Leftist and pro-war; is it possible? - Are there any leftist

[MarxIsGod]

I am an ardent Marxist but strongly feel that Saddam should be removed from power. Not so much for the weapons of mass destruction, but for his maniacal and malicious treatment of his own people that is reminiscent of WW2. Saddam has forced husbands to watch their wives being raped and has chained men to while attaching a weight to their genitals. There are several sites which give first-hand accounts by Iraqi citizens of this treatment and more are likely to come out now that Saddam's dictatorship has been overthrown.

Secondly, I would like to say that despite my "hawk" stance, I do not completely approve the way in which Coalition Forces (essentially, the U.S.) has carried out the war. The U.S. could not have expected a great deal of resistance and should have made plans for maintaining order during this transition period. What also remains to be seen is how quickly will the U.S. leave once a stable government is established. If the U.S. stays to long, it will further endanger the international community's opinion of it and it will make it harder for Iraq's new government to establish itself as the authoritative body.

It feels uncomfortable being pro-war (even though I support it with strong conviction) because all the other Leftists at my school are ardently anti-war and have gone to protests and on walk-outs. Is there really something inherently wrong with being Leftist and pro-war? Does it make me any less of a Leftist? I'd like to hear from both people who share my problem (hopefully I'm not the only one); as well as those who feel that if I am Leftist I should oppose the war.

Thanks,

A confused Marxists

[Conghaileach]

Of course we all want to see Saddam removed from power. He's a tyrannical dictator, who was propped up by the US and UK.

The reason why so many leftists are opposed to this war is that we know that this "war" is nothing more than an imperialist act of agression. The US/UK occupation will not bring liberation, and the Iraqis will not see any improvement in their lives.

It's been asked why troops are not on the streets of Baghdad protecting hospitals, homes et al from the looters. It's because they're too busy protecting the oil fields.

[sc4r]

Does it make me any less of a Leftist? I'd like to hear from both people who share my problem (hopefully I'm not the only one); as well as those who feel that if I am Leftist I should oppose the war.



I do not support the war. But I see no reason why a leftist should not. I feel that an informed leftist ought to recognise that the reasons given for the war by the US are very unconvincing and that to allow it is very dangerous given the probable true motibations but it cannot be denied that some pretty hefty good will come out of it. The problem for us anti war types is that we see the bad (which I assume you recognise exists too) as vastly outweighing this good.

You have made a different judgement and I cannot fault you for doing so. Obviously I think your judgement is wrong, but so long as you do not parrot the US adminustrations and the Right wings opinion that I am a moron who is 'For Saddam' I'll not criticise you for making your judgement; at most I would attempt to critice your view and show where you are wrong (or maybe you might do the same to me, who knows).

The war has left / Right issues. But it has others. If you see it as justified in the round thats fair enough; it does not make you a traitor and will not keep you from your place beneath the scarlet standard.

So long as you believe in Socialism and do not betray it I will happily keep a place for you in the ranks.

Bets Wishes Comrade.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

MarxIsGod, strange to see a Marxist worshiping Marx as a god, I would imagine he'd be against that, but no problem really, and welcome to the boards!

Your leftist stance doesn't really determine weather or not you agree with the US, it is simply understood that America has very right-winged tendencies. Bush is not serving the people of Iraq a favor by taking down its corrupt and tyranical government, Bush is serving his boss, corporate America, a favor by easing the purchase of oil from Iraq. The US marine corps is not a humanitarian organization, nor is the US government. If the ruling class of Iraq administers agression upon its people now, why would it be any different once the new "democracy" [dictatorship] is installed?

[redstar2000]

As far as I know, MarxIsGod, the user known as "AK47" is the only person on this board that supports the Washington-London-Canberra Axis in Iraq. He claims that it's "nasty but necessary." :o

Oh yes, there are a couple of Kurdish nationalists on the board who support the Axis...because they believe that they'll get an independent Republic of Kurdistan out of the carnage. They may indeed get a republic, but it won't be independent.

