption that the US is seeking to dominate the globe is something thats pervasive within these two groups at the moment and in effect is delaying the reconstruction of Iraq.


Of course, the short-term consequences are such that leftists do have good reason to oppose the war. The massive loss of life, not to mention that the working-class will end up bearing the brunt of this war. Not just the poor bastard who signed up for the reserves 5 years ago to help pay for college and ends up catching a piece of shrapnel in his throat from an IED, but the huge budget deficits and expenditure of government capital on a losing war will come back to bite the American working-class in a big, big way within the next ten years. Arguably, the suffering of the most oppressed sectors of American society has already been increased substantially by the war.

I am really shocked to see the realist position that the left has been taking these past years. Since when has the left been so adamantly isolationist and based a bulk of thier arguments on realism? To me the idea of framing domestic debates in strident moral terms but framing foreign policy in such realist terms seems like an odd thing for the left to take. If it is wrong to leave an urban American to live without proper health care than it was surely wrong to leave an Iraqi under the boot of Saddam Hussein; a tyrant we supported.



Please provide some context here. When and where did Orwell write this?


5. PACIFISM The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States.

- George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism penned 1945
http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html

PROPHETIC!

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 02:21 AM

I'm not responsible for what reformists do.

thats great but that doesnt change the fact that commies and leftists of all stripes allied themselves with the allies.
I dont think so. :)

[Nicky Scarfo]

You would have to first pre-suppose that the US is an imperialist nation that seeks to steal mid-east resources. This is a view propounded by Islamists and Marxists to denounce the war...Could be. But this is mostly a rejection of US and western principles in favor of Marxist and or Islamist ones. Again, the assumption that the US is seeking to dominate the globe is something thats pervasive within these two groups at the moment and in effect is delaying the reconstruction of Iraq.

The subjective opinions of Marxists and Islamists on the matter is wholly irrelevant; the objective and patently obvious fact remains that the US is an imperialist state. It has been so since at least since the mid-19th century, and perhaps even before, and its influence has extended in the 20th and 21st centuries to become the imperial hegemon it is today.

Even conservatives like Andrew Bacevich and Iraq War supporters like William Safire acknowledge the obvious fact that America is an Empire. Although people on that side of the fence regard America's imperialism as a good thing or at least normatively neutral.


I am really shocked to see the realist position that the left has been taking these past years. Since when has the left been so adamantly isolationist and based a bulk of thier arguments on realism? To me the idea of framing domestic debates in strident moral terms but framing foreign policy in such realist terms seems like an odd thing for the left to take.

Well, "the left" is a really broad category that could include (depending on one's definition) Clintonite Democrats, Greens, Stalinists, Trotskyists, Anarchists, Social Democrats...well, you get the picture. However, to address one very small segment of the "left" which appears to be well-represented on this forum, Marxists have always tended to take a "realist" tack on matters of both foreign and domestic policy, even if their political propaganda often includes moralistic rhetoric. Leninists in particular tend to be "realist" almost to a fault. Although, in addition to "the left", your characterization of "realist" also lacks a hard and fast definition in this context.


If it is wrong to leave an urban American to live without proper health care than it was surely wrong to leave an Iraqi under the boot of Saddam Hussein; a tyrant we supported.

That presupposes that a self-interested nation-state with a couple of centuries of imperialist foreign policy under its belt is to be trusted to overthrow tyranny and institute democracy in foreign lands. History demonstrates this is rarely the case.

Although admittedly certain positive outcomes have occasionally resulted from American foreign policy by circumstance, it is clear, not just by historical analysis, but by institutional analysis, that America, like any nation-state which operates in its own self-interest and is controlled by that nation's ruling class, has her foreign policy guided not by the best interests of foreigners, but primarily by the interests of the wealthy and privileged sectors of American society and secondarily by the interests of the rest of the nation's population.

To assert otherwise is to ignore all historical evidence and to tacitly posit that nation-states, as institutional entities, DO NOT primarily operate in their own self-interest or the self-interest of those who govern or otherwise control them. Obviously such an assertion would fly in the face of all reason and evidence.

Thank you for the Orwell link. I'll read more.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 07:11 PM
I like this logic. Why doesnt this transfer over to the current battle against Islamic extremists in Iraq?
Who is invading nations in this era? Who is scapegoating an entire religion? My oposition goes to the USA.

With your logic, if you were in Germany during WWII you would be flying the swastika and singing the Horst Wessel song. Fuck off moron.

(spelling)

[rouchambeau]

I have to agree with you, Jaycee. Anti-fascism is crap. Revolutionaries should stick to their broader ideals rather than let their beliefs center directly on anti-fascism.

[JudeObscure84]

The subjective opinions of Marxists and Islamists on the matter is wholly irrelevant; the objective and patently obvious fact remains that the US is an imperialist state. It has been so since at least since the mid-19th century, and perhaps even before, and its influence has extended in the 20th and 21st centuries to become the imperial hegemon it is today.

Even conservatives like Andrew Bacevich and Iraq War supporters like William Safire acknowledge the obvious fact that America is an Empire. Although people on that side of the fence regard America's imperialism as a good thing or at least normatively neutral.

Again you are addressing the issue as if its a fact that the US is currently on an imperial hurbris. Where and how do you determine that has any relevance to this situation? You seem to base this on the flimsy idea that "it has been so since the mid-19th century", as if thats a scientific statement that corresponds to reality today,when administrations switch policies in every term. The neo-con doctrine is a total reversal of the Kissinger-Nixon one and opposes the idea of containment in favor of a more Wilsonian Liberal ideal.
I can understand the empire underpinnings but with this specific intervention, I disagree with the assertion that its a continuation of imperial hegemony on the world. For one Bush ran against nation building but after 9/11 joined Tony Blair (not the other way around) in opting to build nations, and reconstructed American foreign policy away from traditional conservative hawks.


Well, "the left" is a really broad category that could include (depending on one's definition) Clintonite Democrats, Greens, Stalinists, Trotskyists, Anarchists, Social Democrats...well, you get the picture. However, to address one very small segment of the "left" which appears to be well-represented on this forum, Marxists have always tended to take a "realist" tack on matters of both foreign and domestic policy, even if their political propaganda often includes moralistic rhetoric. Leninists in particular tend to be "realist" almost to a fault. Although, in addition to "the left", your characterization of "realist" also lacks a hard and fast definition in this context.

I shouldnt say the left, because I would consider myself a part of the left, being a supporter of the Labour Party and an economic centrist in favor of Social Democracy. The point is that like Paul Berman and Oliver Kamm's take on the debacle, the left has been gripped by cold war politics and it cannot seperate that from the current situation. Alot see this as a contiuation of that former policy. With that they take it as if its unchangable and the US cannot do any good. This is whats rational to them. They think that mass pathalogical movements bent on violence do not exist and that someone must be weaving lies on behalf of narrow interests. A simple "reasoning" for this is is that US power, policy and corporations have exploited the third world into seeking "freedom" (even if through distorted ways). People, a priori, assume that West is responsible for everything that is wrong in the middle east and they build upon these presuppositions to try and reason events like 9/11 and the Iraq War. In my opinion they are indirectly giving credence to pathalogical movements based on hatred, violence, and religious fundamentalism, that use politics to give thier creed a cause.

Now I am not trying to put Islamism and Marxism together and make them uber-allies, like so many right wing pundits. But to say that its irelevant is nonsense. The Islamists use a Marxist presupposition and are fundamental opponents of Enlightment Liberalism. They counter each thing a leftist may write on politics and social events with an Islamic bent to propound their creed. That is what I meant when I wrote the Marxist writes while the Islamist goes out and fights. Maybe this is why I am assuming that Carlos The Jackal wrote that "Islam is the the new post-Communist answer to what he calls US "totalitarianism"".



That presupposes that a self-interested nation-state with a couple of centuries of imperialist foreign policy under its belt is to be trusted to overthrow tyranny and institute democracy in foreign lands. History demonstrates this is rarely the case.

You are proving exactly my case. That you do not believe that this is possible because you think it is improbable for the US to do this considering its past behavior. That is the entire thesis of what I am arguing with you about. You base history as if its a science that can be interpreated rationally and that human beings can always be counted on to act as such. But the events of WWII shattered deep held concepts of humans maturing into a stage that would not seek to destroy the world again. 9/11 thrust the world into abandoning the idea of the "end of history".
I am not presupposing that the US be trusted, but that it has done this in the past and can do it again. It helped eradicate fascism from the planet, it intervened in Afghanistan, South Korea, Bosnia and such. You may look back into your Chomsky or Zinn pamphlets and see keen national interests involved but the objective (especially for leftists) was to destroy a bigger threat. For example, when dozens of Communists and even Karl Marx himself supported the Union's fight against the Confederates. Or Leo Blum and George Orwell how they supported the Allies in WWII. This is the thesis that anti-totalitarian leftists see when "supporting" a US intervention into Iraq. Not by means of believing that the US is esposuing freedom and democracy but that liberal democracy is still better than Baathism and Islamism.


To assert otherwise is to ignore all historical evidence and to tacitly posit that nation-states, as institutional entities, DO NOT primarily operate in their own self-interest or the self-interest of those who govern or otherwise control them. Obviously such an assertion would fly in the face of all reason and evidence.

I aggree with you 100%. I would not negate this. But your imperitive is to imply that since the US is doing this out of its own narrow interest (arguing, a priori, that its interests are purely evil) and coupled with your presupposition that through historical evidence that the US is contiuing on its imperial hurbis (because apparently thats all it can do?), that the US is the bigger threat than Islamism. I argue the latter. To put it plainly, I do not presupose that history is as rational and smooth as you say it is. That a nation can radically switch policies, (abeit national interests involved because I agree with your assertion that no nation can ignore its personal interest) and seek to support intervention for an ideological purpose.

Take for instance, the English empire, and how it would once ship slaves in from Africa through a slave trade but 100 years later reveresed the policy to send ships to stop the slave trade. Now would I be against the latter because I was firmly against the first one? Should I somehow remain "logically consistent" by opposing the removal of Saddam because we once supported him?

[JudeObscure84]

Who is invading nations in this era? Who is scapegoating an entire religion? My oposition goes to the USA.

With your logic, if you were in Germany during WWII you would be flying the swastika and singing the Horst Wessel song. Fuck off moron.

you would first have to assume that the US is scapegoating Muslims, even while we intrevened to help them rid despots in two countries. And please do not tell me that you think that Muslim countries do not invade other nations. No one has killed more Muslims than Muslims. And lets not forget the four imperialist attempts on Israel, pan-arabism, ethnic cleansing of Marsh Arabs, Hindus, Sudanese Christians and Maronite Christians, Kurds and Armenians. I guess my opposition goes to Islamic and or Baathist Fascism.

....now tell me with you logic, being opposed to the US in this interventions and all, again how is this not like indirectly siding with the Fascists upon USA's entry into WWII?

[Atlas Swallowed]

Did we go to war in Europe to steal oil in WWII?(Hitler was trying to steal oil from the USSR) Was the US intelligence services responsible for the rise of Hitler? The government did not need to make up countless lies about Hitler and Germany. Iraq was already a beaten and impoverished nation and no threat to the US or its neighbors. Germany was trying to take over half the world and doing a damn good job of it. Your analogy is almost as idiotic as you are. Wow did not know thier were idiots that believe in the crap propaganda on Fox that are able to type.

The only one who would be siding with Faschists is you.

Heil Bush
and
Again fuck off.

[JudeObscure84]

Listen jagoff. Im not here to get into hissy fits with someone who disagrees with me so I would hope that you would actually give reasonable debate instead of baseless ad hominem attacks. Heil Bush, is not a great argument. If you dont mind I was having a good debate with Nick. For starters my arguments do not come from Faux News or from right wing pundits, but more from the anti-totalitarian left.

So I guess.....Allah Akbar, death to infidels to you! :unsure:

[Nicky Scarfo]

Before I begin, I should remind you that I am not opposed to the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars solely on practical grounds. You seem to have forgotten you are not arguing with an opponent of the war (well opposed in principle, but not in practice).


Again you are addressing the issue as if its a fact that the US is currently on an imperial hurbris. Where and how do you determine that has any relevance to this situation? You seem to base this on the flimsy idea that "it has been so since the mid-19th century", as if thats a scientific statement that corresponds to reality today,when administrations switch policies in every term. The neo-con doctrine is a total reversal of the Kissinger-Nixon one and opposes the idea of containment in favor of a more Wilsonian Liberal ideal.
I can understand the empire underpinnings but with this specific intervention, I disagree with the assertion that its a continuation of imperial hegemony on the world. For one Bush ran against nation building but after 9/11 joined Tony Blair (not the other way around) in opting to build nations, and reconstructed American foreign policy away from traditional conservative hawks.


Foreign policy shifts have occured in the US since the 19th century, that is certainly true, but they are shifts in methods of imperialist foreign policy. Whether it is TDR, Wilson, FDR, JFK, Nixon, Clinton or Bush-- the US pursues a policy of imperial control. Not one of those mentioned has stated any intention but for the US to become or continue being the preminent global power, and nothing has changed to this day. Read the 2004 Democratic Party Platform sometime-- every bit of it asserts that the US should be the dominant global power (and that Bush is squandering that power). The only difference between Presidential Administrations is the methods and degree of imperial foreign policy. It is the inherent tendency of a powerful nation-state to exalt its interests above all others and to manipulate the affairs of weaker nation-states to that end. That is imperialism.

Imperialism only ends when the nation-state ends and the first step down that road is for the most powerful nation-states to experience massive social restructuring. This is what socialists fight for. Though we differ widely on how it should be accomplished.

Again, may I recommend Andrew Bacevich's "American Empire". Bacevich is a conservative scholar who does not necessarily believe empire is a bad thing. He clearly states that US policy has been imperialistic since the 19th century but also pays close attention to the shifts in that imperial policy and believes the Bush Administration's current policy is a decisive shift towards all-out imperial war rather than the modern version of "gunboats and Gurkhas" (now cruise missles and proxy wars) practiced by previous administrations. Agree with him or not, but it is clear that America has been practicing an imperial foreign policy for well over a century, even if major shifts occur in the conduct of that policy.


I shouldnt say the left, because I would consider myself a part of the left, being a supporter of the Labour Party and an economic centrist in favor of Social Democracy.

The history of Social Democracy is not rooted in economic centrism, but is explicity Marxist. Originally, the only thing separating the Social Democrats from the Communists and the Anarchists was a differing belief in the method of struggle. But the goal of all three was the same-- a stateless, classless socialist society. Obviously things are different now.


Now I am not trying to put Islamism and Marxism together and make them uber-allies, like so many right wing pundits. But to say that its irelevant is nonsense. The Islamists use a Marxist presupposition and are fundamental opponents of Enlightment Liberalism. They counter each thing a leftist may write on politics and social events with an Islamic bent to propound their creed. That is what I meant when I wrote the Marxist writes while the Islamist goes out and fights. Maybe this is why I am assuming that Carlos The Jackal wrote that "Islam is the the new post-Communist answer to what he calls US "totalitarianism"".

Carlos the Jackal, huh? A badass to be sure, but I wouldn't take much stock in his political beliefs. And its not nonsense to say it's irrelevant. Look, Marxists and Islamists are both opposed to "imperialism". So what? I remember going to a Teamsters Rally against PNTR for China back in 2000 and both Bernie Sanders and Pat Buchanan were speakers. They agreed on one singular issue. Big deal, doesn't mean there's any greater nexus or that their agreement has any larger meaning. You and I could both think Winona Ryder is hot and want to fuck her. Doesn't mean we have anything else in common.


You base history as if its a science that can be interpreated rationally and that human beings can always be counted on to act as such.

I think you are assuming I am a Marxist, which I am not.


I am not presupposing that the US be trusted, but that it has done this in the past and can do it again.

You say you are a Social Democrat and you trust Bush to build "liberty", "democracy" and "freedom" in Iraq? Do you have any idea what that cocksucker has done here? He's smashing civil liberties here and you think he's gonna help Iraq become a "free country"? Look, the US Admin left Saddam's union-busting labor laws on the books and raided Iraqi trade union federation's HQ, arrested union leaders and fired into crowds of demonstrators affliated with the Union of the Unemployed. And you, a Labour supporter and Social Democrat trust this fuck to build Iraq into anything but another oppressive US puppet regime?


It helped eradicate fascism from the planet,

No, it helped eradicate it from Europe and helped foster it just about everywhere else.


it intervened in Afghanistan, South Korea, Bosnia and such.

1. Afghanistan? You couldn't have picked a worse example on so many levels-- here's just two:

a. We only invaded cause of 9/11. That's it. No great fucking moral purpose.

b. Our goverment created the fucking Islamist menace there in the first place. Jimmy Carter's chief security adviser was shamelessly boasting about it before 9/11.

2. South Korea. Helped out to stop spread of Communist enemy in Asia. Realpolitik. No moral purpose.

3. Bosnia. US didn't want to intervene at all. Finally forced to by NATO allies who were none too happy about the first war on European soil since WWII. Didn't send in ground troops until after peace accord was signed.

Furthermore, for every one "good" US intervention you can name, I could name two dozen "bad" ones. For example, I cannot think of one single example of the US being on the "right" side in the Third World since the Civil War. It has almost consistently been on the "wrong" side. During the Cold War (and before and since) we may have been playing the "good guy" for our fellow imperialists in Europe, while the Soviet Union was the "bad guy" there, but in almost every other corner of the globe (with the possible exception of highly industrialized Japan), it was the reverse. We were supporting neocolonialism, while the USSR was supporting national liberation. Compare our client states to the USSR's-- though both sides supported oppressive regimes, the US clients almost always had even worse human rights' records than the Soviet clients.

And it continues to this day. We funnel hundreds of billions in military and other aid to the world's most corrupt and oppressive regimes. Just for one example, look at Plan Colombia-- where we have millions of dollars in military aid going to a country that murders union organizers like I drink beer. To say nothing of Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and dozens of other brutal regimes our government supports.

Does our government occassionally do the right thing? Yeah, sure. But I ain't gonna trust a serial killer to look after my family just cause he volunteered at soup kitchens a couple of times.


You may look back into your Chomsky or Zinn pamphlets and see keen national interests involved but the objective (especially for leftists) was to destroy a bigger threat.