Since you claim the status of a "Marxist", why don't you use the tools of Marxism to analyze this situation? Look at this analysis:

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...m=11&topic=3432 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=11&topic=3432)

A Palestinian newspaper reports, according to the BBC, that the only government structure in Baghdad to come through the war undamaged is the Ministry of Energy and Petroleum. Perhaps those "smart bombs" are even "smarter" than we thought.

:cool:

[deimos]

They may indeed get a republic, but it won't be independent.
Thats already a huge improvement!

Of course I know that the americans don't care about anyone in Iraq. They are just there because of economic reasons(perhaps Oil).


Perhaps those "smart bombs" are even "smarter" than we thought.
These bombs are smarter than their owners...

[hawarameen]

MIG welcome to the board,

firstly i feel like your post could well have been written by me in that i agree with everything you say and while i stand for the right not to have weights dangled from you balls many people would rather stand for anti americanism which is fine by me but i dont believe that this is what socialism is about.

there are of course those who dont know what they are talking about and follow others, there are those who come up with their own theories and there are those who try and back up their oppinions with articles that bear the slightest relevance to their stance.

and if nationialism is about wanting to put a stop to torture, oppression etc then i am the bigest nationalist around.

and of course some people on this site would much rather saddam and his succesor sons stay in power and brutalise the people than to see the US make some money. the very same people take things you say completely out of context almost to the point of making it up so i would be catious.

also be weary of claims backed up by magazines that were supported and funded buy a dictator who has just been forced from power.

finally i would ask you to read peoples post and take them in, some people here havnt grasped this concept yet.

[antieverything]

Well, many believe that Iraqis will be better under American imperialism than they are/were under Saddam. They thing about that is they are probably right about that. This will mean an end to the crippling sanctions and an end to widespread, openly institutionalized terror. Unfortunately, this war creates a dangerous, dangerous precedent. Already Israel has threatened the Palestinians, citing this as a "lesson" that should be taken to heart. We are already begining to see the ethnic violence predicted by us naysayers. But the most important reason is that when a nation can exert its will on the world simply by virtue of superior military strength, all hope for a just world order is crushed.

[antieverything]

I will say, however, that many anti-war people have their heads in the sand. I never said that I wouldn't support UN military action against Iraq--or other aggregious human rights violaters--simply for humanitarian reasons.

Too many people are simply opposed to all war for any reason...even in defense of a worker's revolution.

[MiNdGaMe]

WE ARE ALL PRO-WAR, simply

PRO CLASS WAR

[Hate Is Art]

I am not really a pro-war kinda person but I feel that this war is justified, it's just a shame it the U$A are involved, I find it especially annoying how they are gaurding oil field and leaving valuable treasures from the beginning of time to be looted ans destroyed. I think that Saddam should be toppled by a revoulution not by U$A and UK. I think Clinton should be back in power, he may have been a slut but at least he didn't start wars just try and stop them.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

You must act towards ur own logic thinking and not towards the expectations of a "good leftist".

Yes, there are more pro-war leftists. I am not, but ur not the only one.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from MarxIsGod on 1:37 pm on April 13, 2003
I am an ardent Marxist but strongly feel that Saddam should be removed from power. Not so much for the weapons of mass destruction, but for his maniacal and malicious treatment of his own people that is reminiscent of WW2. Saddam has forced husbands to watch their wives being raped and has chained men to while attaching a weight to their genitals. There are several sites which give first-hand accounts by Iraqi citizens of this treatment and more are likely to come out now that Saddam's dictatorship has been overthrown.

Secondly, I would like to say that despite my "hawk" stance, I do not completely approve the way in which Coalition Forces (essentially, the U.S.) has carried out the war. The U.S. could not have expected a great deal of resistance and should have made plans for maintaining order during this transition period. What also remains to be seen is how quickly will the U.S. leave once a stable government is established. If the U.S. stays to long, it will further endanger the international community's opinion of it and it will make it harder for Iraq's new government to establish itself as the authoritative body.

It feels uncomfortable being pro-war (even though I support it with strong conviction) because all the other Leftists at my school are ardently anti-war and have gone to protests and on walk-outs. Is there really something inherently wrong with being Leftist and pro-war? Does it make me any less of a Leftist? I'd like to hear from both people who share my problem (hopefully I'm not the only one); as well as those who feel that if I am Leftist I should oppose the war.

Thanks,

A confused Marxists


I suggest you quickly claim to be anti war now as the people of this board are very unreceptive to any disagree mentwith the general idiology set down as general leftist idiology. Ie you should do the exact oppersit of what CCCP just said, however i am sure he means well. He is a good person and is not as intolerant as others on this forum.

Basically if you dont want to be branded as a "A survile Lacky of US and UK imperialism." then you should clame to be anti war.

I am speaking from experiance.

(Edited by AK47 at 11:06 pm on April 14, 2003)

[hawarameen]

i do not want war and while the classification is either pro or anti war i prefer to be neither.

war is terrible and i can tell you that from personal experience and i commend MG for looking into the subject and while i try to tell some people of the things that went on in iraq (specifically the rape issue that you mentioned) i was told by members who should know better that i was obsessed with rape!!!!

i have said many times that the US has gone about this war in completely the wrong way. saddam could have been overthrown internally in 1991 and this time around but the administration chose to make a public display of iraq and at the same time comendeering irai oil.

left to their own devices the irai people would NEVER have been able to revolt against saddam, there are too many ethnic and religious groups wanting completely different things and having different plans for iraq. even if they could overthrow saddam, civil war would ruin iraq.

UN backing for this war would have made it far more legitimate and while many are hailing france for its anti war stance, they like the US have only their own interests at heart and a UN backed war would never have materialised as long as france, germany and russia had interests in iraq (those countries now want their debts repaid, russia made it clear it was against the war for financial reasons).

[Subcomandante Marcos]

This war is clearly about yanki imperialsm, nothing more.

We all agree about the demon Saddam is, but is Bush a saint ?? his predecers or his sucecers ??

History has proven ourselves that the U$ couldnt care less for democracy or human lives, but should we have to look back in order to realize things ?? wouldnt be better if we change them now while the iraki children are still alive ??

Is is so easy to watch this war on your screen and sigh, but what about the hundreds of children living the bombing, the killings, the gunshots, the ones that are in neighbor countries, the ones across the globe seeing this war, the own children of the soldiers

IS BUSH HIMSLEF FIGHTING THIS WAR ?? ANY SENATORS ?? RUMSFELD OR POWELL ??

[antieverything]

hawarameen pretty much took the words out of my mouth.

[MarxIsGod]

Thanks to everyone who posted; I don't feel so alone now. Although a revolution in Iraq would have been preferable to U.S. and U.K. involvement, one must take into account that an Iraqi revolution would have been simply illogical, impossible, and above all, suicidal. Although the U.S. and U.K. are certainly handling the war horribly, surely in this case Saddam's vicious, malicious, and pernicious (i love that triplet) actions were so atrocious that "the end justifies the means". Delaying the war would have simply cost more Iraqi lives than have been lost in the war.

[sin miedo]

SC Marcos, what about all those who died under Saddam tyranical, paranoid, torturous rule, and his greedy corrupt manipulations of the oil-for-food program?

What Hawa said. Fuck Saddam.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Quote: from AK47 on 11:00 pm on April 14, 2003

Quote: from MarxIsGod on 1:37 pm on April 13, 2003
I am an ardent Marxist but strongly feel that Saddam should be removed from power. Not so much for the weapons of mass destruction, but for his maniacal and malicious treatment of his own people that is reminiscent of WW2. Saddam has forced husbands to watch their wives being raped and has chained men to while attaching a weight to their genitals. There are several sites which give first-hand accounts by Iraqi citizens of this treatment and more are likely to come out now that Saddam's dictatorship has been overthrown.