Yes, the objective was to destroy a threat (real or perceived) to the nation-state's (and its ruling classes') interests. That's it. I'm sure the ruling class convinced themselves that serving their own interests was also a moral calling-- they always do after all. And in some of those conflicts a greater evil may have indeed been defeated as a result. And those who actually shed their blood in those conflicts probably did, by and large, believe it was for a greater moral purpose. But the institutional reasons for war are always amoral or even immoral, even if the results or motivations of the participants are moral.

For example, I believe WWII was an objectively "moral" war from the Allied perspective in terms of the results and the motivations of individual participants, and, conversely, an objectively "immoral" war from the Axis side. And no doubt, people on all sides of the conflict were motivated at least in part my principle and ideology. However, the institutional forces driving the people to war (on all sides) were wholly amoral-- a quest for resources and power, which is what all wars boil down to in the end.

Same for the US Civil War-- objectively "moral" cause for the Union being driven by amoral institutional forces (capitalism vs. feudalism), as well as the Soviet-Afghan conflict-- objectively "moral" cause for the PDPA and their Soviet benefactors, but ultimately driven by an amoral imperialist proxy war between the USSR and US.


For example, when dozens of Communists and even Karl Marx himself supported the Union's fight against the Confederates.

Well, specifically Marx supported the Union because he viewed it as capitalism overthrowing feudalism, which was a historical step forward.


I aggree with you 100%. I would not negate this. But your imperitive is to imply that since the US is doing this out of its own narrow interest (arguing, a priori, that its interests are purely evil) and coupled with your presupposition that through historical evidence that the US is contiuing on its imperial hurbis (because apparently thats all it can do?), that the US is the bigger threat than Islamism. I argue the latter. To put it plainly, I do not presupose that history is as rational and smooth as you say it is. That a nation can radically switch policies, (abeit national interests involved because I agree with your assertion that no nation can ignore its personal interest) and seek to support intervention for an ideological purpose.

Again, I must remind you to pay closer attention to my position on the war which I have stated earlier in this thread. I choose no sides in this conflict. Both sides disgust me, and I'm just happy that the US is dumping its military, economic and intelligence resources into fighting Islamists and Baathists rather than fighting a "dirty war" against progressive forces in Venezuela and Bolivia a la Nicaragua, Colombia, El Salvador, Chile, Guate...ah, fuck it, let's just say all of Latin America during the Cold War or I'll be here all night. And there's no doubt in my mind we would be were it not for our preoccupation in the Mideast and Central Asia. Clinton's Plan Colombia was quickly followed by Bush's abortive coup in Venezuela and the people of Latin America should be thankful we're expending our imperial capital elsewhere at the moment.


Listen jagoff.

:D I gotta respect anyone who pronounces jackoff like I do. Plus I'm glad there's some dirty capitalist dogs here I can have an intelligent conversation with. I was getting worried everyone was gonna be like that moron Oh-Dae-Su. Though I must admit, it's quite fun to call him names. It would be even more fun to put my fist through his face, but it's just the internet, so oh well...

[JudeObscure84]

Foreign policy shifts have occured in the US since the 19th century, that is certainly true, but they are shifts in methods of imperialist foreign policy. Whether it is TDR, Wilson, FDR, JFK, Nixon, Clinton or Bush-- the US pursues a policy of imperial control. Not one of those mentioned has stated any intention but for the US to become or continue being the preminent global power, and nothing has changed to this day. Read the 2004 Democratic Party Platform sometime-- every bit of it asserts that the US should be the dominant global power (and that Bush is squandering that power). The only difference between Presidential Administrations is the methods and degree of imperial foreign policy. It is the inherent tendency of a powerful nation-state to exalt its interests above all others and to manipulate the affairs of weaker nation-states to that end. That is imperialism.

The objective ethic of the United States is a presupposition that free markets and liberal democracy are the best form of governance. The Wilsonian Liberal Democrats and Post Teddy Rosevelts were the first to support armed interventions in the spreading of these values. The old right and Nixon-Kissinger associates were adament in isolationism and supporting despots in order to protect thier interests. This is the true nature of the middle part of the Cold War. The US seeks a global leadership position to lead the world in these values. To many this is imperialism, to some its liberation.


Imperialism only ends when the nation-state ends and the first step down that road is for the most powerful nation-states to experience massive social restructuring. This is what socialists fight for. Though we differ widely on how it should be accomplished.

What does US Imperialism look like and how can it be matched to other empires?


Again, may I recommend Andrew Bacevich's "American Empire". Bacevich is a conservative scholar who does not necessarily believe empire is a bad thing. He clearly states that US policy has been imperialistic since the 19th century but also pays close attention to the shifts in that imperial policy and believes the Bush Administration's current policy is a decisive shift towards all-out imperial war rather than the modern version of "gunboats and Gurkhas" (now cruise missles and proxy wars) practiced by previous administrations. Agree with him or not, but it is clear that America has been practicing an imperial foreign policy for well over a century, even if major shifts occur in the conduct of that policy.

I never argued against the notion that the US isnt an empire. I argue that its not currently on an imperial hubris.


The history of Social Democracy is not rooted in economic centrism, but is explicity Marxist. Originally, the only thing separating the Social Democrats from the Communists and the Anarchists was a differing belief in the method of struggle. But the goal of all three was the same-- a stateless, classless socialist society. Obviously things are different now.

Most Social Democratic movements today are currently centrist and or liberal-left. And I still think that most Marxists do not like Social Democrats. Its much like the Rosa Luxembourg/Eduard Burnstein riff.


Carlos the Jackal, huh? A badass to be sure, but I wouldn't take much stock in his political beliefs. And its not nonsense to say it's irrelevant. Look, Marxists and Islamists are both opposed to "imperialism". So what? I remember going to a Teamsters Rally against PNTR for China back in 2000 and both Bernie Sanders and Pat Buchanan were speakers. They agreed on one singular issue. Big deal, doesn't mean there's any greater nexus or that their agreement has any larger meaning. You and I could both think Winona Ryder is hot and want to fuck her. Doesn't mean we have anything else in common.

I am using the Jackal as an example. And again I am not trying to say that there is some Nazi-Stalin pact or anything but that since Islamists preach Islam as the solution, they gather alot of thier socio-political thought from far left or far right books. They use those writings to give thier sick creed a movement a cause. They overwhelmingly use the left, while on rare ocassions (like the famous event with Michel Foucault and his love affair with the Iranian Revolution), leftists romantisize Islamic revolts as incredible struggles against Western imperialism. The praises that are sung to the Palestinian infitada or the rationalizing of suicide terror is simply awestrucking for some on the left to taking a stance on.


I think you are assuming I am a Marxist, which I am not.

What would you call yourself?


You say you are a Social Democrat and you trust Bush to build "liberty", "democracy" and "freedom" in Iraq?
No I trust Tony Blair, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Poland and Australia.


Do you have any idea what that cocksucker has done here? He's smashing civil liberties here and you think he's gonna help Iraq become a "free country"? Look, the US Admin left Saddam's union-busting labor laws on the books and raided Iraqi trade union federation's HQ, arrested union leaders and fired into crowds of demonstrators affliated with the Union of the Unemployed. And you, a Labour supporter and Social Democrat trust this fuck to build Iraq into anything but another oppressive US puppet regime?

Our checks and balances,a free press and relatively free society keep Mr. Bush at bay but the only thing that keeps Jihadists in check is US/UK arms. Secondly, the US forces invaded the union's headquarters on false information submitted by Baathist loyalists. The Iraqi Trade Union Federation does not view the current Iraqi government as a "puppet regime"
http://www.iraqitradeunions.org/archives/000403.html

The outcome of the vote will not be seen as rebuff against those that voted no and will not drive them into the arms of the so-called resistance.
They also fully reject the so called resistence movement and are supported by the Iraqi government, the UN, and the British Labour Party.
http://www.labourfriendsofiraq.org.uk/
They firmly oppose the flimsy Stop the War Coalition led by that Baathist boot kissing Islamist loving George Galloway. They support the new Iraq and opt for US troops to be replaced by UN troops and I agree with the 100% I see that this issue to most opposed to it is heavily centered around the US and George Bush. When to me, an internationlist, want democracy to flourish in Iraq even if it means calling out the US on horrible war planning and human rights abuses.



No, it helped eradicate it from Europe and helped foster it just about everywhere else.

I beg to differ. I am not a reactionary leftist to explicitly denounce everything as fascism because I think fascism stands alone. I believe there is a difference between simple right wing military rule by a junta and out right capital 'F' Fascism. I know that you're simply getting at that we supported despots but I am trying to point out that the issue isnt simplified by saying that "we supported fascism"! The bulk of this faulty planning was due to the Kissinger-Nixon stradegy.



1. Afghanistan? You couldn't have picked a worse example on so many levels-- here's just two:
Well heres two to counter.

a. We only invaded cause of 9/11. That's it. No great fucking moral purpose.

We got rid of the Taliban.


b. Our goverment created the fucking Islamist menace there in the first place. Jimmy Carter's chief security adviser was shamelessly boasting about it before 9/11.
I know. It was a horrible policy. Isnt it great that we reversed it? Zbigniew Brzezinski opposed the iraqi war of liberation. I guess he a soft spot for Baathism too.


2. South Korea. Helped out to stop spread of Communist enemy in Asia. Realpolitik. No moral purpose.

That isnt realpolitik. A realist would've supported a right wing coup and sqashed an inner rebellion to keep the two nations in tact. Kind of like aiding Saddam to keep the Shiite south from becoming an Iranian proxy. You could say that the Korean War was the first neo-conservative battlefront. The Bush doctrine is casually referred as similar to the Truman Doctrine.


3. Bosnia. US didn't want to intervene at all. Finally forced to by NATO allies who were none too happy about the first war on European soil since WWII. Didn't send in ground troops until after peace accord was signed.

Ofcourse it didnt. The Republican congress was still overwhemingly isolationist and against nation building. Tony Blair convinced the US to get involved.


Furthermore, for every one "good" US intervention you can name, I could name two dozen "bad" ones.

I thought the objective thing to do was to weigh these issue independently without jumping to a conclusion that narrow interests are always involved (and they are) and that they overshadow the means to an end. I address this point independently and add that this is not soley a war that involves the US. This is also a UK, Iraqi, UN and trade union fight against Islamic extremism.


For example, I cannot think of one single example of the US being on the "right" side in the Third World since the Civil War.

I can. Well...if your not willing to hold the US to these extremly high moral standards that no nation can, has or ever will follow. By these standards the liberation of Europe and not to mention Aushwitz from German mademen were not worth it because of the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima and the massacre of Scilian POWs.


It has almost consistently been on the "wrong" side. During the Cold War (and before and since) we may have been playing the "good guy" for our fellow imperialists in Europe, while the Soviet Union was the "bad guy" there, but in almost every other corner of the globe (with the possible exception of highly industrialized Japan), it was the reverse. We were supporting neocolonialism, while the USSR was supporting national liberation. Compare our client states to the USSR's-- though both sides supported oppressive regimes, the US clients almost always had even worse human rights' records than the Soviet clients.

The US clients (with the exception of Suharto and Somaza) did not nearly number the total of deaths by the Khmer Rouge, Viet Cong, Mao, Idi Amin, Nicolae Ceausescu, Kim Il Sung, Radovan Karadzic, and not to mention that Stalin himself killed more people than all of the US clients combined. But I am not here to appologize for the US's shoddy mid-Cold War record of supporting despots nor here to count figures on who killed more people. The point is that I support the national liberation struggle of Iraq against Islamic terrorists, and US or no US I would still support the Iraqi government and its fight against terror.


And it continues to this day. We funnel hundreds of billions in military and other aid to the world's most corrupt and oppressive regimes. Just for one example, look at Plan Colombia-- where we have millions of dollars in military aid going to a country that murders union organizers like I drink beer. To say nothing of Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and dozens of other brutal regimes our government supports.
I think you mean foreign aid. In which we also give to nations that want us eradicated. We still send money to the Palestinian terrortories. And I would not equate Israel with Egypt and or Saudi Arabia.


Does our government occassionally do the right thing? Yeah, sure. But I ain't gonna trust a serial killer to look after my family just cause he volunteered at soup kitchens a couple of times.

A serial killer? Saddam was a serial killer. And these political assumptions are clouding many on the lefts eyes to think that Islamists are a lesser threat than the US.

Does our government occassionally do the right thing? Yeah, sure. But I ain't gonna trust a serial killer to look after my family just cause he volunteered at soup kitchens a couple of times.

[JudeObscure84]

Yes, the objective was to destroy a threat (real or perceived) to the nation-state's (and its ruling classes') interests. That's it. I'm sure the ruling class convinced themselves that serving their own interests was also a moral calling-- they always do after all. And in some of those conflicts a greater evil may have indeed been defeated as a result. And those who actually shed their blood in those conflicts probably did, by and large, believe it was for a greater moral purpose. But the institutional reasons for war are always amoral or even immoral, even if the results or motivations of the participants are moral.

Why would that stop someone from fighting if they knew it was the ruling class who wanted them to fight for thier pockets? The point is that we have workable democracies vs. what the other wants for us. In a sense had this logic been applied to past conflicts then the Nazis would've overpowered Europe and the Japanese would've overpowered China. Even Mao sided with Chaing Kai over the issue that Japan was a bigger threat. The point is that progressive values have accomplished a great deal in Europe and the US so far as it has come but this wouldnt have been possible if not for the intervention of the most feared capital imperialist ,the US, making its mark in WWII. South Korea would be a gulag now had it not been for imperial US stretching its tentacles to promote its narrow interests on them. Same with West Germany and Japan. This is the logic I am implying in Iraq. Take the instance of Indonesia, would you have preferred a stable dictatorship where dissenters are killed by the thousands a year or a shaky democracy that teters to find its place in the world.


And there's no doubt in my mind we would be were it not for our preoccupation in the Mideast and Central Asia. Clinton's Plan Colombia was quickly followed by Bush's abortive coup in Venezuela and the people of Latin America should be thankful we're expending our imperial capital elsewhere at the moment.

Lets see what Chavez has in store for Venezuela first before throwing him a vicroty parade. Simon Bolivar he is not.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 08:52 PM
Listen jagoff. Im not here to get into hissy fits with someone who disagrees with me so I would hope that you would actually give reasonable debate instead of baseless ad hominem attacks. Heil Bush, is not a great argument. If you dont mind I was having a good debate with Nick. For starters my arguments do not come from Faux News or from right wing pundits, but more from the anti-totalitarian left.

So I guess.....Allah Akbar, death to infidels to you! :unsure:
Reasonable debate? What you stated in your previous posts was beyond reason. I might as well debate you on why the moon is not the sun at night.

Heil Bush is a good insult for someone who supports Bushes position and compares the resistance to his unjust invasion, Nazis.

No I don't mind if you continue your debate with Nick. What part of fuck off don't you understand?

[JudeObscure84]

Reasonable debate? What you stated in your previous posts was beyond reason. I might as well debate you on why the moon is not the sun at night.

:blink:


Heil Bush is a good insult for someone who supports Bushes position and compares the resistance to his unjust invasion, Nazis.
well atleast you admit it was an insult and not an arguement. Its clear you are incapable of reasonable debate.


No I don't mind if you continue your debate with Nick. What part of fuck off don't you understand?

the part where i have to fuck off? who was talking to you?

[Nicky Scarfo]

The objective ethic of the United States is a presupposition that free markets and liberal democracy are the best form of governance. The Wilsonian Liberal Democrats and Post Teddy Rosevelts were the first to support armed interventions in the spreading of these values. The old right and Nixon-Kissinger associates were adament in isolationism and supporting despots in order to protect thier interests. This is the true nature of the middle part of the Cold War. The US seeks a global leadership position to lead the world in these values. To many this is imperialism, to some its liberation.

Call it "good" imperialism vs. "bad" imperialism if you wish, but all these policies still boiled down to advancing the interests of the American nation-state and its ruling class, regardless of the methods or outcomes. Can we end this now? It's getting circular.


What does US Imperialism look like and how can it be matched to other empires?

Big question. Not prepared to answer at this time.


I never argued against the notion that the US isnt an empire. I argue that its not currently on an imperial hubris.

Then you are wrong. I see little difference between the goals of the neocons and the "white man's burden" used as an excuse for European colonial expansion in Africa and Asia.


Most Social Democratic movements today are currently centrist and or liberal-left. And I still think that most Marxists do not like Social Democrats. Its much like the Rosa Luxembourg/Eduard Burnstein riff.

Yes, I know.


I am using the Jackal as an example. And again I am not trying to say that there is some Nazi-Stalin pact or anything but that since Islamists preach Islam as the solution, they gather alot of thier socio-political thought from far left or far right books. They use those writings to give thier sick creed a movement a cause. They overwhelmingly use the left, while on rare ocassions (like the famous event with Michel Foucault and his love affair with the Iranian Revolution), leftists romantisize Islamic revolts as incredible struggles against Western imperialism. The praises that are sung to the Palestinian infitada or the rationalizing of suicide terror is simply awestrucking for some on the left to taking a stance on.

I think you are overgeneralizing the tenuous nexus between radical left and Islamism. Again, I'd prefer to end this portion of the debate as it's heading into "is not!" "is so!" territory.


What would you call yourself?

Nicky Fuckin Scarfo


No I trust Tony Blair, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Poland and Australia

1. The American neocons are running the show

2. I wouldn't trust Tony Blair as far as I could throw him

3. John Howard. Do I need to say anything else about Oz?

4. Those other countries have no pull and I don't trust them either even if they did.


Our checks and balances,a free press and relatively free society keep Mr. Bush at bay but the only thing that keeps Jihadists in check is US/UK arms. Secondly, the US forces invaded the union's headquarters on false information submitted by Baathist loyalists. The Iraqi Trade Union Federation does not view the current Iraqi government as a "puppet regime"
http://www.iraqitradeunions.org/archives/000403.html


They also fully reject the so called resistence movement and are supported by the Iraqi government, the UN, and the British Labour Party.
http://www.labourfriendsofiraq.org.uk/
They firmly oppose the flimsy Stop the War Coalition led by that Baathist boot kissing Islamist loving George Galloway. They support the new Iraq and opt for US troops to be replaced by UN troops and I agree with the 100% I see that this issue to most opposed to it is heavily centered around the US and George Bush. When to me, an internationlist, want democracy to flourish in Iraq even if it means calling out the US on horrible war planning and human rights abuses.