Secondly, I would like to say that despite my "hawk" stance, I do not completely approve the way in which Coalition Forces (essentially, the U.S.) has carried out the war. The U.S. could not have expected a great deal of resistance and should have made plans for maintaining order during this transition period. What also remains to be seen is how quickly will the U.S. leave once a stable government is established. If the U.S. stays to long, it will further endanger the international community's opinion of it and it will make it harder for Iraq's new government to establish itself as the authoritative body.

It feels uncomfortable being pro-war (even though I support it with strong conviction) because all the other Leftists at my school are ardently anti-war and have gone to protests and on walk-outs. Is there really something inherently wrong with being Leftist and pro-war? Does it make me any less of a Leftist? I'd like to hear from both people who share my problem (hopefully I'm not the only one); as well as those who feel that if I am Leftist I should oppose the war.

Thanks,

A confused Marxists


I suggest you quickly claim to be anti war now as the people of this board are very unreceptive to any disagree mentwith the general idiology set down as general leftist idiology. Ie you should do the exact oppersit of what CCCP just said, however i am sure he means well. He is a good person and is not as intolerant as others on this forum.

Basically if you dont want to be branded as a "A survile Lacky of US and UK imperialism." then you should clame to be anti war.

I am speaking from experiance.

(Edited by AK47 at 11:06 pm on April 14, 2003)


Hmm..

Ak-47 I am a lil' confused about ur comment, if he does the opposite, then he not acting towards his own logic and acting to be a "good leftist"?!

[deimos]

I agree completely with Hawar.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Quote: from hawarameen on 12:26 am on April 15, 2003
i do not want war and while the classification is either pro or anti war i prefer to be neither.

war is terrible and i can tell you that from personal experience and i commend MG for looking into the subject and while i try to tell some people of the things that went on in iraq (specifically the rape issue that you mentioned) i was told by members who should know better that i was obsessed with rape!!!!

i have said many times that the US has gone about this war in completely the wrong way. saddam could have been overthrown internally in 1991 and this time around but the administration chose to make a public display of iraq and at the same time comendeering irai oil.

left to their own devices the irai people would NEVER have been able to revolt against saddam, there are too many ethnic and religious groups wanting completely different things and having different plans for iraq. even if they could overthrow saddam, civil war would ruin iraq.

UN backing for this war would have made it far more legitimate and while many are hailing france for its anti war stance, they like the US have only their own interests at heart and a UN backed war would never have materialised as long as france, germany and russia had interests in iraq (those countries now want their debts repaid, russia made it clear it was against the war for financial reasons).


I agree on ur piece, but with one exception and that is my fear that Iraq and Kurdistan will end up with "the new democratic leaders" such as Pinochet.

As I said in my earlier discussions with u and Deimos I feared a civil war a lot, that could be avoided by one strong force. Which in my eyes should be leftist.

I experience the invasion of Iraq and overthrowing of Saddam as handing over the Iraqi people of 1 person to another.

And it was already clear to me that neither Russia, France nor Germany had put in line their valueble relationship with the US for humanity.

Like I already said, this war is nothing more than a war of riches, fought by the poor.

Edit: nice quote of Bob Dylan's blowin' in the wind.

(Edited by CCCP at 6:52 pm on April 15, 2003)

[hawarameen]

without a strong outside force the different factions in iraq would kill each other, 3 or 4 different factions all fighting against each other would result in one of the bloodiest civil wars in history but with a mediator like the us (who obviously want stability for their own ends) there is more chance of stability, although i admit that for some factions its the US thats the problem. Fuck this thing is so complex i dont know. i personally blame the british government of days gone. the factions were all put in one big basket and told to get on when quite obviously they have vast differences in ideology. before, they were too scared to fight each other in fear of saddam but now i think there will be asassinations of leaders to come. iraq is fucked up, the whole world is fucked up, lets all move to mars.

i use that Dylan quote in pretty much every interview i have done, it stands for so much that i believe in.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I wish luck to post-war Kurdistan, but history says otherwise. Take a look at post-American-war Cambodia, nice, eh?

[hazard]

assuming nobody else has already answered your questin, MARX made mention of communists as supporting "any war that advances the class struggle" or something like that. I can look up if you want. anyway, it was in reference to the bourgeois revolution in germany, and that even hough it wasnt a communist revolution, communists should support. this support should come from the fact that prior to a communist revlution, some nations must have a bourgeois revolution.

supporting the iraq war, as a communist, is possible with this idea in mind. little picture: oppose the war as a capitalist war for money. big picture: support the war as another nation having its production mode revolutionized and closer to a communist revolution

[MarxIsGod]

While the war will help advance the Iraqi people towards a government and country in which they enjoy more freedom, the U.S. and U.K. are far too involved for there to be any hope in a Communist govt. in Iraq. This is despitet the fact that a democracy/republic will not take care of rampant poverty and disease that exists in Iraq because there will be limited governmental control. A democracy will fail because you cannot suddenly introduce freedom to a country that has been oppressed for 30 years. It is similar to taking a person who has not eaten for two-weeks out to a twelve-course dinner; the hungry person will get very sick and possibly die from being reintroduced to foods too quickly.

[mentalbunny]

MarxIsGod, my position before the war was anti-war, during the "war" it was pretty neutral, anti-war but not fanatically so because I could see no way of pulling out that would have done any good and as it happened pulling out would probably have been a bad thing to do.

Now the so-called war is over my position is that we should put as much pressure as possible on the US to behave properly and give the Iraqis what it said it would give them, not what Corporate America wants. I am definitely glad that Saddam has gone but i am concerned for the future. If we keep the U$ and co in line then I would feel that I could have been pro-war to begin with, but I am very worried about the outcome of the military action and the current occupation.

[redstar2000]

The situation in which communists are "pro-war" is one that is rarely discussed...even though World War II was such an occasion.

The thesis was that German & Japanese imperialism were such over-riding dangers to the whole planet that all other considerations had to be temporarily set aside until those two countries were defeated.

It is noteworthy that this position did not arise until after Germany invaded the USSR in 1941...although there was precedent in the "united front against fascism" from 1935 to 1939.

Some communists were less enthusiastic than others about this policy, and the Trotskyists said flatly that World War II was an imperialist war altogether. (In the U.S., they went to prison for those views.)

In the 19th century, Marx and Engels regarded Czarist Russia as the "fortress of reaction" in Europe and approved of any step--including war--that might serve to weaken Russia and prevent it from militarily supporting reactionary forces on that continent.

Without going into the historical merits of those earlier views (talk about a can of worms!), the present situation appears to me to be without precedent.

The United States, the imperial super-power, has plainly stated its intentions of supporting reaction around the world through "pre-emptive" military aggression. Not even Hitler went this far verbally...though his actions certainly fit the paradigm.

So we have a situation now where one country and its ruling class have plainly asserted their right by violence to rule the world. If communists accepted this, it would mean zero probability of successful communist revolution anywhere.

Thus the obvious conclusion: communists must oppose U.S. imperialism above everything else in the present era.

That shouldn't be taken to mean that we give up our rights to criticize bourgeois ideology and organize on behalf of communist ideas. Ruling class elements in many countries will claim to oppose U.S. imperialism while privately co-operating with it. Clearly, we should not let them get away with that shit.

This is going to be a very grim period in human history...a massive struggle across the whole planet that may decide the fate of the human species itself.