There are currently two Iraqi union federations and they differ on the occupation. I met some Iraqi trade union delegates last year and even among the delegation there were differing opinions on the US occupation. Some wanted immediate withdrawal, others did not. Though all were clearly opposed to the Baathists and Islamists.

And none of this changes the union-busting actions of US troops, nor does it change the fact that Saddam's labor laws were kept on the books.


I beg to differ. I am not a reactionary leftist to explicitly denounce everything as fascism because I think fascism stands alone. I believe there is a difference between simple right wing military rule by a junta and out right capital 'F' Fascism. I know that you're simply getting at that we supported despots but I am trying to point out that the issue isnt simplified by saying that "we supported fascism"!

Fascism is a particular subset of right-wing extremism. The definition of it varies widely depending on who you ask. Some define it so narrowly as to include only Italian Fascism and some define it so broadly as to include the American GOP. The technical definition does not interest me, and I don't have a problem calling other forms of right-wing reaction "fascism" even if it is not technically correct. Fort example, I do not believe Pinochet's government was any better than Mussolini's even if the former could not technically be considered "fascism". For me the f-word and "right-wing reactionary" are interchangable, especially as a good common definition for the first does not exist.


We got rid of the Taliban.

A result of being attacked on 9/11. No 9/11 attacks and the Taliban would still be there. No higher moral purpose. And resumption of warlord rule over most of the country is only marginally better than the Taliban, plus Karzai may not be as bad as the Taliban, but he is certainly no great reformer. By way of comparison, look at the sweeping reforms (especially in terms of women's liberation) that the PDPA undertook, before your gov't and mine aided in its destruction.


That isnt realpolitik. A realist would've supported a right wing coup and sqashed an inner rebellion to keep the two nations in tact.

Explain.


I can. Well...if your not willing to hold the US to these extremly high moral standards that no nation can, has or ever will follow.

My "extremely high moral standard" is national liberation vs. neocolonial exploitation. The US has consistently erred on the former side in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and most of Eastern Asia.


The US clients (with the exception of Suharto and Somaza) did not nearly number the total of deaths by the Khmer Rouge, Viet Cong, Mao, Idi Amin, Nicolae Ceausescu, Kim Il Sung, Radovan Karadzic, and not to mention that Stalin himself killed more people than all of the US clients combined.

1. Khmer Rouge was a Chinese client. Chinese clients during the Cold War (post Sino-Soviet split) normally sided with the US, as did the Khmer Rouge for a brief time.

2. Viet Cong? You gotta be kiddin me right? You think the Vietnam War was justified too? Jesus, you are a fuckin imperialist hawk.


3. Mao. China could not properly be considered a Soviet "client" past the early 1950s, by the late 1950s were often diplomatically at loggerheads with the USSR, and by 1969 were enemies. The two periods in which the most people died under Mao were 1) The Great Leap Forward and 2) The Cultural Revolution.

You couldn't properly call the millions killed during the Great Leap Forward as "murder", probably closer to "negligent homicide" at worst, but in any case it took place in 1958 when Sino-Soviet relations were already beginning to cool, and the Soviets ended up supporting an internal shake-up against Mao because of his disasterous policies where Mao resigned as Chairman for a time. So actually the Soviets played the role of "good guys" on this one.

By the time Mao reassumed power and launched the Cultural Revolution in 1966 he was officially on the outs with Moscow and by 1969 the Sino-Soviet split was complete and the two countries no longer allies, but rivals.

4. Idi Amin. Don't know wnough about him. Except he ate people-- pretty cool.

5. Ceaucescu. Within the Warsaw Pact probably the leader most independent of the USSR. Vocally denounced the 1956 Hungarian and 1968 Czech invasions by the USSR. Kept Romania as independent as it could possibly be from the Soviet Union's Eastern European Empire (by the way if the US was on the wrong side vis-a-vis the Soviet Union in the Third World, it was the reverse in Europe in my opinion. The USSR might have been supporting national liberation in the Third World, but in Europe it was an oppressive, imperial power. Not that I think the US playing the good guy to its fellow imperialist allies in Europe buys a lot of "karma points").

6. Kim Il Sung. Chinese client.

7. Karadic. Not a Soviet client. Sovet union didn't even exist then.


We still send money to the Palestinian terrortories.

This statement might have just done permanent damage to your credibility in my eyes. It's hard to take you seriously after such a biased play on words. That's the kind of shit I'd expect to read on that hate site Freerepublic or Little Green Footballs.


A serial killer? Saddam was a serial killer.

It was an analogy.

Again, after reading your last post, I feel compelled to repost this:


Before I begin, I should remind you that I am not opposed to the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars solely on practical grounds. You seem to have forgotten you are not arguing with an opponent of the war (well opposed in principle, but not in practice).

Anyhow,


Even Mao sided with Chaing Kai over the issue that Japan was a bigger threat.

Only cause Stalin forced him to. Ho Chi Minh would be a better example for your purposes.


Lets see what Chavez has in store for Venezuela first before throwing him a vicroty parade.

It ain't all about Chavez, and (admittedly from afar) I'm seeing more progress for worker democracy and social reform down there than I've seen in any other country during my lifetime.

[JudeObscure84]

Call it "good" imperialism vs. "bad" imperialism if you wish, but all these policies still boiled down to advancing the interests of the American nation-state and its ruling class, regardless of the methods or outcomes. Can we end this now? It's getting circular.
Again (even if its circular) the advancement of the "ruling class" is still favorable to a fledging working class and a stable middle class who rely on the jobs and investments of the top percent. To a Marxist, Socialist whatever you may calle yourself, see this as explotation. To some this is liberation, depending on the presupposition you hold. But case in point the advancement of this particular American interest is layed out in the National Security Stradegy that presupposes what I have just listed above as the best solution for governance and it intends to spread it across a disinfranchised Middle East. You disagree because you, a priori, reject the notion that Free Markets and liberal democracy are a the best governance (as so do many Islamic extremists) so you see this as another stage in American Imperialism and have no qualms about fighting it with what your percieve as national liberation.

Then you are wrong. I see little difference between the goals of the neocons and the "white man's burden" used as an excuse for European colonial expansion in Africa and Asia.
Obviously you have never read any of the writings of the neo-conservatives. Their ideology is rejected by the right most of the time because it is a right wing version of leftist ideology and revolution if that makes any sense.

I think you are overgeneralizing the tenuous nexus between radical left and Islamism. Again, I'd prefer to end this portion of the debate as it's heading into "is not!" "is so!" territory.
How can I overgeneralize the situation when Osama Bin Laden himself endorses William Blum's book? Again, I am not trying to equate the two as allies or connected in a sinister plot against the West. What I am saying is that Islamists use you, the books you read and the presuppositions you hold to give thier creed an ideological drive.

1. The American neocons are running the show
Not even neo-cons believe this.

2. I wouldn't trust Tony Blair as far as I could throw him
It was Blair who advocated the removal of Saddam Hussien when Bush was just an isolationist governor. His actions have been investigated twice and he has come out clean each time. But ofcourse there could be nefarious reasons for that, huh? :unsure:

3. John Howard. Do I need to say anything else about Oz?
Ah, Australia's answer to Bush and Blair. Funny how the three worlds leading terrorists were all re-elected in thier home nations?

4. Those other countries have no pull and I don't trust them either even if they did.
you dont trust liberal democracies? this is reminding so much of Orwell's quote.

There are currently two Iraqi union federations and they differ on the occupation. I met some Iraqi trade union delegates last year and even among the delegation there were differing opinions on the US occupation. Some wanted immediate withdrawal, others did not. Though all were clearly opposed to the Baathists and Islamists.
I support the trade union regardless of thier view of the occupation. They still fundamentally oppose the terrorists and support a new federal Iraq. So you met the union delagates while two posts ago you derided the new Iraqi govt. as a puppet state? Did you tell them that? Anyways those that do favor an immediate withdrawl are not logically consistent and should atleast acknowledge the liberation of thier country from Saddam. I would like to ask them.
1.) Do you favor an immidiete withdrawl of US troops from Iraq?
2.) If you do, do you then favor the re-instatement of the Baath Party and Saddam Hussien back into power?
3.) If not, then why not? If you whole heartedly were against this war then you are against everything that has come about as a result of it.
I've noticed that the call for prompt withdrawl is not a call to restore the Baath regime to power. No,it just starts from where things are now, with the regime gone. That is, it starts with from a better starting point than would otherwise have been in place(if anti war screech was met). And this is a good (but not properly acknowledged) achieved by US/UK arms.

And none of this changes the union-busting actions of US troops, nor does it change the fact that Saddam's labor laws were kept on the books.
Which I just explained the reasons for the ill wanted siege in a previous post. Even with this raid, the variety of voices within the trade unions on occupation is amazing and I am impressed at the level of thier resistence to oppose any faux resistence movement.

If democracy fails in Iraq the world will be picking up the pieces for the rest of our lifetimes. If democracy succeeds in Iraq then we may be on the verge of a world historic process of democratisation throughout the region. That is what is at stake in Iraq. It is the hinge of our time.

Post-Saddam Iraq accepts trade unions as part of a democratic society. We urge and we expect that the new constitution will embrace a liberal-democratic model of state-union relations. We are arguing for the right of workers to join trade unions, and for unions to organise under legal protection, independent of the state. We want the new Iraq to embrace ILO standards, including an ILO-approved Labour Code. If the new constitution fails to embed the rights of Iraqi workers a tremendous opportunity to undercut the appeal of the terrorists will have been missed. For with those rights we will build a mighty union able to offer a real alternative to the nihilists.
- Abdullah Muhsin, who advocates the support of the United Nations.

According to Murray, Muhsin’s speech at a fringe meeting and an article in the bulletin circulated to delegates, together with pressure from the Labour leadership, had helped defeat a motion demanding that the government set a date to withdraw troops. At one point in our trip, Muhsin shows me an e-mail he received from Australia on his borrowed Blackberry. In broken English, amid many insults, it calls him a poodle of American imperialists. In Iraq, it is much worse: if insurgents spotted him, they would try to kill him.


One day I show Muhsin something I’d read in a recent issue of the Wall Street Journal. The article, by neo-conservative writer Charles Krauthammer, is entitled “Arab democracy: not bad for a simpleton”, and says “the left has always prided itself as the great international champion of freedom and human rights. Yet when America proposed to remove the man responsible for torturing, killing and gassing tens of thousands of Iraqis, the left suddenly turned into a champion of Westphalian sovereign inviolability. the international left’s concern for human rights turns out to be nothing more than a useful weapon for its anti-Americanism.” Muhsin reads it carefully, then says: “Very good. I have written something like that for Tribune (a leftwing British publication).” Would they publish it? I ask.
John Lloyd, United we Understand
http://www.iraqitradeunions.org/archives/c...l_analysis.html (http://www.iraqitradeunions.org/archives/cat_political_analysis.html)
And the Iraqi Government issued Decree 875 which bars them the right to manage trade unions. I am firmly against this but this is no where near the anamosity shown to unions while Hussien was in power. Even so this does not explain away the fact that the biggest Iraqi trade union federation, supported by the majority of the internaitonal unions is still in favor of democratic iraq and the constitution.

Fascism is a particular subset of right-wing extremism. The definition of it varies widely depending on who you ask. Some define it so narrowly as to include only Italian Fascism and some define it so broadly as to include the American GOP. The technical definition does not interest me, and I don't have a problem calling other forms of right-wing reaction "fascism" even if it is not technically correct. Fort example, I do not believe Pinochet's government was any better than Mussolini's even if the former could not technically be considered "fascism". For me the f-word and "right-wing reactionary" are interchangable, especially as a good common definition for the first does not exist.
Fascism is a syndicalist inspired system of thought that grew out of the right wing labour unions. The Fascists did not have thier roots in militarism or state power. They split from the syndicalists movements during WWI and focused on uniting the working class towards nationalism and syndicalist corporatism to grab hold of the state through one massive union. Not even Fascist theotricians Oswald Mosley and Jean-Francois Thiriart believed that Fascism was traditionally right wing or had any connection to the right wing juntas the US supported during the Cold War.

QUESTION 2: Thinking in terms of geopolitics, what primary strategic mistakes did Adolf Hitler make in the Second World War?
ANSWER: First, we must dispense with the simplistic, black-and-white approach that views communism and national socialism as being at opposite poles from each other. They were competitors far more than they were enemies. This is why the totally unexpected German-Soviet treaty in the summer 1939, for the first time, put the pawns in their right places on the chessboard.
True fascism is definitely not right wing. (Cf. the analyses of Zeev Stemhell, the Israeli historian.) The "leftist" roots of national socialism are numerous. After leaving prison, I managed to meet and interview the last surviving Strasser brother, Otto. Around 1962, my press brought out two personal interviews with Otto Strasser. The SA (brownshirts) were sometimes nicknamed the "Beefsteaks." In fact, most of the SA were communists who had gone over to Hitler. Brown on the outside, but red inside. In East Germany, about 1950, many of these became red on the outside once again.
http://www.oswaldmosley.com/people/jeanthiriarte.html


MR. BUCKLEY: Now, what about the Greek Colonels? Would you say that that's a Fascist society?
SIR OSWALD: No, again, I shouldn't. You see, that's in the Franco category; that is a military, rather than a Fascist, movement.
http://www.oswaldmosley.com/background/firingline.htm

A result of being attacked on 9/11. No 9/11 attacks and the Taliban would still be there. No higher moral purpose. And resumption of warlord rule over most of the country is only marginally better than the Taliban, plus Karzai may not be as bad as the Taliban, but he is certainly no great reformer.
There is more to be said than warlordism is Afghanistan. For one there are significant freedoms in that nation that there werent before. To say that because 9/11 happened there is no Taliban now is spurious and begs the question because you talk as if to deride anything the administration does as a consequence of this or that as if it demeans the fact that the nation was liberated from a brutal regime.
Again, why must someone remain logically consistent and be opposed to remove tyrants simply because the one removing them "put" them in power or it was the consequence of a horrid event? There is a night and day difference between Karzai and Taliban. But there is a even greater difference between Karzai and the US. This much is true.

Explain.
Because most realists do not fight ideological wars, they use proxies.

My "extremely high moral standard" is national liberation vs. neocolonial exploitation. The US has consistently erred on the former side in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and most of Eastern Asia.
The US has also consistantly helped rebuild Japan, West Germany and South Korea. If your moral standard equates the faux resistence in Iraq as national liberation than I want no part. If it also equates national liberation as the Khmer Rouge, the Viet Cong, the Maoists, Castro, the Sandanistas, Congolese Liberation Army, the Iranian Revolution, and the Palestianian Struggle, then it is no more an immoral position than real politik support for despots.

1. Khmer Rouge was a Chinese client. Chinese clients during the Cold War (post Sino-Soviet split) normally sided with the US, as did the Khmer Rouge for a brief time.
I thought the US helped the Khmer after its fall and gave its support to the KPNLF? I dont think it supported it while it was commiting genocide. In fact the US is accused for the genocide because it "provoked" the Cambodians by attacking them and supporting the Republican forces.

2. Viet Cong? You gotta be kiddin me right? You think the Vietnam War was justified too? Jesus, you are a fuckin imperialist hawk.
I do not think the Viet Cong were national liberators. Yet, I didnt think that US interventionsism was best at the time. Especially after it was heading toward realpolitick stradegy by supporting a corrupt Southern government. Anyways we're having a reasonable debate. Would you mind refraining from calling me a "fucking imperialist"? That notion make no sense to me as I never called you a "fucking Stalinist, nazi-commie!"

And as to the rest of them. I fail to see how a Chinese Client and a Soviet client differ in the nationa liberation struggle againt neo-colonialism. Regardless of thier differences they both served thier clients to aid in a communist and or socialist revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1980_Cold_War_Map.png

This statement might have just done permanent damage to your credibility in my eyes. It's hard to take you seriously after such a biased play on words. That's the kind of shit I'd expect to read on that hate site Freerepublic or Little Green Footballs.
and "fucking imperialist hawk" or the use of the F-word in nearly every sentence to undermine my position is nothing you see in here or in Democratic Underground? And second of all just because those sites hate your ideology and disagree fundamentally does not make them hate sites. Unless ofcourse you hold the pre-notion that your views are true social justice and thiers fit the mold of the ruling class. I dont try to assume such things. If they prefer right wing ideas more power to them in a free country.
Secondly, I dont look down on the Israeli Defense Forces and thier fight against Islamic terror. I think they are one of the best democratic forces out there. Although I allign myself with the Labour Party thre and take a less hawkish stance than Likud or Kadima.

Only cause Stalin forced him to. Ho Chi Minh would be a better example for your purposes.
Oh right. Because the Xi'an Incident and the Rape of Nanking didnt convince otherwise?
Actually a better example is provided by Jose Ramos Horta, the noble peace prize winner for his work in East Timor and praised by the progressive left, summarized his support for the Iraq War by citing that interventions to prevent genocide should be applauded.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110005071 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005071)

It ain't all about Chavez, and (admittedly from afar) I'm seeing more progress for worker democracy and social reform down there than I've seen in any other country during my lifetime.
Thats what they said about Cuba and Vietnam. Lets wait and see.

[KC]

Again (even if its circular) the advancement of the "ruling class" is still favorable to a fledging working class and a stable middle class who rely on the jobs and investments of the top percent.

"Let us take the three chief conditions in which society can find itself and consider the situation of the worker in them:

(1) If the wealth of society declines the worker suffers most of all, and for the following reason: although the working class cannot gain so much as can the class of property owners in a prosperous state of society, no one suffers so cruelly from its decline as the working class.

(2) Let us now take a society in which wealth is increasing. This condition is the only one favourable to the worker. Here competition between the capitalists sets in. The demand for workers exceeds their supply. But:

In the first place, the raising of wages gives rise to overwork among the workers. The more they wish to earn, the more must they sacrifice their time and carry out slave-labour, completely losing all their freedom, in the service of greed. Thereby they shorten their lives. This shortening of their life-span is a favourable circumstance for the working class as a whole, for as a result of it an ever-fresh supply of labour becomes necessary. This class has always to sacrifice a part of itself in order not to be wholly destroyed.

Furthermore: When does a society find itself in a condition of advancing wealth? When the capitals and the revenues of a country are growing. But this is only possible:

(a) As the result of the accumulation of much labour, capital being accumulated labour; as the result, therefore, of the fact that more and more of his products are being taken away from the worker, that to an increasing extent his own labour confronts him as another man’s property and that the means of his existence and his activity are increasingly concentrated in the hands of the capitalist.