I need not elaborate on what a world run by the U.S. would look like--think fascism without swastikas and you'll be close enough.

I don't know or even much care if Marx would agree with me about this or not (though I think he would): the whole world must unite and inflict a crushing defeat on U.S. imperialism.

Nothing less will help.

:cool:

[Nic8]

I'm a Marxist and strongly in favor of the war.

I don't give a shit what the motives are. All I care about is the thousands of people that were being tortured, starved and killed under Saddam and the thousands of lives that will be saved by the Americans, even if all they care about is saving oil rigs. I'm glad that fucker was removed. Bush is evil, but is in no way comparable to Sadam. It is silly for any of us to claim that. A pro-American, corrupt democracy is better then a fascist dictator. The war might have killed a few thousand people, but there would be more people then that dying if Saddam was allowed to stay in power. But now that he's gone, maybe we should focus on regime change at home...

[redstar2000]

No, Nic8, you are most definitely not a Marxist.

The reasoning that you demonstrate in your post is bourgeois humanitarianism...a feeling of sympathy for the Iraqis who suffered under Hussein without regard to the far greater suffering that will take place in a world run by the United States.

Perhaps during the 2nd or 3rd or 20th (!) war down the road, you will learn better.

But you are certainly no Marxist in any meaningful sense of that word.

Quit using it!

:cool:

[kylie]

its possible to support iraqi militarily(calling upon the defeat of US imperialism) while not supporting it politically.
for example, if a group of people were attacking a shop and its owners, would you refuse to get involved, because it represents an outlet of capitalism?
to whoever stated that war against germany and japan was supported, have you forgotten the call for general strikes by marxists on all sides? it was just an expression of imperialist rivalry.

[MarxIsGod]

While I have come to the conclusion that it is perfectly acceptable for a Marxist or a Leftist of any kind to support the war, one must make sure it is the war that he or she is supporting and not U.S. imperialism. If the U.S. does not find WOMD (weapons of mass destruction) very soon I, and I hope others who are/were pro-war, will let President Bush know of our disapproval. I believed President Bush (with much reluctance and, as it now appears, much stupidity) that Iraq posessed WOMD and if coalition forces do not find them soon, Bush will be getting a letter from me! However, due to the PATRIOT Act, I will likely be imprisoned for it.

Speaking of the PATRIOT Act, I personally think it is a totalitarian document and Bush is taking advantage of the ignorant Rednecks ;) (I hope I'm not offending anyone and I realise that not all "Rednecks" are ignorant) in the midwest who believe every piece of bullshit propaganda he throws out at them.

[Iepilei]

To believe the United States will create a government for the Iraqui people that will not turn to the likes of Batista, Pol Pot, the Shah of Iran, or any other nameless-faceless dictator the US has installed or otherwise backed, is too naive.

I'm glad Saddam is gone though, one less Fundamentalist loonie to deal with. However, will those who come after him be in the same boat? More than likely.

It's not that I"m against the war. I'm against the fact that the United States is playing favorites with all these oppressive nations. How many nations in the region exist with US support, with police-states 10x... 20x... 30x worse than Saddams? Egypts? Saudis? Israels?

If you're going to destroy one oppressive, fundamentalist regime... destroy them all. Don't do anything half-assed.

(Edited by Iepilei at 10:49 pm on April 19, 2003)

[NeedForRevolution]

We dont need US troops in the middle east >>>> We need a Revolution against the corrupt governments in thats region (communist one for sure:)

[mentalbunny]

Iepilei, I just want to pick up on an error I noticed, Saddam was by no means fundamentalist, he was secular, but did allow his people their religion.

As we are seeing now the Iraqis are very religious and many, as least the vocal ones, want a religious leader or a religious state (same difference really). This could be a problem as they may want someone really anti-west. While I agree with that sentiment it's not going to be nice when they encourage terrorists to come over and kill people, innocent civilians, who had no say in the matter of war or anything.