(b) The accumulation of capital increases the division of labour, and the division of labour increases the number of workers. Conversely, the number of workers increases the division of labour, just as the division of labour increases the accumulation of capital. With this division of labour on the one hand and the accumulation of capital on the other, the worker becomes ever more exclusively dependent on labour, and on a particular, very one-sided, machine-like labour at that. just as he is thus depressed spiritually and physically to the condition of a machine and from being a man becomes an abstract activity and a belly, so he also becomes ever more dependent on every fluctuation in market price, on the application of capital, and on the whim of the rich. Equally, the increase in the class of people wholly dependent on work intensifies competition among the workers, thus lowering their price. In the factory system this situation of the worker reaches its climax.

© In an increasingly prosperous society only the richest of the rich can continue to live on money interest. Everyone else has to carry on a business with his capital, or venture it in trade. As a result, the competition between the capitalists becomes more intense. The concentration of capital increases, the big capitalists ruin the small, and a section of the erstwhile capitalists sinks into the working class, which as a result of this supply again suffers to some extent a depression of wages and passes into a still greater dependence on the few big capitalists. The number of capitalists having been diminished, their competition with respect to the workers scarcely exists any longer; and the number of workers having been increased, their competition among themselves has become all the more intense, unnatural, and violent. Consequently, a section of the working class falls into beggary or starvation just as necessarily as a section of the middle capitalists falls into the working class.

Hence even in the condition of society most favourable to the worker, the inevitable result for the worker is overwork and premature death, decline to a mere machine, a bond servant of capital, which piles up dangerously over and against him, more competition, and starvation or beggary for a section of the workers.

The raising of wages excites in the worker the capitalist’s mania to get rich, which he, however, can only satisfy by the sacrifice of his mind and body. The raising of wages presupposes and entails the accumulation of capital, and thus sets the product of labour against the worker as something ever more alien to him. Similarly, the division of labour renders him ever more one-sided and dependent, bringing with it the competition not only of men but also of machines. Since the worker has sunk to the level of a machine, he can be confronted by the machine as a competitor. Finally; as the amassing of capital increases the amount of industry and therefore the number of workers, it causes the same amount of industry to manufacture a larger amount of products, which leads to over-production and thus either ends by throwing a large section of workers out of work or by reducing their wages to the most miserable minimum.

Such are the consequences of a state of society most favourable to the worker — namely, of a state of growing, advancing wealth.

Eventually, however, this state of growth must sooner or later reach its peak. What is the worker’s position now?

3) “In a country which had acquired that full complement of riches both the wages of labour and the profits of stock would probably be very low the competition for employment would necessarily be so great as to reduce the wages of labour to what was barely sufficient to keep up the number of labourers, and, the country being already fully peopled, that number could never be augmented.” [Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Vol. I, p. 84.]

The surplus would have to die.

Thus in a declining state of society — increasing misery of the worker; in an advancing state — misery with complications; and in a fully developed state of society — static misery."
-Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm),


To a Marxist, Socialist whatever you may calle yourself, see this as explotation.

We see all wage-labour as exploitation.

[JudeObscure84]

atleast Lazar admits that this is a battle of presuppositions and we can move away from defining such riffs, between two Enlightment movements, as a black and white battle of good vs. evil. Now we can get into a economic debate where I challenge Lazar (or Marx's) assertion on the topic by using Liberal thinkers, but that would take away from the real debate which is political and a question of morality. My take is that it is moral to take the position Karl Marx, Leo Blum, and George Orwell took in fighting off menaces that were percieved to be fascistic. To see Liberalism as more of a competitive faction and a must for the progression of history to wheel itself towards socialism then communism (atleast in a purely marxist sense). While Islamic extremist movements are a threat to both the Communist and the Liberal's existence that this is a pivitol moment where two opposing factors again unite abeit for differing reasons to oppose fascism.

[JudeObscure84]

http://www.sierratimes.com/06/01/20/152_163_101_8_63239.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Willich

[cyu]

While Islamic extremist movements are a threat to both the Communist and the Liberal's existence that this is a pivitol moment where two opposing factors again unite abeit for differing reasons to oppose fascism.


If enemy A and enemy B are too busy fighting to attempt to destabilize and support a military coup in friend C, then let A and B keep fighting.

[KC]

To see Liberalism as more of a competitive faction and a must for the progression of history to wheel itself towards socialism then communism (atleast in a purely marxist sense).

Let me again quote Marx:
"But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade."
-Karl Marx, On Free Trade (http://www.marx.org/archive/marx/works/1848/01/09ft.htm)

So in a sense, we are both supporting the development of capitalism and the workers in their struggle for life.


While Islamic extremist movements are a threat to both the Communist and the Liberal's existence that this is a pivitol moment where two opposing factors again unite abeit for differing reasons to oppose fascism.

Cyu responded to this quite well. While the Islamist extremists are enemies to both communists and capitalists, why should we participate in the fight between the two when we can just watch them beat the crap out of each other, thereby making our enemy number considerably smaller?

[JudeObscure84]

If enemy A and enemy B are too busy fighting to attempt to destabilize and support a military coup in friend C, then let A and B keep fighting.

Because enemy B may overpower enemy A and come after friend C in an attempt to overpower it.

As of now the progressive forces in Iraq side with the coalition even in an indirect manner. The trade unions oppose occupation as a US intrest alone but are in favor of UN troops and a democratic Iraq over the desires of Islamic extremists.


So in a sense, we are both supporting the development of capitalism and the workers in their struggle for life.

Would'nt it be pushed back by the Islamists though? :huh:

Besides Karl Marx thought of the South as being the free trader and the North as Federal.


Cyu responded to this quite well. While the Islamist extremists are enemies to both communists and capitalists, why should we participate in the fight between the two when we can just watch them beat the crap out of each other, thereby making our enemy number considerably smaller?

The same way many leftists were against the Fascists in WWII. Sometimes pathalogical movements bent on violence and the cessation of the principles of the Enlightment prop up to eliminate both the ideas of liberalism and socialism in favor of something much worse. Unless you want to wait around and see who comes out in the end, it would be best to take a risk and support liberal democracies so to not let the other side become the victor.

[cyu]

If enemy A and enemy B are too busy fighting to attempt to destabilize and support a military coup in friend C, then let A and B keep fighting.
Because enemy B may overpower enemy A and come after friend C in an attempt to overpower it.


Or enemy A may overpower enemy B and come after friend C in an attempt to overpower it. In either case, the winner of A vs B would be weaker by the time it gets to C, and be easier to deal with than when they are still strong enough to be fighting amongst themselves.

Consider this: help enemy A fight B. Enemy B is defeated. Enemy A is still strong, suffering less losses because of the help. Now enemy A goes after friend C. Wouldn't it have been better if A had been more weakened by B before it went after C?

[JudeObscure84]

Or enemy A may overpower enemy B and come after friend C in an attempt to overpower it. In either case, the winner of A vs B would be weaker by the time it gets to C, and be easier to deal with than when they are still strong enough to be fighting amongst themselves.

Consider this: help enemy A fight B. Enemy B is defeated. Enemy A is still strong, suffering less losses because of the help. Now enemy A goes after friend C. Wouldn't it have been better if A had been more weakened by B before it went after C?

The whole purpose of enemy A is to create a new friend to add to itself; A includes federal Iraq. Enemy B wants to overpower enemy A and create an addition to B. Now either way it will not be weaker for A or B because they're fighting to create an ally.
Think of it like the fight against Fascism in WWII. Now would you have sit on the side lines while liberal democracy and fascism duked it out?

[cyu]

The whole purpose of enemy A is to create a new friend to add to itself; A includes federal Iraq. Enemy B wants to overpower enemy A and create an addition to B. Now either way it will not be weaker for A or B because they're fighting to create an ally.


If both A and B are enemies that will later come after friend C, what point is there supporting one or the other, except to keep them fighting? For example, if there never was the "Muslim problem" in the world, I doubt Chavez would've lasted nearly as long. The United States probably would've thrown its full support behind a coup attempt long ago. But as long as it's engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, it can't afford to spread its forces to Venezuela. (Note, this isn't to imply I support Chavez 100%, but certainly more than Bush.)

As I see it, if I were truly seeking the continued survival of friend C, then I'd wish enemy A were stronger if A was losing and enemy B were stronger if B was losing. That way, they'd just continue fighting forever and leave C alone.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 07:11 PM

I despise all the governments that were fighting against Hitler and the Nazis but I would have joined the military of any of them to oppose the Nazis.

I like this logic. Why doesnt this transfer over to the current battle against Islamic extremists in Iraq?

George Orwell, the greatest of anti-totalitarian leftists, chided socio/political pacifism as essentially anti-democratic in nature because when there was a battle between democratic states and totalitarian ones, the pacifists would indirectly side with the latter because of thier disdain for thier own societies.
You were talking to me Jude Obscure or atleast trying to twist my post into an unreasonable bullshit statement. Do not expect reason when you spew out offal like that :lol: Memory problems?

This is an answer to your last post directed at me, hope this does not cause you any confusion, since it seems you are easilly confused.

To answer your first question reasonably. The greatest threat to the Iraqi people has not been Islamist Extremists. It has been the USA for well over a decade now. The Christan extremists in Washington DC are a greater threat to humanity.

I like some of Orwell writing but he betrayed Communists to the British government. This quote sounds like more of a justification for his own cowardly acts.

[JudeObscure84]

To answer your first question reasonably. The greatest threat to the Iraqi people has not been Islamist Extremists. It has been the USA for well over a decade now. The Christan extremists in Washington DC are a greater threat to humanity.
The more you try to reasonably state your position, the more you wholeheartedly prove my assertion that to you the US is a bigger threat than Islamic Extremism. I somehow cannnot see how the tyrants in the Sudan, former Afghanistan,Baathist Iraq and Iran can be worse than the US?


I like some of Orwell writing but he betrayed Communists to the British government. This quote sounds like more of a justification for his own cowardly acts.
So he was also a tool of imperialism? <_<



If both A and B are enemies that will later come after friend C, what point is there supporting one or the other, except to keep them fighting? For example, if there never was the "Muslim problem" in the world, I doubt Chavez would&#39;ve lasted nearly as long. The United States probably would&#39;ve thrown its full support behind a coup attempt long ago. But as long as it&#39;s engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, it can&#39;t afford to spread its forces to Venezuela. (Note, this isn&#39;t to imply I support Chavez 100%, but certainly more than Bush.)

As I see it, if I were truly seeking the continued survival of friend C, then I&#39;d wish enemy A were stronger if A was losing and enemy B were stronger if B was losing. That way, they&#39;d just continue fighting forever and leave C alone.

Atleast enemy A has allowed free representation for many friends of C. There are more leftists, commies and socialists in the new federal Iraq than in both the UK and the US combines (excluding the New Labour Party). This wouldnt be possible under a Baathist Iraq and or a nation governed by enemy B. Hence, enemy A is far more rational in its treatment to friend C than enemy B. Since Enemy A is a product of enlightment reasoning, friend C can somewhat detect its motives or understand its stated principles. As while Enemy B is an irrational pathalogical force bent on violence that change moods, doesn&#39;t care about its own people or civilians and is only checked by armed force.

This seems to me like the battles between Eduard Bernstein and Rosa Luxembourg or George Orwell and Paul Eduard support of Stalinism. :lol:

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 06:07 PM
The more you try to reasonably state your position, the more you wholeheartedly prove my assertion that to you the US is a bigger threat than Islamic Extremism. I somehow cannnot see how the tyrants in the Sudan, former Afghanistan,Baathist Iraq and Iran can be worse than the US?

So he was also a tool of imperialism? <_<
The Baathists and the government of Afghanistan were basically CIA creations. All the aforementioned governments are not blowing up and shooting civillians in other nations. They are also not supporting dictarships globally and keeping people in poverty so the rich can keep getting richer. I do not support any of the governments you have mentioned but I support thier people not having thier lives and livelyhood destroyed by the US and thier ever changing lies to justify thier barbarity in the cause of profit. It would be nice if the people of these nations would rise up and overthrow their govenments. That would be even better in the USA :)

As for Orwell he was a rat atleast on a personal level. Some of his writing is great and still relevant and some of it is crap but that is subjective.

[cyu]

Atleast enemy A has allowed free representation for many friends of C.

So you don&#39;t think Bush would have tried to topple Chavez if he didn&#39;t have the Middle East to worry about? What do you think Bush&#39;s policy towards Chavez would have been if he had a free hand?

Even if enemy A is friendlier to friend C than enemy B, as long as A remains an enemy, it would be in the interest of C that A and B continued fighting, leaving C alone.

[JudeObscure84]

The Baathists and the government of Afghanistan were basically CIA creations.
How do you figure the Baathists are CIA creations? Anyways, we are currently fighting them now, so in essense that point doesnt matter anymore. I dont tend to remain neutral in a battle against these two factions for the sake of remaining logically consistent.


All the aforementioned governments are not blowing up and shooting civillians in other nations.
No ofcourse not. Just thier own people, expanding thier global caliphate. You know small stuff. <_<

They are also not supporting dictarships globally and keeping people in poverty so the rich can keep getting richer.
Not supporting tyrants? I thought they were tyrants themselves. And thier own policies are keeping the people impoverished.

I do not support any of the governments you have mentioned but I support thier people not having thier lives and livelyhood destroyed by the US and thier ever changing lies to justify thier barbarity in the cause of profit.
What a Westphalian position to take&#33; I too honor the soverignty of other nations but not if it means the murder of Christians in the Sudan, liberals in Iran, women in Afghanistan, Israelis in occupired Gaza and Hindus in Kashmir.


It would be nice if the people of these nations would rise up and overthrow their govenments. That would be even better in the USA.
So they can be quashed like the Shia upsrising in the Sudan. I tend to not support rebel groups and have always been a pacifist to a certain extent that I only believe nations can topple other nations.


As for Orwell he was a rat atleast on a personal level. Some of his writing is great and still relevant and some of it is crap but that is subjective.
Speaking of rats, I think of you as fellow in Albert Camus&#39;s The Plague where he denied the existence of the rats. By the way you responded you have not the slightest sense of what is fascism. You harbor a television age example of false consciousness.

[JudeObscure84]

So you don&#39;t think Bush would have tried to topple Chavez if he didn&#39;t have the Middle East to worry about? What do you think Bush&#39;s policy towards Chavez would have been if he had a free hand?

Even if enemy A is friendlier to friend C than enemy B, as long as A remains an enemy, it would be in the interest of C that A and B continued fighting, leaving C alone.

I dont know what Bush would&#39;ve done or would do. Possibly. But then again you dont know what Chavez will do to Venezuela.

At the same time you dont think that Enemy B is already fighting friend C? Is there remotley any communist or socialist representation in Islamist societies?

[cyu]

I dont know what Bush would&#39;ve done or would do. Possibly. But then again you dont know what Chavez will do to Venezuela.


True, but Chavez hasn&#39;t done too bad of a job so far. And judging by comments from the state department of the Bush regime during the failed Venezuela coup attempt, I&#39;m fairly certain the Bush regime would have found some excuse to topple the Venezuelan government if he weren&#39;t so busy in the Middle East.

Helping the Bush regime defeat its current enemy so that it can then focus on its other enemies seems like something only the idiots who support his regime would do. Maybe the Iranians and Iraqi terrorists would love to take over Venezuela as well, but somehow, I doubt that&#39;s on their to-do list, even if they do manage to push Bush out of all Arab / Muslim nations. They&#39;re far too weak for that. So for all practical purposes, it&#39;s always better for the weaker of the two enemies to be winning.

(This isn&#39;t to imply that everyone in the US or Iraq is an enemy of course. In fact, I live in one of them. Still, since I have no control over either side of the fighting right now, if their fighting means they&#39;re too busy for anything else, it&#39;s a good thing. Ideally, their fighting would weaken both sides in popularity enough that they lose all support from the people they supposedly represent... which, from some reports, does seem to be happening.)

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:36 PM
Speaking of rats, I think of you as fellow in Albert Camus&#39;s The Plague where he denied the existence of the rats. By the way you responded you have not the slightest sense of what is fascism. You harbor a television age example of false consciousness.
Wow, you must have digged deeply up your ass to pull that one out. The telivision does not influence me since I do not have cable and recieve no channels. Who is taking the view of the corporate media anyhow? I certainly know what Democracy for the few is and imperilism which you obviously do not. I certainly know that is wrong to bomb and starve innocents for the actions of one man, especially when the ones doing the bombings supported said mans actions. I certainly know bull shit when I see it and if my memory sways all I need to do is read your posts, thanks :)

Since I was refering to Nazi Germany in my first post and not any faschist nation the statement quoted is meaningless. The USA has more in common with Nazi Germany than any nation that you have mentioned. The USA supports more dictarships than any other nation and has supported every nation you have mentioned at one point or another. Murder for oil and gas pipelines is not justfiable. Keep spinning away you are full of shit.

[JudeObscure84]

Wow, you must have digged deeply up your ass to pull that one out. The telivision does not influence me since I do not have cable and recieve no channels.

:lol: I wasnt hoping you wouldn&#39;t take that literally. How do I know if you even have a tv or not? but I really doubt that you dont watch the tube now and then.


Who is taking the view of the corporate media anyhow?

The coporate media doesnt tell me about the left wing unions and thier struggle against terrorism or the Iraqi secularists who support the coalition.


I certainly know what Democracy for the few is and imperilism which you obviously do not. I certainly know that is wrong to bomb and starve innocents for the actions of one man, especially when the ones doing the bombings supported said mans actions.

Saddam invaded Kuwait, Iran and Northen Kurdistan. He couldve ended the sanctions had he cooperated with the UN Inspectors in disarming. Which would&#39;ve taken only 9 months time, but somehow managed to last 12 years&#33; He could&#39;ve abided by Resolution 687.


I certainly know bull shit when I see it and if my memory sways all I need to do is read your posts, thanks

And your brushing off of mid east tyrants was peachy.


Since I was refering to Nazi Germany in my first post and not any faschist nation the statement quoted is meaningless. The USA has more in common with Nazi Germany than any nation that you have mentioned. The USA supports more dictarships than any other nation and has supported every nation you have mentioned at one point or another. Murder for oil and gas pipelines is not justfiable. Keep spinning away you are full of shit.

It seems like I have to keep going in circles with you. Why should I remain logically consistent and not support the removal of a beast simply because at one time they assisted him? I am really trying to see the absolute "BS" in my position, but all I keep seeing is pompous irrationality on your part.

Yes, we are just like Nazi Germany, let me tell you. We&#39;re killing Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals by the assembly line right now. <_<

[JudeObscure84]

Helping the Bush regime defeat its current enemy so that it can then focus on its other enemies seems like something only the idiots who support his regime would do. Maybe the Iranians and Iraqi terrorists would love to take over Venezuela as well, but somehow, I doubt that&#39;s on their to-do list, even if they do manage to push Bush out of all Arab / Muslim nations. They&#39;re far too weak for that. So for all practical purposes, it&#39;s always better for the weaker of the two enemies to be winning.

Chavez is part of OPEC. I highly doubt he would fight against Iran. Castro and Saddam were pals so I doubt he would&#39;ve had beef with Chavez anyways. Yet, again this is all speculation. One thing I do know is that communist and or socialist representation is highest in Iraq since its ever been (despite govt. setbacks) and is very vocal.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Disciple of [email protected] 31 2006, 11:39 PM



Your either for or against the revolution; you either join us or your fight against us, there is no middle ground. Sure some comrades will be lost in the good fight, thus is the nature of war, either traditional, or guerilla warfare, but something must be down. Would rather sit idley by, and let oppression, and do nothing or fight with all our collective might to overthrow the oppressors regardless if we make it back or not? I for one will always support the later.

what war? what revolution? Is there a war I don&#39;t know about going on?

[cyu]

One thing I do know is that communist and or socialist representation is highest in Iraq since its ever been (despite govt. setbacks) and is very vocal.

And do you think the Bush regime is in favor of that? What do you think the Bush regime would / should do if Iraq goes the way of Venezuela or Bolivia?

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 05:27 AM
1. :lol: I wasnt hoping you wouldn&#39;t take that literally. How do I know if you even have a tv or not? but I really doubt that you dont watch the tube now and then.


2.The coporate media doesnt tell me about the left wing unions and thier struggle against terrorism or the Iraqi secularists who support the coalition.

3.Saddam invaded Kuwait, Iran and Northen Kurdistan.4. He couldve ended the sanctions had he cooperated with the UN Inspectors in disarming. Which would&#39;ve taken only 9 months time, but somehow managed to last 12 years&#33; He could&#39;ve abided by Resolution 687.


5.And your brushing off of mid east tyrants was peachy.


6.It seems like I have to keep going in circles with you. Why should I remain logically consistent and not support the removal of a beast simply because at one time they assisted him? I am really trying to see the absolute "BS" in my position, but all I keep seeing is pompous irrationality on your part.

7.Yes, we are just like Nazi Germany, let me tell you. We&#39;re killing Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals by the assembly line right now. <_<
1. The statment by you was ridiculous and backed by nothing. Yes I do watch the tube ocassionally, hockey games. Oh they affect my political beliefs greatly :rolleyes: Explain my telivision age of false consciousness :lol:

2. Not aware of left wing unions struggle against terrorists, did not defend terrorists anyway besides most are funded by different governments intelligence agencies and are tools are dupes that give hawks conveinant excuses for thier bullshit wars. As for those who support the invaders that bomb women and children, fuck them.

3. Saddam was deceived by the US ambassader at the time. This war was an excuse to keep the Pentagon budget bloated after the cold war. They needed a new enemy and they had one of thier own creation set up. Our government ( somemembers of Regan and Bush I regimes still active in the Bush II regime) supported Saddam in the other two invasions.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/April_Glaspie.html

Kuwait was perhaps slant drilling in the Rumallah oil fields under Iraq and may not be some innocent victim

4. The sanctions against Iraq were unjustified, affected civillians more than the government. Total disregard for human rights and coming from a corrupt organazation as the UN not a surprise.

http://www.fidh.org/article.php3?id_article=803

Speaking of people who do not obey UN sanctions.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../24/80648.shtml (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml)

Even the conservative jerks at NewsMax critisised this one.

5. Your justification of murder for profit and avoidence of that issue is cowardly.

6. If it were all about the removal of Saddam Hussien, the US had the perfect opportunity after the first Gulf war but they left the rebels to be slaughtered. Being against a nation destroyed and its people murdered for profit is irrational and pompous?

7. Now you are being silly, they do bear some similarities though.
1. Invading other nations that are no direct threat to them without justification.
2. Creating a police state.
3. abducting and torturing people without justification.
4. Corrupt court system which deals punishment more harshly and more often to minorities. High prison population.
5. A government who serves the wealthy and corporations at the exspense of everyone else.
6. Greatest threat to world peace in this time.
7. Head of state a demagogue.

[JudeObscure84]

And do you think the Bush regime is in favor of that? What do you think the Bush regime would / should do if Iraq goes the way of Venezuela or Bolivia?

well why would it? Even if it did it would show that he let the Iraqis have the right to choose their own government.

Hopefully, Iraq will become more like Chile&#39;s moderate socialist government.


1. The statment by you was ridiculous and backed by nothing. Yes I do watch the tube ocassionally, hockey games. Oh they affect my political beliefs greatly Explain my telivision age of false consciousness

I believe you have a television age example of false consciousness because you cannot identify the contours of reality. You think of the United States as the greater enemy while you brush off maniacal governments as either once puppets of the US or not worth budging. You dont know what fascism really is.


2. Not aware of left wing unions struggle against terrorists, did not defend terrorists anyway besides most are funded by different governments intelligence agencies and are tools are dupes that give hawks conveinant excuses for thier bullshit wars. As for those who support the invaders that bomb women and children, fuck them.

I love how you try to explain away the Iraqis right to combat terrorism by saying that these proxies they struggle against are funded by different govts. whom give the bigger threat (US) an excuse to start wars&#33;
Man you have such a manichean p.o.v. that would put religous conservatives to shame&#33; And it doesnt surprise me one bit that you were unaware of the trade unions diverse opinions of the Iraqi occupation and the mass number of Iraqis resisting to join the faux resistense.



3. Saddam was deceived by the US ambassader at the time. This war was an excuse to keep the Pentagon budget bloated after the cold war. They needed a new enemy and they had one of thier own creation set up. Our government ( somemembers of Regan and Bush I regimes still active in the Bush II regime) supported Saddam in the other two invasions.

The transcript does not show any explicit statement of approval of, acceptance of, or foreknowledge of the invasion. In fact Gillepsie why troops were even there (kuwaiti border) in the first place. She also hoped for problems to be solved diplomatically. Whether Saddam got the impression that it was a green light for war is up to him and him only.


Could you elaborate on the point about mixed signals sent by the U.S. during the run-up to the invasion of Kuwait? How did those influence your government&#39;s decision?

There were no mixed signals. We should not forget that the whole period before August 2 witnessed a negative American policy towards Iraq. So it would be quite foolish to think that, if we go to Kuwait, then America would like that. Because the American tendency . . . was to untie Iraq. So how could we imagine that such a step was going to be appreciated by the Americans? It looks foolish, you see, this is fiction. About the meeting with April Glaspie--it was a routine meeting. There was nothing extraordinary in it. She didn&#39;t say anything extraordinary beyond what any professional diplomat would say without previous instructions from his government. She did not ask for an audience with the president. She was summoned by the president. He telephoned me and said, "Bring the American ambassador. I want to see her." She was not prepared, because it was not morning in Washington. People in Washington were asleep, so she needed a half-hour

- Tariq Aziz interview with PBS Frontline, 2000
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...views/aziz.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aziz.html)


4. The sanctions against Iraq were unjustified, affected civillians more than the government. Total disregard for human rights and coming from a corrupt organazation as the UN not a surprise.

http://www.fidh.org/article.php3?id_article=803

The repreated number of casualties were inflated by Saddam. In any case the sanctions were supposed to be lifted 9 months after the entire inspections process and upon Saddams compliance with his cease fire obligations.


Speaking of people who do not obey UN sanctions.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../24/80648.shtml

Cheney always pushed for modification in Iraq, Iran and Lybia. If there was any illegal illicit oil trade it was surley done throught the modifications of the oil for food program which Cheney&#39;s co. was a part of. The problem was that Saddam pocketed the cash, built palaces, bribed UNSC members, and maintained dual use facilities. If anything the US pushed for smart sanctions to relieve the burden of the people and focus on Saddam. This idea was overturned by Russia, China and France three of the biggest bribe accepting recipients in Saddams game.


5. Your justification of murder for profit and avoidence of that issue is cowardly.
Im opting to combat terrorism and overthrow the regimes you want to take a Westphilian position on. If anyone is the coward it is you and your manchiean p.o.v. that the US can never be in a position to do something right. This shortens the limits to which democratic citizens should enforce the nation to do right&#33;
But despots love to use jokers like you to appeal to the apathetic generation to keep them in power.


6. If it were all about the removal of Saddam Hussien, the US had the perfect opportunity after the first Gulf war but they left the rebels to be slaughtered. Being against a nation destroyed and its people murdered for profit is irrational and pompous?

The nation is being destroyed by Baathists, Islamists and Sunni Nationalists. This isnt the national liberation struggle anymore than the Fascists marching in Rome were liberators of Italy. Get that through your weak illconcieved mind&#33; The US radically changed its position by authorizing the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998. The official position of the US was to seek support to remove Saddam. Since then there was 12 year war in the UN against the UN bribed security council and the US/UK to seek legal justification for the removal of Saddam under UN Resolutions 678/687.


1. Invading other nations that are no direct threat to them without justification

Iraq was not an imminent threat. And the justification lied in past Security Council Resolutions as Iraq remained under UN law as a "threat to international peace and security."


2. Creating a police state.

You mean the Iraqi governing council? or the fact that the US is helping to keep stability. Which is it?


3. abducting and torturing people without justification.

I aggree human rights abuses should be reported. But there are no concentration camps in Iraq.


4. Corrupt court system which deals punishment more harshly and more often to minorities. High prison population
So you believe that the majority of the people in prison do not deserve to be there? And on that note, the Hitler regime imprisoned people on an ideological basis based on political stance, race and dissent. You tell me that you cannot see a night and day difference here?


5. A government who serves the wealthy and corporations at the exspense of everyone else.

Unless, Bush is advocating a corporate syndicalist system in which guilds and syndicates take over the means of production and labour then they are more similar to Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany hated globalization and economic liberalism. If you actually read Mien Kampf Hitler advocates that both Communism and international finance are tools of the international jewry.


6. Greatest threat to world peace in this time.

When were we ever close to that anyways? Also this is an absurd position since the combined Islamist and or Baathist states are far more lethal than the US to thier region of the world. And again you keep repeating this mantra as if its supposed to be an argument.


7. Head of state a demagogue
Im surprised that everyone chides him for mixing church and state here at home when he&#39;s leading the biggest fight against church and state abroad.
Who hates him more than Islamic fundies? I&#39;ll side with a slack jawed John Bircher from Texas before I would side with a wannabe leftist who thinks he&#39;s being a "free thinker" by rationalizing movements like Hamas and the Islamic groups as products of american hegemony, and thinks he&#39;s being logically consistent by disavowing the right for the US to fight them.

[cyu]

And do you think the Bush regime is in favor of that? What do you think the Bush regime would / should do if Iraq goes the way of Venezuela or Bolivia?
well why would it? Even if it did it would show that he let the Iraqis have the right to choose their own government.

Hopefully, Iraq will become more like Chile&#39;s moderate socialist government.

I&#39;d say you&#39;re very naive if you think the Bush regime is going to stand idly by if Iraq was going to be even moderately socialist. I&#39;m sure he&#39;d be in favor of leaving the media in the country controlled by the wealthy, as well as "channeling" democracy through the use of campaign contributions from rich donors, so that it remains as un-socialist as his own backers.

(By the way, what are the Chilean policies that make you support the government there?)

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 08:34 PM
1.I believe you have a television age example of false consciousness because you cannot identify the contours of reality. You think of the United States as the greater enemy while you brush off maniacal governments as either once puppets of the US or not worth budging. You dont know what fascism really is.

2.I love how you try to explain away the Iraqis right to combat terrorism by saying that these proxies they struggle against are funded by different govts. whom give the bigger threat (US) an excuse to start wars&#33;
Man you have such a manichean p.o.v. that would put religous conservatives to shame&#33; And it doesnt surprise me one bit that you were unaware of the trade unions diverse opinions of the Iraqi occupation and the mass number of Iraqis resisting to join the faux resistense.

3. The transcript does not show any explicit statement of approval of, acceptance of, or foreknowledge of the invasion. In fact Gillepsie why troops were even there (kuwaiti border) in the first place. She also hoped for problems to be solved diplomatically. Whether Saddam got the impression that it was a green light for war is up to him and him only.

3.The repreated number of casualties were inflated by Saddam. In any case the sanctions were supposed to be lifted 9 months after the entire inspections process and upon Saddams compliance with his cease fire obligations.


Speaking of people who do not obey UN sanctions.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../24/80648.shtml

5. Cheney always pushed for modification in Iraq, Iran and Lybia. If there was any illegal illicit oil trade it was surley done throught the modifications of the oil for food program which Cheney&#39;s co. was a part of. The problem was that Saddam pocketed the cash, built palaces, bribed UNSC members, and maintained dual use facilities. If anything the US pushed for smart sanctions to relieve the burden of the people and focus on Saddam. This idea was overturned by Russia, China and France three of the biggest bribe accepting recipients in Saddams game.

6. Im opting to combat terrorism and overthrow the regimes you want to take a Westphilian position on. If anyone is the coward it is you and your manchiean p.o.v. that the US can never be in a position to do something right. This shortens the limits to which democratic citizens should enforce the nation to do right&#33;
But despots love to use jokers like you to appeal to the apathetic generation to keep them in power.


6. If it were all about the removal of Saddam Hussien, the US had the perfect opportunity after the first Gulf war but they left the rebels to be slaughtered. Being against a nation destroyed and its people murdered for profit is irrational and pompous?

7. The nation is being destroyed by Baathists, Islamists and Sunni Nationalists. This isnt the national liberation struggle anymore than the Fascists marching in Rome were liberators of Italy. Get that through your weak illconcieved mind&#33; The US radically changed its position by authorizing the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998. The official position of the US was to seek support to remove Saddam. Since then there was 12 year war in the UN against the UN bribed security council and the US/UK to seek legal justification for the removal of Saddam under UN Resolutions 678/687.


8.Iraq was not an imminent threat. And the justification lied in past Security Council Resolutions as Iraq remained under UN law as a "threat to international peace and security."


9.You mean the Iraqi governing council? or the fact that the US is helping to keep stability. Which is it?

10.I aggree human rights abuses should be reported. But there are no concentration camps in Iraq.

11. So you believe that the majority of the people in prison do not deserve to be there? And on that note, the Hitler regime imprisoned people on an ideological basis based on political stance, race and dissent. You tell me that you cannot see a night and day difference here?

[

Unless, Bush is advocating a corporate syndicalist system in which guilds and syndicates take over the means of production and labour then they are more similar to Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany hated globalization and economic liberalism. If you actually read Mien Kampf Hitler advocates that both Communism and international finance are tools of the international jewry.


6. Greatest threat to world peace in this time.

When were we ever close to that anyways? Also this is an absurd position since the combined Islamist and or Baathist states are far more lethal than the US to thier region of the world. And again you keep repeating this mantra as if its supposed to be an argument.


7. Head of state a demagogue
Im surprised that everyone chides him for mixing church and state here at home when he&#39;s leading the biggest fight against church and state abroad.
Who hates him more than Islamic fundies? I&#39;ll side with a slack jawed John Bircher from Texas before I would side with a wannabe leftist who thinks he&#39;s being a "free thinker" by rationalizing movements like Hamas and the Islamic groups as products of american hegemony, and thinks he&#39;s being logically consistent by disavowing the right for the US to fight them.
1. You do not know what invaders are. You do not know what war profiteers are. You do not know what government has backed more Faschist dictatorships in the past 50 years than any other and has overthrown many Democratically elected governments. You want to put your trust in that government. You are the one who has lost touch with reality. Your statement is nonsense and is backed by nothing.

2. Faux resistance tell that to the many Iraqis who have had thier loved ones blown to peices by the US armed forces. What an asshole.

Do you mean these terrorists.

http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive2..._operatives.htm (http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive2005/september/british_undercover_operatives.htm)

Is not the destruction and invasion of a nation terrorism in itself. The terrorists were not that thier until after the US invaded Iraq. Go figure, the so called "war on terrorism" is like the so called "war on drugs" only increases what the US government is supposedly at war with.

3. We have no concern with Arab vs Arab battles is deceptive.

4. After the first war he was a toothless tiger. That did not justify an over decade long sanction. Especially when thier is another nation in the middle east that totally disregards UN resolutions.

5. What Cheney did was illigal and hypocritical, but the man believes in nothing but profit anyway, just as the rest of the administration. Saddam is a scumbag but so are the war profiteers you put your faith into. By the way Saddam is long deposed, why the fuck is the US army thier now anyway?

6. They are not doing anything right. No apathetic people keep Bush and the US government in power. Defend these murderous war profiteers, you are the joke. As is the war on terrorism. An invasion of a nation that was no threat to anyone, the murder of people who had no way to defend themselves. The support of the stronger as they crush an almost defensless foe. Yeah, you are a brave one, takes alot of courage to support a government as powerful as the US. It takes alot of charecter to believe the repeated lies of the US government.

7. Really and I thought it was the US armed forces that were bombing the piss out of Iraq :rolleyes: Which foriegn army was invading Italy at the rise of Faschism? You are the one with the weak mind propaganda boy. Where are those WMDs anyway?

8. Defending a country that went to war without the UNs backing, you sure are using a lot of Un resolutions to try to back up the bull shit war you support. You accuse the UN of being corrupt in one statment then turn around as though UN resolutions are the work of the all mighty. How conveinant.

9.Oh yeah it is real stable over thier, the US presence has increased stability. Gee, I wish armed soldiers would kick in my door and search my house at night :blink:

10. Human rights abuses are policy. They will not be reported by anyone in authority just covered up.

11. Correct. Do I believe non violent offenders should be locked away to rot for the rest of thier lives, hell no. Thank you bullshit war on drugs. Do I think the system is rigged aginst the poor and minorities, yup. Is thier political prisoners, yes still some from the 60s and 70s rotting in jail. Alot in Gwatanomo Bay who have not been charged with anything because they have committed no crime. Most are sheep herders, the US did let most of the Taliban escape after all. Where is that criminal genious who took out the world trade center while living in a cave on Kidney diaylasis?