[redstar2000]

Not to worry, MarxIsGod, the Bush regime will certainly find some WMDs or plant some.

And writing a letter to George W. Bush is rather like writing a letter to "Santa Claus" or "God"...none of those individuals are known for reading their mail, much less responding to reasonable requests.

Mentalbunny, on the other hand, has a great deal to worry about...as there will surely be an enormous increase in small "terrorist" cells that will target westerners both in the Middle East and in England and the United States.

Surely, you weren't expecting a big wet kiss, were you?

:cool:

[Nic8]

I think a world run by the United States is a lot better then a world run by fascists like Saddam.

I also think there is a much better chance of revolution in a corrupt democracy then a fascist dictatorship. With Saddam and his sons assinating and torturing any dissidents, there was almost no chance of any revolution, communist or otherwise. It would be foolish and naive to believe that the people would rise up against Saddam and establish a socialist government. The United States will install a pro-american and capitalist government, but this government probably won't be as bad as Saddams and will be easier to revolt against. As Hazard said, Marxists should support anything that advances the class struggle. From the manifesto, "In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things."

[Conghaileach]

Saddam's rule was once pro-American and capitalist. What makes you think the new American proxy dictatorship will be any better?

[mentalbunny]

Redstar, yes I know, both I and my family were aware of the probably consequences, especially with the US and Straw now pointing the finger at Syria, there are going to be a crowd of very pissed of Arabs.

I think it's up to the EU however suspect they may be. I trust Bliar on this, except that he's quite weak, but he knows what his countrymen want and he knows if he doesn't deliver then he's really in trouble politically.

[redstar2000]

"I think a world run by the United States is a lot better than a world run by fascists like Saddam." -- Nic8

But that is a false comparison on two levels.

There has been no question of fascists "running the world" since the end of the 3rd Reich...except for the regimes installed by and supported by the United States.

Iraq was never going to "conquer the world"...it is idiocy to suggest otherwise. Nor was there ever any serious possibility of Iraq leading an "axis of evil" for that purpose...that is likewise idiocy.

To suggest that the new Iraqi regime will be a "corrupt democracy" -- you left out the part about a permanent U.S. military base there -- and will therefore be "easier" to make a communist revolution in...that's more idiocy.

Historically, the vast majority of failed communist revolutions were crushed by external military intervention. From Finland in 1918 (Germany) to Greece in 1948 (U.S. and England) to Malaysia in 1958 (England) to Central America in the 1980s (U.S.)...the list is a very long one.

The fresh American triumphs in Afghanistan and Iraq will only encourage further military interventions against any challenge to American hegemony.

We don't know how things would have turned out had Iraq been allowed to go its own way, either by overthrowing Hussein or by overthrowing his successors following his death from old age. We do know how things are going to go there now.

Quoting the Communist Manifesto does not make you a Marxist unless you can do it appropriately.

How is supporting U.S. imperialism anything but a total distortion of the call to "support every revolutionary movement against the existing political and social order of things."?

You, Nic8, have evidently signed on to support the most reactionary power on the face of the planet. How dare you call yourself a Marxist?

Marx would be outraged. So am I. :angry:

:cool:


(Edited by redstar2000 at 6:21 am on April 21, 2003)

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Quote: from Nic8 on 1:53 pm on April 20, 2003
I think a world run by the United States is a lot better then a world run by fascists like Saddam.

I also think there is a much better chance of revolution in a corrupt democracy then a fascist dictatorship. With Saddam and his sons assinating and torturing any dissidents, there was almost no chance of any revolution, communist or otherwise. It would be foolish and naive to believe that the people would rise up against Saddam and establish a socialist government. The United States will install a pro-american and capitalist government, but this government probably won't be as bad as Saddams and will be easier to revolt against. As Hazard said, Marxists should support anything that advances the class struggle. From the manifesto, "In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things."


I have to disagree on you on this.