[JudeObscure84]

I&#39;d say you&#39;re very naive if you think the Bush regime is going to stand idly by if Iraq was going to be even moderately socialist. I&#39;m sure he&#39;d be in favor of leaving the media in the country controlled by the wealthy, as well as "channeling" democracy through the use of campaign contributions from rich donors, so that it remains as un-socialist as his own backers.

(By the way, what are the Chilean policies that make you support the government there?)

Jalal Talabani, is a member of the Socialist International. His PUK is a democratic socialist party. There are no parties in the Iraqi parliament that resemble that of the conservative GOP. Some other parties are Shiite moderate.



1. You do not know what invaders are. You do not know what war profiteers are. You do not know what government has backed more Faschist dictatorships in the past 50 years than any other and has overthrown many Democratically elected governments. You want to put your trust in that government. You are the one who has lost touch with reality. Your statement is nonsense and is backed by nothing.

I do know what invaders are. They were the Iraqi regime when they invaded Kuwait and Iran and killed atleast a million people&#33; The US did not invade on the same pretext but under an existing authority of UN law which imposed obligations on Saddam which he never met up. You keep bringing up Cold War history as if this has any relevance. Like thats somehow gonna make me go *ding* "oh yeah they did this thing here, so it just follows with this over here." That is stupid and absurd&#33; History isnt a science to where you can rationally bring up one phase of history and equate it with another; which is what you are doing. And I just backed up my statements time and time again with lucid arguments. You are the one who keeps repeating yourself. thinking you&#39;ve made some point, but you keep proving my original claim repeadetly.


2. Faux resistance tell that to the many Iraqis who have had thier loved ones blown to peices by the US armed forces. What an asshole.

these arent my words. these are the words of several secular iraqi leftist trade unionists and the democratic youth federation; the youth of the iraqi communist party. the opinions of the coalition are a mixed bag, but none of them support the "resistence", and are in favor of a new democratic iraq.


http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive2..._operatives.htm
I have still yet to read where these accusations of terrorism have been proven. This special division of the UK army is always carrying toys.
One thing that has come out to be conclusive is "peace workers" at work.
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=17522005


Is not the destruction and invasion of a nation terrorism in itself. The terrorists were not that thier until after the US invaded Iraq. Go figure, the so called "war on terrorism" is like the so called "war on drugs" only increases what the US government is supposedly at war with.

You would first have to believe that the US invasion was illegal and immoral for you to prepose a question like that. Which I know you do but have never actually backed that up. The terrorists festered because they were being funded by proxy governments like Syria and Iran. The Baathist loyalists and Sunni Nationalists who have been misplaced after the fall of Saddam make up the bulk of the resistence while foreign Islamists fly in with funds to kill civilians.


3. We have no concern with Arab vs Arab battles is deceptive.
Its playing politics.


"[Glaspie] took the straight American line, which is we do not take positions on border disputes between friendly countries. That&#39;s standard. That&#39;s what you always say. You would not have said, "Mr. President, if you really are considering invading Kuwait, by God, we&#39;ll bring down the wrath of God on your palaces, and on your country, and you&#39;ll all be destroyed." She wouldn&#39;t say that, nor would I. Neither would any diplomat

-James Akins, the American Saudi Ambassador



4. After the first war he was a toothless tiger. That did not justify an over decade long sanction. Especially when thier is another nation in the middle east that totally disregards UN resolutions.

A toothless tiger? Even though the sanctions were imposed on strict regulations under 687 for him to follow? He could have easily renounced terror, given inspectors immidiate co-operation, release Gulf war POWS, stopped repressing his people, let humanitarian groups in and met up with his cease fire obligations.

Oh yes and Israel is the other smaller real enemy in this fray. I forgot. :rolleyes:


5. What Cheney did was illigal and hypocritical, but the man believes in nothing but profit anyway, just as the rest of the administration. Saddam is a scumbag but so are the war profiteers you put your faith into. By the way Saddam is long deposed, why the fuck is the US army thier now anyway?

Its funny how anything and everything in this fight leads to the Bush Cabal. As if this war doesnt concern the trade unions, youth brigades, secularists and iraqi soldiers either. Who says that I am in this to support Cheney? I am in this to support a Democratic Iraq. Your reasoning is poisoned by your manchien pov that somehow cannot comprehend beyond USA, GWB, GOP, Joos, evil, evil, evil.

And again by your swift remark. "saddam is a scumbag...BUT, as if you an actually equate the two. Saddam was a Baathist thug that ruled Iraq like a police state run like crime family. Do not mass graves, fascist boots, hatred ideology and arab nationalism mean anything to you? Or are you fixed on a racist tendency to hate white male christian southern conservatives your whole life while Islamic radicals tear up the mid east?


6. They are not doing anything right. No apathetic people keep Bush and the US government in power. Defend these murderous war profiteers, you are the joke. As is the war on terrorism. An invasion of a nation that was no threat to anyone, the murder of people who had no way to defend themselves. The support of the stronger as they crush an almost defensless foe. Yeah, you are a brave one, takes alot of courage to support a government as powerful as the US. It takes alot of charecter to believe the repeated lies of the US government

:lol: Iraq was not a threat to anyone? Tell that to the Kurds, or the Israelis who he launched rockets at, or the Shiites in the South, or the 100,000 Marsh Arabs he displaced, drained thier marshes and created an ecological disaster.
You appease fascism because of your hatred for liberal democracy, and think of the US as constantly on an imperial path while you say that Iraq was not a threat to no one&#33; You&#39;re the joke&#33; You keep denouncing everything I say as propaganda but you dont question your own reasoning.


7. Really and I thought it was the US armed forces that were bombing the piss out of Iraq Which foriegn army was invading Italy at the rise of Faschism? You are the one with the weak mind propaganda boy.
Are you mad? The "resistence" is blowing up mosques every day. They kill civilians in double digits. Iran and Syria are funding support networks. what is it that the US is doing that&#39;s making you feel as if they are the real enemies vs the terrorists?


Where are those WMDs anyway
Unaccounted for.


8. Defending a country that went to war without the UNs backing, you sure are using a lot of Un resolutions to try to back up the bull shit war you support. You accuse the UN of being corrupt in one statment then turn around as though UN resolutions are the work of the all mighty. How conveinant

You must be the resisdent wannabe or something because you are not making much sense. The UN was in dispute over whether existing authority lay in 678/687 to get Saddam to comply with his cease fire obligations. Out of the 5 players in the security council with veto power, France, China and Russia were the ones who negated removing Saddam while the US and UK voted for war. Yet, after the war it was those 3 nations that voted no that took the bulk of the oil for food money.
So if anything it the US and UK that were upholding whatever was left of the UN&#39;s credibility. that is my point.


9.Oh yeah it is real stable over thier, the US presence has increased stability. Gee, I wish armed soldiers would kick in my door and search my house at night

Usually in a war there is civil unrest. But the US did mess up post invasion. The insurgency was overwhelming. But there is still a majority that wishes for the US troops to quickly build Iraq and leave.


10. Human rights abuses are policy. They will not be reported by anyone in authority just covered up.
Human Rights Watch does a good job. Even so, they say that the bulk of human rights abuses belong to the "resistence".


11. Correct. Do I believe non violent offenders should be locked away to rot for the rest of thier lives, hell no. Thank you bullshit war on drugs.
So this has everything to do with Iraq War or are you trying to take out your anger of the US again?


Do I think the system is rigged aginst the poor and minorities, yup. Is thier political prisoners, yes still some from the 60s and 70s rotting in jail.
Like who, Mumia Abu Jamal? Listen can you stick to one subject without going off into a rant. I get it you hate the US and wish for the Islamists to win in Iraq.


Alot in Gwatanomo Bay who have not been charged with anything because they have committed no crime.
Except found on the battlefield while fighting US troops.


Most are sheep herders, the US did let most of the Taliban escape after all. Where is that criminal genious who took out the world trade center while living in a cave on Kidney diaylasis?

So not catching Osama Bin Laden further discredits the killing of other Islamists in other ventures? What is your point?

Come to think of it you never had a point.

[Nicky Scarfo]

You disagree because you, a priori, reject the notion that Free Markets and liberal democracy are a the best governance (as so do many Islamic extremists)

I&#39;m about sick of this shit.


It was Blair who advocated the removal of Saddam Hussien when Bush was just an isolationist governor.

So? Now I&#39;m supposed to trust him?


His actions have been investigated twice and he has come out clean each time.

Oh, well now I trust him. In fact, I thnk he&#39;s an awesome guy.


Ah, Australia&#39;s answer to Bush and Blair. Funny how the three worlds leading terrorists were all re-elected in thier home nations?

All neoliberal pieces of shit, and Bush and Howard are explicitly and virulently anti-labor. If you don&#39;t also think they are pieces of shit, then I&#39;d strongly advise in favor of reassesing your purported "Social Democratic" ideology, regardless of your position on the Iraq War. And their re-elections mean nothing other than the fact that a majority of the active electorate does not care too much about wasting towelheads or anything else they are doing, and is instead motivated by other things (in the case of the ruling class bankrolling their campaigns-- self-interest, and in the case of the working-class people voting for these dicks-- fear, bigotry, nationalism, ignorance, religious intolerance).


Even so this does not explain away the fact that the biggest Iraqi trade union federation, supported by the majority of the internaitonal unions is still in favor of democratic iraq and the constitution.

Nothing is easily explained here. Like I said before there are two union federations in Iraq who differ on the occupation, and even within the federations there are differences (and I&#39;m sure, even within the affiliated unions). Like any other trade union movement, I&#39;m certain the one in Iraq is not monolithic. There are a variety of opinions and agendas, and furthermore, like in my country and yours, union leaders are not above being co-opted or manipulated by the state or employers.


the variety of voices within the trade unions on occupation

Agreed, as stated above.


and I am impressed at the level of thier resistence to oppose any faux resistence movement.

Nothing to be too terribly surpised about when the Baathists and Islamists are going around murdering union activists. However, their is nothing "faux" about the Iraqi Resistance. To describe something as a resistance movement is not normative, but objective. They are resisting the American occupation, therefore they are resistance fighters. The fact they are also right-wing shitbags doesn&#39;t change that.


Fascism is a syndicalist inspired system of thought that grew out of the right wing labour unions. The Fascists did not have thier roots in militarism or state power. They split from the syndicalists movements during WWI and focused on uniting the working class towards nationalism and syndicalist corporatism to grab hold of the state through one massive union.

In that case Fascism only existed in Italy and not Germany, because despite whatever the beliefs of the Rohm and Strasserite factions of the SA may have held, they were not rooted in Germany&#39;s trade-union movement as the SPD and CP were. Their institutional lineage came from right-wing veterans groups like the Friekorps, and the SA had running battles with SPD and CP trade unionists throughout the 20s. In any case the so-called "socialist" wing of the SA was completely liquidated by Hitler before WWII began, so according to your definition of Fascism above, the US was fighting Fascism only in Italy during WWII.

Which is why the technical defintion of "fascism" does not interest me. Besides the fact that no scholar can seem to agree on what the proper definition is (some say Franco regime was, others say no, and not even everyone agrees on whether the Nazi regime was technically Fascist or not*), I don&#39;t think its a particularly useful to distinguish extreme-right wing authoritarian movements and regimes according to overly technical nomenclature. First off, the sematic debate distracts from more meaningful analysis, and secondly it obscures the main point-- that ALL right-wing extremists are dangerous. So I&#39;ll continue to bandy about the term "fascist" as a catch-all for any reactionary extremists, and you can continue to object. I don&#39;t give a fuck.

*The Mosley quotes you provided only underscore the variety of opinions on this subject.


Because most realists do not fight ideological wars, they use proxies.

Explain how the US could have stopped North Korea and China from overrunning the South with proxies.


Again, why must someone remain logically consistent and be opposed to remove tyrants simply because the one removing them "put" them in power or it was the consequence of a horrid event?

Did I say that? The difference between your view and my view is that you think the US is acting as benefactor and I think they are pursuing their own imperial interests. That&#39;s it. Now can we stop this pointless back-and-forth? Jesus fucking Christ.


I do not think the Viet Cong were national liberators.

The NLF and NVA liberated Vietnam first from direct colonial rule in the North, then from proxy rule in the South. I don&#39;t give a fuck whether you think they were good guys or not, that objectively qualifies them as national liberators.


Would you mind refraining from calling me a "fucking imperialist"? That notion make no sense to me as I never called you a "fucking Stalinist, nazi-commie&#33;"


Not a good comparison. The first description is true and the latter is not.


And as to the rest of them. I fail to see how a Chinese Client and a Soviet client differ in the nationa liberation struggle againt neo-colonialism. Regardless of thier differences they both served thier clients to aid in a communist and or socialist revolution.

:D You mean like how China supported UNITA in Angola? They were suppporting Savimbi before even the US.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1980_Cold_War_Map.png

Map is inaccurate on so many levels, I&#39;m not gonna start.


and "fucking imperialist hawk" or the use of the F-word in nearly every sentence to undermine my position is nothing you see in here or in Democratic Underground?

Don&#39;t flatter yourself buddy, I curse like a drunken sailor with Tourette&#39;s in real-life whether I&#39;m angry or not.


And second of all just because those sites hate your ideology and disagree fundamentally does not make them hate sites.

Either you haven&#39;t spent enough time at those sites or too much. Those places are frothing with patent anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bigotry along with homophobia. FR and LGF now discourage racial slurs (to protect their site&#39;s reputation), but those are relatively new policies, and in any case the same sentiments by the same members are regularly expressed, albeit without the same frequency of slurs. And at the third site in the Reactionary Republican Forum Triumvirate, Conservative Undergound, you can still find "towelhead" used with alarming frequency, and the site&#39;s owner himself still uses the term "sandnigger" as recently as two years ago and called Rosa Parks a "*****" shortly after she died.

All three of those sites are most certainly "hate sites" as much as Stormfront-- the swastikas and anti-Semitism are the only things missing. Bigotry, intolerance and hate are not just tolerated, but encouraged. And I&#39;ve already detected a general animus towards the Palestinian people as a whole from you (which I&#39;m sure you will vigourously deny), so I wouldn&#39;t be the least bit suprised if you go to those sites and ride on the bandwagon of bigotry yourself from time to time, if in a less virulent manner than some of the bonehead extremists that populate those forums.


Actually a better example is provided by Jose Ramos Horta, the noble peace prize winner for his work in East Timor and praised by the progressive left, summarized his support for the Iraq War by citing that interventions to prevent genocide should be applauded.

Dude, just cause some "progressive", "trade unionist" or "socialist" says something doesn&#39;t mean I&#39;m gonna change my analysis. There&#39;s plenty of disagreement on the "left" about a lot of shit all over the spectrum.


Thats what they said about Cuba and Vietnam. Lets wait and see.

Whatever, guy. You&#39;re probably hoping the Bolivaran Revolution goes awry just so you can lord it over the leftists who supported it.


Jalal Talabani, is a member of the Socialist International.

:lol: So is the neoliberal UK New Labour. Big fuckin whoop. That doesn&#39;t make them Socialist.

And I&#39;ve spent enough time replying here, so I&#39;ll just say this in regards to the rest of that post-- the ICP is definitely reformist Social Democratic, not revolutionary communist (much like the CPUSA) and I don&#39;t think you&#39;re gonna convince many adherents of the revolutionary left that the ICP=stamp of approval. Though the Baathist and Islamic Resistance does suck, we can agree on that much.

[JudeObscure84]

I&#39;m about sick of this shit.

Ofcourse you are. you have no argument against it. its just your presupposition.


So? Now I&#39;m supposed to trust him?

Just pointing out that if anyone is anyones puppy its bush not blair on iraq.



Oh, well now I trust him. In fact, I thnk he&#39;s an awesome guy.
great. see i knew you&#39;d see it my way.

hey if your dont trust him i know plenty of kurds and liberians that do.


All neoliberal pieces of shit, and Bush and Howard are explicitly and virulently anti-labor. If you don&#39;t also think they are pieces of shit, then I&#39;d strongly advise in favor of reassesing your purported "Social Democratic" ideology, regardless of your position on the Iraq War. And their re-elections mean nothing other than the fact that a majority of the active electorate does not care too much about wasting towelheads or anything else they are doing, and is instead motivated by other things (in the case of the ruling class bankrolling their campaigns-- self-interest, and in the case of the working-class people voting for these dicks-- fear, bigotry, nationalism, ignorance, religious intolerance).

The point is that I see these people as less of a threat than islamic extremists and no leftist is willing to staythe course in iraq or pursue a fight with them because they deem it a neo-colonial war. and your constant repeating of bush and howards neo-liberal policy do not frighten me because i dont hold a stringent marxist view. I care more about keeping the liberal democratic right to free labour unions and we can fight them at a domestic level. Yet, I see these these men as a night and day difference between Baathism and Islamism. Maybe you dont because of your wannabe leftist pride that infects your judgement to practically see everything as an imperialist venture.





Nothing is easily explained here. Like I said before there are two union federations in Iraq who differ on the occupation, and even within the federations there are differences (and I&#39;m sure, even within the affiliated unions). Like any other trade union movement, I&#39;m certain the one in Iraq is not monolithic. There are a variety of opinions and agendas, and furthermore, like in my country and yours, union leaders are not above being co-opted or manipulated by the state or employers.

Thier difference of opinion is a plus factor. The fact that there are even those that support a democratic iraq shows that they are the only ones taking a logically consistent basis. Even though it may not be monolithic I was still pointing out that there are plenty of those that reject resistence and believe in a democratic iraq, us troops or no us troops.




Nothing to be too terribly surpised about when the Baathists and Islamists are going around murdering union activists. However, their is nothing "faux" about the Iraqi Resistance. To describe something as a resistance movement is not normative, but objective. They are resisting the American occupation, therefore they are resistance fighters. The fact they are also right-wing shitbags doesn&#39;t change that.

Which is why half the leftist globe was in support of the resistence like Tariq Ali and Arundhati Roy? Or George Galloway, and how he kept laughing at the notion that this wasnt a national liberation struggle similar to that of the Viet Cong?



In that case Fascism only existed in Italy and not Germany, because despite whatever the beliefs of the Rohm and Strasserite factions of the SA may have held, they were not rooted in Germany&#39;s trade-union movement as the SPD and CP were. Their institutional lineage came from right-wing veterans groups like the Friekorps, and the SA had running battles with SPD and CP trade unionists throughout the 20s. In any case the so-called "socialist" wing of the SA was completely liquidated by Hitler before WWII began, so according to your definition of Fascism above, the US was fighting Fascism only in Italy during WWII.
Facsism existed in Italy, Spain and Portugal at the purest level. Nazism focused more on an anti-enlightment racial commune ideology. And the Nazi Party was considered a workers union from Hitler himself in Mein Kampf. The idea was that all unions were to be eliminated in favor of one single union within the Nazi Party to eliminate marxian socialism in favor of a more guild socialist structure.


Which is why the technical defintion of "fascism" does not interest me. Besides the fact that no scholar can seem to agree on what the proper definition is (some say Franco regime was, others say no, and not even everyone agrees on whether the Nazi regime was technically Fascist or not*), I don&#39;t think its a particularly useful to distinguish extreme-right wing authoritarian movements and regimes according to overly technical nomenclature. First off, the sematic debate distracts from more meaningful analysis, and secondly it obscures the main point-- that ALL right-wing extremists are dangerous. So I&#39;ll continue to bandy about the term "fascist" as a catch-all for any reactionary extremists, and you can continue to object. I don&#39;t give a fuck.

We can object til the cows come home. but since you dont give a fuck. lets move on.



*The Mosley quotes you provided only underscore the variety of opinions on this subject.

Oh you mean like comming from fascists themselves? :rolleyes:




Explain how the US could have stopped North Korea and China from overrunning the South with proxies.

Even though it would not have worked, spent money to arm a right wing dictator in SK and provide him with arms. Kind of like the Shah.




Did I say that? The difference between your view and my view is that you think the US is acting as benefactor and I think they are pursuing their own imperial interests. That&#39;s it. Now can we stop this pointless back-and-forth? Jesus fucking Christ.

Well I never said they werent pursuing thier own interest too but that these interests meet as a benefactor to the iraqi people rather than having imperialist islamists take over or baathist iraq in rule. you on the other hand supported containment (a rather right wing position).




The NLF and NVA liberated Vietnam first from direct colonial rule in the North, then from proxy rule in the South. I don&#39;t give a fuck whether you think they were good guys or not, that objectively qualifies them as national liberators.

National liberaors supporting the imperialist interests of the Soviet Union and or Commie China. Yes, ofcourse they liberated Vietnam to create a guglag. I guess ofcourse you dont give a fuck about that too though,huh?




Not a good comparison. The first description is true and the latter is not.

Yes, its true based on your presupposition.




Map is inaccurate on so many levels, I&#39;m not gonna start.

Oh how could I forget.



Don&#39;t flatter yourself buddy, I curse like a drunken sailor with Tourette&#39;s in real-life whether I&#39;m angry or not.

well if it appeases your ego. then by all means...




Either you haven&#39;t spent enough time at those sites or too much. Those places are frothing with patent anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bigotry along with homophobia. FR and LGF now discourage racial slurs (to protect their site&#39;s reputation), but those are relatively new policies, and in any case the same sentiments by the same members are regularly expressed, albeit without the same frequency of slurs. And at the third site in the Reactionary Republican Forum Triumvirate, Conservative Undergound, you can still find "towelhead" used with alarming frequency, and the site&#39;s owner himself still uses the term "sandnigger" as recently as two years ago and called Rosa Parks a "*****" shortly after she died.

There are those that frequent the place that have no self respect. Yet, I support a free republic that leaves these people in thier free domain. They support institutions that leave them alone and I am all for that. I am not a conservative and I feel that their time is long overdue yet a resurgence of them happened because the left fails to deal with islamic totalitarianism in favor of deameaning liberal democracy simply like Orwell described.


All three of those sites are most certainly "hate sites" as much as Stormfront-- the swastikas and anti-Semitism are the only things missing. Bigotry, intolerance and hate are not just tolerated, but encouraged. And I&#39;ve already detected a general animus towards the Palestinian people as a whole from you (which I&#39;m sure you will vigourously deny), so I wouldn&#39;t be the least bit suprised if you go to those sites and ride on the bandwagon of bigotry yourself from time to time, if in a less virulent manner than some of the bonehead extremists that populate those forums.

Scarfo if it please you to think of me as anti-palestinian then by all means I am anti palestinian terrorism and believe the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are havens for terrorists and the result of them being so is because of four imperialist attempts to eradicate Israel. Do I believe all palestinians are terrorists? No. But I believe that peace is only possible if palestinians lay down thier guns because of Israel did, then there it goes.

And if you fail to grasp this......then.....*shrugs*....I dont give a fuck?




Dude, just cause some "progressive", "trade unionist" or "socialist" says something doesn&#39;t mean I&#39;m gonna change my analysis. There&#39;s plenty of disagreement on the "left" about a lot of shit all over the spectrum.

Ofcourse you wont because you&#39;re a reactionary leftist who has a manchien pov and limits the scope to where citizens of a democratic country can force the nation to act morally. the left you seem to be on is on a path towards implosion. the left i am on is on the anti-totalitarian left like that of Orwell and Leo Blum. The only thing you can try and get us on is the mistakes of blundering dollies like Bush, whom all the iraq war is to you is his smirking face. Yet your arugments point out your hatred of liberal democracy, its "imperial ambitions", rather than your hatred of islamic extremists who blow up mosques full of people. In stead the reaction you exhibit is one of anger towards surprise surprise... liberal democracy.

And anything a marine or a iraqi soldier may do to repair iraq is unquestionably irrelevant because if you supported it then what would be left of your leftist credentials? In my eyes your a poser, who like to cuss up a storm and then be unappologetic about it because you think it enhances your argument. Your a poser and an ahistorical, logically inconsistent tool. But then again you dont give a fuck. so there. ;)




Whatever, guy. You&#39;re probably hoping the Bolivaran Revolution goes awry just so you can lord it over the leftists who supported it.

No actually i hope it moderates its tone and goes the way of Chile. I really love Chilean politics. Unlike you who probably wants bedlam in Iraq so you can blow a raspberry at Prez Bush and anyone who had hopes for a democratic Iraq. But I am not here to assume what your position on future events is but your presuppositions on current ones. Ive done that and came out with an answer that disturbs me.





So is the neoliberal UK New Labour. Big fuckin whoop. That doesn&#39;t make them Socialist.

And you&#39;re comparing them to UK New Labour because? At the same time does this not beat Baathist Rule,you inconsistant clod. Even then, centrist policies are appeasing to alot of people. If you want to discount them then your taking a monopoly on socialist politics. Michelle Bachelette might as well resign.

Jalal Talibani was tortured by Saddams thugs. His party and the Kurds are now on top of a nation that once held them below animals. Just because it was at the helm of US arms does not make this any less a moment of praise.


And I&#39;ve spent enough time replying here, so I&#39;ll just say this in regards to the rest of that post-- the ICP is definitely reformist Social Democratic, not revolutionary communist (much like the CPUSA) and I don&#39;t think you&#39;re gonna convince many adherents of the revolutionary left that the ICP=stamp of approval. Though the Baathist and Islamic Resistance does suck, we can agree on that much.

Now you begin to demean any party that differs in position with the rest of the Klan. Free Thinkers my ass&#33; Many adherents of the "revolutionary left" support the iraqi resistence and adopted a Westphilian p.o.v. on tyrants while supporting an utterly simplistic manchien view that the US is the ulitimate source of tribulations in the world while islamic extremism is simply a reaction that needs to be understood before eradicated. Some of them even align themselves with thier anti-semitic causes (even though arabs are semitic) in support of thier struggles. A pox on them and plague on both thier houses.

we may agree that the islamic resistence "sucks" but lets face it I am the only one that wants to do something about it via coalition troops because it seems like the only possible option since the internatinal left has caved in to such horrid presuppositions.

Thank You Nicky for proving that right to me. You have done your part well.


NOw Fuck You. *bows*

[JudeObscure84]

hmm take the views of some prominent socialist activists fighting against real repression like Suharto, and USSR. Or align with wetnosed new lefties like Tariq Ali and Amy Goodman?
http://www.metransparent.com/texts/adam_mi...on_iraq_war.htm (http://www.metransparent.com/texts/adam_michnik_on_iraq_war.htm)

Adam Michnik.

Vaclav Havel

Jose Ramos Horta

[Nicky Scarfo]

Jesus, Jude, you turned in to a real dick pretty quickly.


I care more about keeping the liberal democratic right to free labour unions

You may, but I assure you Bush and Howard do not. Their domestic policies make that self-evident. Bush is the National Right To Work Committee&#39;s wet dream for a President.


Thier difference of opinion is a plus factor. The fact that there are even those that support a democratic iraq shows that they are the only ones taking a logically consistent basis. Even though it may not be monolithic I was still pointing out that there are plenty of those that reject resistence and believe in a democratic iraq, us troops or no us troops.

Yes, we agree on that.


Which is why half the leftist globe was in support of the resistence like Tariq Ali and Arundhati Roy? Or George Galloway, and how he kept laughing at the notion that this wasnt a national liberation struggle similar to that of the Viet Cong?

Get this through your skull-- you aren&#39;t talking to them, you are talking to Nicky Fuckin Scarfo.


Even though it would not have worked, spent money to arm a right wing dictator in SK and provide him with arms.

If it would not have worked, than a proxy war would not have been a "realist" policy, but rather a defeatist policy for the US.


National liberaors supporting the imperialist interests of the Soviet Union and or Commie China. Yes, ofcourse they liberated Vietnam to create a guglag.

You really are a reactionary.


There are those that frequent the place that have no self respect. Yet, I support a free republic that leaves these people in thier free domain. They support institutions that leave them alone and I am all for that. I am not a conservative and I feel that their time is long overdue yet a resurgence of them happened because the left fails to deal with islamic totalitarianism in favor of deameaning liberal democracy simply like Orwell described.


What the hell was that? You didn&#39;t address what I was talking about. Either you&#39;re getting lazy or you were drunk when you wrote this last post.


Yet your arugments point out your hatred of liberal democracy, its "imperial ambitions", rather than your hatred of islamic extremists who blow up mosques full of people. In stead the reaction you exhibit is one of anger towards surprise surprise... liberal democracy.


All in your head. I have always stated that I oppose the Islamists. I have not once stated that I hated liberal democracy, nor that I view liberal democracy as a greater threat than Islamism. Although, in point of fact, I do view the reactionary GOP as being a greater threat to the people in America than the Islamists are to us. It&#39;s our own government that is shredding our labor and social protections and stripping us of civil liberties, not the Islamists. The Islamists are scum and a threat to the region they are operating in, but not much of a threat to us in terms of our liberty (at least not immediately). At the present time, the enemy is within. But I digress....

This WHOLE FUCKING DEBATE started when you said you didn&#39;t think the Iraq War was imperialist, and I thought it was. That was the sole point of contention, then you started venting your disgust with the left that supports the Iraqi Resistance, on me. Me, the same guy who stated OVER and OVER again that not only did I think the Islamist and Baathists are scum, but that in practical terms I actually SUPPORT the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because I think it the best possible channel for American imperialism because it&#39;s right-wingers fighting right-wingers rather than us fighting left-wingers in South America. It&#39;s win-win, furthermore it ties up our imperial resources to limit our subversion of leftist movements elsewhere, and the long-term consequences will accelerate imperial crisis in America, thus creating better conditions for social restructuring or revolution here.

But you can&#39;t handle debating with someone who takes neither your position or the position of George Galloway, but rather a completely independent position on the matter different from most of the right or left. So you throw a fucking hissy-fit cause you can&#39;t use the same old arguments against me that you use against most leftists and it frustrates you.

An example...


you on the other hand supported containment (a rather right wing position).


No I didn&#39;t. I specifically stated that I practically supported the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars as the least destructive channel for US imperial aggression, as it is attacking other reactionaries, not progressives, and because it will have the long-term consequnce of destablizing America as imperial hegemon, which will create better conditions for revolutionaries and reformers here at home. But you want to put OTHER PEOPLE&#39;S opinions (as you see them) on ME, cause you can&#39;t break out of your little anti-authoritarian, Orwellian left vs. "reactionary left" paradigm. I know in your head it is a neat litte dichotomy, but the reality is much more complex.

And again...


Many adherents of the "revolutionary left" support the iraqi resistence and adopted a Westphilian p.o.v. on tyrants while supporting an utterly simplistic manchien view that the US is the ulitimate source of tribulations in the world while islamic extremism is simply a reaction that needs to be understood before eradicated.

You ain&#39;t talkin with them, you&#39;re talkin with me.


No actually i hope it moderates its tone and goes the way of Chile.

You mean allows itself to become a target of neoliberal exploitation? Or by "moderate" do you mean Venezuela should STOP its expansion of co-management in the public-sector and private-sector and the creation of worker co-ops and other forms of worker democracy? Or should it cease land reform and expansion of indigenous rights? Or should it stop using Venezuela&#39;s oil wealth for the people of Venezuela? Or stop giving free heating oil to needy Americans? Or simply stop embarrasing and attacking the great giver of democracy in the Middle East, George W. Bush?

How exactly should Venezuela "moderate" the Revolution to make it more to your liking?


And you&#39;re comparing them to UK New Labour because?

Because YOU made it seem like belonging to the SI is some big socialist credential. Do I really need to spell it out for you?


Now you begin to demean any party that differs in position with the rest of the Klan.

I stated the ICP, like the CPUSA, is a reformist Social Democratic Party. That&#39;s a statement of fact, not in any way "demeaning" them. I&#39;m not denouncing them, simply stating that to most of the "revolutionary leftists" on this forum, approval of the ICP is not necessarily gonna be seen as a stamp of approval for revolutionary, as the Party is left-wing reformist.

You know, for a guy who is obviously intelligent and very well-read, you sure act like a dumbfuck.


but lets face it I am the only one that wants to do something about it via coalition troops

Then go and enlist you pussy and stop debating on internet forums. You call me a "poser", but despite your claims of supporting unionism, I&#39;m the one doing the work on a daily basis, organizing strikes and other labor actions, organizing non-union workplaces. I&#39;ve been arrested, harrassed and beaten for my activity. Yet, because the actions of myself and hundreds of thousands of fellow union members, people have seen real and significant improvements in their wages, benefits and working conditions (not to mention their damn dignity). I&#39;m doing my damn part. What the fuck have you done that&#39;s so damn good except for incessantly whining on the internet?

You want to help the Iraqis acheive their liberation and fight the Baathists and Islamists so bad, then go to your local recruiting station and sign up. Or do something for chrissakes rather than ***** to me over the internet.

[JudeObscure84]

Jesus, Jude, you turned in to a real dick pretty quickly.

Actually I was trying to make you feel more welcome. I am not riled up by internet chats.



You may, but I assure you Bush and Howard do not. Their domestic policies make that self-evident. Bush is the National Right To Work Committee&#39;s wet dream for a President.

There is still domestic opposition to many of his proposals. But I would rather work out my differences with him by protest and my vote not guns, protests or campaign smearing.


Get this through your skull-- you aren&#39;t talking to them, you are talking to Nicky Fuckin Scarfo.

I see that.



If it would not have worked, than a proxy war would not have been a "realist" policy, but rather a defeatist policy for the US.

Or not caring.




You really are a reactionary.

if calling vietnam on its failure of a national liberation is reactionary, then I guess I am daniel patrick moynihan.




What the hell was that? You didn&#39;t address what I was talking about. Either you&#39;re getting lazy or you were drunk when you wrote this last post.

What I meant was that regardless of them being neo-confederate rednecks, I do support their ideals of being the hell left alone. Most of these goons though cannot get it through thier heads that they lost the civil war and federalism(not thier definition) is here to stay.



All in your head. I have always stated that I oppose the Islamists. I have not once stated that I hated liberal democracy, nor that I view liberal democracy as a greater threat than Islamism. Although, in point of fact, I do view the reactionary GOP as being a greater threat to the people in America than the Islamists are to us. It&#39;s our own government that is shredding our labor and social protections and stripping us of civil liberties, not the Islamists. The Islamists are scum and a threat to the region they are operating in, but not much of a threat to us in terms of our liberty (at least not immediately). At the present time, the enemy is within. But I digress....
Like I have stated before the President is kept at bay by our checks and balances while the Islamists are only checked by UK/US arms. I would love to kick out Bush in hopes of a social democrat with the nerve to continue the intervention policy without dabbing into realpolitk. I know you have not stated that you hate liberal democracy but your outright critisism of it seem to cloud your judgement into thinking that Bush or Blair can actually over run the country like a Chiang Kai Shek or a Pinochet.


This WHOLE FUCKING DEBATE started when you said you didn&#39;t think the Iraq War was imperialist, and I thought it was. That was the sole point of contention, then you started venting your disgust with the left that supports the Iraqi Resistance, on me. Me, the same guy who stated OVER and OVER again that not only did I think the Islamist and Baathists are scum, but that in practical terms I actually SUPPORT the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because I think it the best possible channel for American imperialism because it&#39;s right-wingers fighting right-wingers rather than us fighting left-wingers in South America. It&#39;s win-win, furthermore it ties up our imperial resources to limit our subversion of leftist movements elsewhere, and the long-term consequences will accelerate imperial crisis in America, thus creating better conditions for social restructuring or revolution here.

Interesting plan. But what makes a interventionist plan that spend ample amount of government resources into an ideological war actually right wing. I mean I guess this can again tie into our competing presuppositions on how this constitutes as imperialism but until then, I really do not see this as a right wing venture.


But you can&#39;t handle debating with someone who takes neither your position or the position of George Galloway, but rather a completely independent position on the matter different from most of the right or left. So you throw a fucking hissy-fit cause you can&#39;t use the same old arguments against me that you use against most leftists and it frustrates you.

Actually most of my arguments were targeted at Atlas and CYU who took me on that. I guess if you believe what you believe then you are in a better position than both the other posters.


No I didn&#39;t. I specifically stated that I practically supported the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars as the least destructive channel for US imperial aggression, as it is attacking other reactionaries, not progressives, and because it will have the long-term consequnce of destablizing America as imperial hegemon, which will create better conditions for revolutionaries and reformers here at home. But you want to put OTHER PEOPLE&#39;S opinions (as you see them) on ME, cause you can&#39;t break out of your little anti-authoritarian, Orwellian left vs. "reactionary left" paradigm. I know in your head it is a neat litte dichotomy, but the reality is much more complex.

And again...

Could be. But your view isnt as grand. I respect of most in here, even though its strange that in order to order to break american hegemony it has to lose countles number of people to Islamists and a possible defeat that could tilt the nation (Iraq) either way. Am I reading your plan right?


You mean allows itself to become a target of neoliberal exploitation? Or by "moderate" do you mean Venezuela should STOP its expansion of co-management in the public-sector and private-sector and the creation of worker co-ops and other forms of worker democracy? Or should it cease land reform and expansion of indigenous rights? Or should it stop using Venezuela&#39;s oil wealth for the people of Venezuela? Or stop giving free heating oil to needy Americans? Or simply stop embarrasing and attacking the great giver of democracy in the Middle East, George W. Bush?

How exactly should Venezuela "moderate" the Revolution to make it more to your liking?

Who said I was against those things? Does their need to be a strong centralization of government to do that? I am just questioning Chavez motives.




Because YOU made it seem like belonging to the SI is some big socialist credential. Do I really need to spell it out for you?

No but it helps. No need to spell it out that you believe the SI sold out. Im sensing some hostilities towards social democratic movements.


I stated the ICP, like the CPUSA, is a reformist Social Democratic Party. That&#39;s a statement of fact, not in any way "demeaning" them. I&#39;m not denouncing them, simply stating that to most of the "revolutionary leftists" on this forum, approval of the ICP is not necessarily gonna be seen as a stamp of approval for revolutionary, as the Party is left-wing reformist.

You know, for a guy who is obviously intelligent and very well-read, you sure act like a dumbfuck.

So the fight against Baathism in Iraq for throughout the Baathist rule along with the Socialist PUK and KDP was not enough while many "revolutionary" groups in the USA or EU dont see the light of day when it comes to struggles like this and salivate over an anti-fascist fight against Karl Rove. Social Democratic struggles are struggles too.


Then go and enlist you pussy and stop debating on internet forums. You call me a "poser", but despite your claims of supporting unionism, I&#39;m the one doing the work on a daily basis, organizing strikes and other labor actions, organizing non-union workplaces. I&#39;ve been arrested, harrassed and beaten for my activity. Yet, because the actions of myself and hundreds of thousands of fellow union members, people have seen real and significant improvements in their wages, benefits and working conditions (not to mention their damn dignity). I&#39;m doing my damn part. What the fuck have you done that&#39;s so damn good except for incessantly whining on the internet?

You want to help the Iraqis acheive their liberation and fight the Baathists and Islamists so bad, then go to your local recruiting station and sign up. Or do something for chrissakes rather than ***** to me over the internet.

Ah so I am a poser who debates on internet chatrooms when you never know exactly what kind of life I am leading on the outside. I could may be positioning myself with an internship with Dissent Magazine or already enlisted in the PeaceCorps. But who knows? Just who knows?

[JudeObscure84]

Nick Fury,
If you indirectly support the Iraq war for whatever reason, then fine, my beef is with reactionary leftists. Although I would really like to read more and debate on the interesting side plan cooking up while the US is on an imperialist venture.

[cyu]

I know you have not stated that you hate liberal democracy but your outright critisism of it seem to cloud your judgement into thinking that Bush or Blair can actually over run the country like a Chiang Kai Shek or a Pinochet.

Wasn&#39;t Pinochet brought to power with lots of help from a so-called liberal "democracy" - namely the United States (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=500978)? It seems when forced to choose between capitalism and democracy, the ruling class in the US chose capitalism.



You mean allows itself to become a target of neoliberal exploitation? Or by "moderate" do you mean Venezuela should STOP its expansion of co-management in the public-sector and private-sector and the creation of worker co-ops and other forms of worker democracy? Or should it cease land reform and expansion of indigenous rights? Or should it stop using Venezuela&#39;s oil wealth for the people of Venezuela? Or stop giving free heating oil to needy Americans? Or simply stop embarrasing and attacking the great giver of democracy in the Middle East, George W. Bush?

How exactly should Venezuela "moderate" the Revolution to make it more to your liking?
Who said I was against those things? Does their need to be a strong centralization of government to do that? I am just questioning Chavez motives.

So you would support Chavez if he did all that while at the same time decentralized the government? So would anarchists.

[JudeObscure84]

Wasn&#39;t Pinochet brought to power with lots of help from a so-called liberal "democracy" - namely the United States (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=500978)? It seems when forced to choose between capitalism and democracy, the ruling class in the US chose capitalism.

My favorite books on Chile are written by four Marxist historians, Ian Roxbourogh, being the best. In four seperate accounts each written within a span of 20 years after the coup. they each assert that there was little to no CIA involvement in the Chilean coup. That it was purley a chilean coup with the military taking total advantage of the situation. Allende was betrated by the Christian Democrats and the hardcore remenents of his party eagerly wanting revolution in Chile. Allende broke barriers against the Chilean constitution and while there was an economic bloc on Chile by the US, this did not stop the ample amount of aid coming in from Sweden, other social democracies and the USSR.
Allende&#39;s government had a strong opposition, including the spontaneous "cacerolazos" in many Chilean cities (houseviwes making noise with their pots and pans every evening).

In conclusion, both Cold War powers supported their interests but the UP didn&#39;t need help to make their own mistakes and neither did the opposition to despose of the UP.





So you would support Chavez if he did all that while at the same time decentralized the government? So would anarchists.

Decentralized and moderated like Michelle Bachelette of Chile. Be firm in opposition to rapid liberazation from outside forces but dont isolate your country with extreme politics.

[cyu]

both Cold War powers supported their interests

So if the Bush regime were to support someone like Pinochet taking power in Venezuela or Bolivia, would you support the Bush regime?


dont isolate your country with extreme politics.

Which policies are you referring to? Foreign policy only or are there domestic policies you disagree with? Would you say the Bush regime is isolating his country with extreme politics?

[JudeObscure84]

So if the Bush regime were to support someone like Pinochet taking power in Venezuela or Bolivia, would you support the Bush regime?

No. But then again I dont support them much to begin with.


Which policies are you referring to? Foreign policy only or are there domestic policies you disagree with? Would you say the Bush regime is isolating his country with extreme politics?

foreign. now is the bush regime pushing the same extreme policies NATO and the EU were pushing to invade Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Somalia? The Iraq War is a continuation of a liberal interventionist policy that was implemented through out the 90&#39;s by Blair and other members of the EU.

The rest of the conservatives were adamently isolationist.

[cyu]

So if the Bush regime were to support someone like Pinochet taking power in Venezuela or Bolivia, would you support the Bush regime?
No. But then again I dont support them much to begin with.

At least we have some agreement there.


now is the bush regime pushing the same extreme policies NATO and the EU were pushing to invade Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Somalia?

If the Bush regime was considering using nuclear weapons on Iran, would you support that? If Bush did, do you think it could be considered extreme politics that would isolate his country?

[JudeObscure84]

If the Bush regime was considering using nuclear weapons on Iran, would you support that? If Bush did, do you think it could be considered extreme politics that would isolate his country?

They&#39;ve had a nuclear option on the table since the 9/11 attacks threatning to use it on Mecca if there was another attack on a bigger scale of 9/11.

I dont know how much I would believe Seymour Hersh&#39;s take on the whole matter. But to answer your question. No I would not support it. Is there something monolithic about the Bush administration and humanitarian intervention?

[cyu]

They&#39;ve had a nuclear option on the table since the 9/11 attacks threatning to use it on Mecca if there was another attack on a bigger scale of 9/11.

Do you think that could be considered extreme politics that would isolate his country?


But to answer your question. No I would not support it.

Sounds good to me.


Is there something monolithic about the Bush administration and humanitarian intervention?

You believe the Bush administration is in Iraq for humanitarian reasons? If it was there to set up economic democracy, you&#39;ll get no complaint from me. If it&#39;s there setting up another capitalist ally that would back misadventures to overthrow leftist governments, then I&#39;d be stupid to support it.

[Salvador Allende]

Imperialism is a serious threat to the world, but one which although masking itself in invincibility, is very vulnerable and weaker now than it was 40 years ago.

40 years ago there were 2 great and powerful Imperialist entities, the USA and USSR, whether in the support of Capitalism or Social-Imperialism, both assaulted the Third World in the attempts to gain neo-colonies for exploitation and domination. Thanks to the efforts and global maneuvering of Communist Party of China alongside the great masses of the Third World in a great and prolonged struggle, the USSR was defeated, unfortunately, instead of going back to Socialism, the Right Opportunists within the Communist Party seized power from the Revisionists and illegally broke up the USSR (according to the constitution, all major changes must be accompanied by a successful referendum, the referendum to split the USSR failed.) Now there is only one Imperialist power.

When we look at Imperialism as an entity, we must see it as it is and realize that Imperialism using open force instead of secretive and economic action represents the weakness and decline of modern Imperialism. The fact that Imperialism is unable to defeat a strong and united Anti-Imperialist bloc must also be recognized. Comrade Kim Jong Il in his wisdom started the policy of Songun, which places the army as the centre of the revolution in the era of Imperialism. The reason for this is to defend the Revolution and defeat Imperialism. Once Imperialism is defeated, Socialism can easily be attained and the transition time from Socialism to Communism shortened incredibly. A strong Anti-Imperialist, Democratic bloc must be formed, with the Socialist countries at the head. Comrade Ho Chi Minh talked many times about the unity needed between the Socialist countries and the Anti-Imperialist countries, a bloc he grouped as the Democratic Camp, a camp which must oppose the Anti-Democratic Camp of the Imperialists. According to Chairman Mao&#39;s Theory of Three Worlds, the World is divided into Three, The First world being the major Imperialists, the Second being their lackeys and the Semi-Imperialists and the Third being the remaining non-Imperialist and Socialist nations. The entire Third World must unite to defeat and bring over the Second and First world.

Hugo Chavez represents a strong Anti-Imperialist and possibly a future Socialist faction within Latin America and a similar vein is shown in Robert Mugabe in Africa. Both should be resolutely supported in the assault against modern Imperialism and any force which fights Imperialism is inherently more progressive and hence, should be supported. The more victories that take place against Imperialism in the future, whether they be in Taiwan, South Korea, Afghanistan or Iraq, will weaken Imperialism and set the stage for the collapse of the First and Second World and Revolutions in both. Any force not aligned with the First or Second World is a friend of the Revolution. These should be supported as the road to the Revolution, as Premier Molotov said long ago "In this day and age, all roads lead to Communism." and certainly today we can see the quickest and best route is to unite to defeat Imperialism.

Note: as for the Pinochet coup, The UP government indeed made many errors. But, economic war caused the downfall of the Allende government and the lack of real and mass aid from the USSR and the supposedly "Socialist" camp of Eastern Europe showed the true colours of it. The most support came from Socialist Cuba, which was a friend of Chile&#39;s from day one. The US attempted to stop Allende from reaching power and it is her who holds much responsibility at his martyrdom.

[JudeObscure84]

Hugo Chavez represents a strong Anti-Imperialist and possibly a future Socialist faction within Latin America and a similar vein is shown in Robert Mugabe in Africa.

I dont know about Robert Mugabe. He is instituting racist policies against whites in his area.

On that note Allende, it should be cited that in the US as in the EU there were tons of anti-imperialist US foreign policy demonstrations that were not marxist or pro-national liberation. They wanted the US to support social democratic movements within those countries so as not to give the USSR a dominent hold or for the US to install a puppet right wing regime.
Have you ever seen the movie Z? The politican who was murdered was a perfect example of that moderate position and how many right wing groups in Europe and America view any social democratic movement as marxist or far left. The policy in the US at the time was to discredit any movement as communist or insurgent. This gave room for the USSR or China to fill in the gap.

The Cuban revolution was at first going to be funded by the US under a social democratic banner but then scrapped the idea. Communism then engulfed the Cuban revolution.
I think that for the first since the end of the cold war, the 90&#39;s have seen a rise in humanitarian interventions for an ideological reason to remove tyrants whether right wing or left wing in order to replace them with liberal or social democrats. This venture was at first hated by the right wing in the US like Newt Gingrich and the right radio hosts. Then after 9/11 Bush was caught with his pants down and with no plan. So he opted to take the advise of the neo-conservatives in his cabinet. So he was co-opted into nation building by Tony Blair.
His national security stradegy was a total reversal of american policy. This was a total reversal of conservative ideology and it angered true blue isolationist paleo-cons like Pat Buchanen, Chuck Hagel and mounds of neo-conderates. The only reason why scabs at Free Republic and Little Green Footballs support intervention at all is because of the nationalist ferver after 9/11 and GWB&#39;s populist politics. But they were chiding Clintons involvements in Bosnia and Blairs in Sierra Leone all throughout the 90&#39;s.

To fully understand my view on these things. I would recommend 2 good books called Jihad vs. the McWorld and Terror and Liberalism. It goes into depth at how most countries are globalizing and the effect its having on tribalistic and Islamist societies. How movements are fully rejecting liberal globalization to join nationalistic fascistic fronts. Its nearly a repeat of WWII where after the Great Depression the people of Europe wanted nothing to do with liberalism and international finance and chose right wing nationalism over the competing Communist parties. Today its the same with many Islamist movements.

[Salvador Allende]

Mugabe represents a very progressive form of Nationalism, in my opinion one that could easily take the same road of Proletarian Nationalism, Internationalism and Socialism that we found in Cuba or Vietnam. His assault against the whites in Zimbabwe is quite justified. 10% of the population, that population being the whites, owned almost 80% of the land in Zimbabwe. The whites are the bourgeois and are inseperable from them in Zimbabwe as a result of the colonialist and neo-colonial periods in Africa. The MDC, is aided by these whites and is the Party of Imperialism where ZANU has always represented progress and the native population. As Zimbabwe embarks on their epic encounter to determine whether the people or the Imperialists will run it, I think we owe full support to Comrade Mugabe and the ZANU-PF Party.

[JudeObscure84]

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/defenders/...rd_zimbabwe.htm (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/defenders/hrd_zimbabwe/hrd_zimbabwe.htm)
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=africa&c=zimbab

Mugabe has been crushing opposition, displacing tons of people, acted out on homosexuals in a way that would make Castro seem tame, and continues to enact racist policies against the white minority. I doubt if Bob Marley were still alive he would play another concert for Zimbabwe.


http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/zimbabwe/


A few days later, the farm of Martin Olds, in Nyamandlovu, near Bulawayo, Matabeleland, was invaded by more than one hundred Zanu-PF militia led by war veterans.... Olds was forced outside, and was shot twice in the head at close range. .....In March 2001, Olds&#39; mother, Gloria Olds, was shot dead on the same farm, which she had refused to leave.

I guess this is justice?

http://www.genocidewatch.org/Zimbabwejuly2002.htm

[JudeObscure84]

http://www.mdczimbabwe.org/

[Salvador Allende]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 03:42 AM
Mugabe has been crushing opposition, displacing tons of people, acted out on homosexuals in a way that would make Castro seem tame, and continues to enact racist policies against the white minority. I doubt if Bob Marley were still alive he would play another concert for Zimbabwe.
Mugabe has been crushing the bourgeois resistance, I have no qualms against using any means neccesary to crush them, whether it be their ideology, their thoughts or their skulls. I will not comment on the second, for I am already restricted. Racist? How much more racist can he be than the simple idea of 10% of the population, all of one racial background, owning 80% of the land in a country? Mugabe is a great man and in Zimbabwe the whites and the bourgeois are the same, his anti-white policies are anti-bourgeois and they benefit the vast majority of the people in Zimbabwe, the peasantry, who are the working majority. Zimbabwe is only encountering troubles because of Western racism which seeks to install neo-colonialism across Africa and is succeeding. Fortunately, there are men such as Mugabe who are willing to stand for progress and hold true the ideas of African Socialism against the West. Mugabe is up there with the late-Kwame Nkrumah in popularity of all African leaders since independance in the continent, what does that say? Mugabe&#39;s policies I would say are 90% correct at all times, if not more and the African people would agree and wish to follow in his footsteps, the footsteps of progress and Socialism and not the footsteps of Neo-Colonialism, Neo-Liberalism and Bourgeois Democracy represented by MDC.

[JudeObscure84]

Maybe thats why hes facing stiff opposition. Mugabe is slowly turning into a mild Idi Amin. Most of the opposition comes from Africans themselves and none other than Desmond Tutu.

[Salvador Allende]

Idi Amin never did any progressive moves other than according to himself "conquering the british empire". Mugabe is redistributing land and righting a wrong that is the remnants of Colonialism, standing up to the West and Capitalism and the African people love him, certainly he is a hero of his continent and a model to be followed.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 17 2006, 01:18 AM
Idi Amin never did any progressive moves other than according to himself "conquering the british empire". Mugabe is redistributing land and righting a wrong that is the remnants of Colonialism, standing up to the West and Capitalism and the African people love him, certainly he is a hero of his continent and a model to be followed.
no, mugabe is giving out land to his followers based not on need but how they served him. he is crushing oppistion by, among other things, clearing out the dirt poor subrubrs. his policies have also turned an extremely prosperoius coutnry which exported large amounts of food to a country dependietn on humiantairn aid.

[Salvador Allende]

A prosperous nation? Whose nation was prosperous? The white nation. The native nation in Zimbabwe had nothing and was simply tilling land in poverty, land that they did not own, but that a small minority nation owned because they had stolen it long ago and their interests were being protected by the Imperialists.

His policies have not caused a decline so much as the British and US economic war policies are, sure the white assault on the land became very noticable immediately following the seizure of land, but it was embargos, restrictions and the economic war of the West which hurt Zimbabwe, luckily, the Socialist nations are aiding Zimbabwe and they recieve much aid from them. That is certainly not a true claim, he is giving it to the native population, perhaps he is not giving it to counter-revolutionaries, but I would agree with that. The vast majority (80%-90%) of Zimbabwe are not counter-revolutionaries and will recieve land by this entire deal, the remaining 10% are mainly the white population which make up the bourgeois of Zimbabwe and perhaps a slight bit of the black population which has taken up the bourgeois line.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Salvador Allende
I will not comment on the second, for I am already restricted.

Why not? What are you afraid of?

[JudeObscure84]

So there is support for Mugabe, Hugo Chavez and the Palestinians....who seem to be less progressive than they say.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Chavez-in-tehran3.jpg

I knew eventually these two would join hands considering thier involvement in OPEC. No blood for oil indeed&#33;