I find the US pretty facist and the US government and US supported governments are much stronger then former Iraqi government.

The military of Saddam wasn't that strong, but the US's military is very strong which makes it very hard to have an (armed) revolt against it.

However some protests have already begun in Iraq against the US presence, it's not likely that the protestors will get what they want. Just like the US ignored the millions of demonstrators of the 600 cities.

And this war hasn't or isn't going to destroy the class system of Iraq nor the US. It will only destroy the upperclass to let the higher middleclass take over the powervacuum of the highclass. This war has only brougt down one captalist to bring in another.

This hasn't changed anything, except a few thousand corpses as the result of this "liberation".

I am sure that the manifest didn't mean that you should support one captalist to bring down another, but they ment, I think, that as result of the class struggle there shouldn't come a new one.

Altough my opinion.

[Doshka]

Quote: from CiaranB on 2:55 am on April 21, 2003
Saddam's rule was once pro-American and capitalist. What makes you think the new American proxy dictatorship will be any better?


thats not true. Saddam accepted US aid in the first gulf war but he NEVER ever promoted the US in his country.
also, people tend to forget, or they tend to be misinformed, about the things saddam did to his own country. saddam built a nation out of practically nothing. he built the economy. before the first gulf war (not so long ago) baghdad was the paris of arabia. baghdad was the center of learning and literature. baghdad produced stars. we even have an arabic saying: the egyptians will write, the lebanese will publish, but the iraqis will read. even now, all of our music teachers, our art teachers, our stars are iraqi.
the day baghdad fell we cried silently. in Amman our tears fell for hours. everyone knew that this was the end. for hundreds of years baghdad will be in a black hole. we felt demolished, it was like a blanket of corruption had just covered our lives. the city we had all looked to as the center of our culture was pierced by the most corrupted country in the world. the museums that those trash soldies had barged into and the artifacts that they stole. the libraries that were being burnt. the mosques that they demolished. it was the death of the arabs.

[hawarameen]

i have not read so much crap in a post since republican guard replied to posts in this forum.

well i will tell you i cried when baghdad fell, tears of joy at the end of saddams tyranny were uncontrollable.

if you seriously believe the stuff you just wrote then you are as stupid and laughable as the information minister.

i am getting pretty sick of the amount of arabs coming out of the woodwork and proclaiming their support for saddam out of sheer ignorance and anti americanism.

i know quite a few arabs and let me tell you they were not crying when saddam was overthrown, they were singing and dancing.

you know nothing of what went on in iraq and just because saddam supports palestine, some arabs think he does no wrong. while you sing his praises he was killing and torturing hundreds of thousands of your arab brothers.

[redstar2000]

That was a pretty mean-spirited, not to say hypocritical post from you, hawaraween.

Why would it be "wrong" for Doshka to support Hussein in the hopes of liberation from Israeli occupation yet it's ok for you to support U.S. imperialism in the hopes of liberation from Iraqi occupation of Kurdistan?

Just as the U.S. victory is seen as hopeful from the standpoint of the Kurds, it is felt to be a disaster by Arab nationalists.

Is their nationalism somehow less "legitimate" than yours?

Are their dead any less mourned than your own?

I understood why you and the other Kurds took the position that you did. Don't make it worse.

:cool:

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Haraween what a hypocritical post.

But Doshka doesn't support Saddam, think you misunderstood her on that part.

I was saddend too by the fact that the musuems were looted, that the artifacts which proofed of an early civilisation were apperantly less important then oil. Does that make me a Saddam supporter or nationalist?

I am saddend too by the fact that Hawarameen thinks that the struggle for the rights of the Kurdish people should be a nationalistic struggle.

I know Doshka is slightly nationalistic, but much less then Hawarameens frightning nationalistic feelings.

How hypocritical to think that the US doesn't torture or support the tortureres.

Hawarameen Kurdish nationalism isn't any good, just as Jewish nationalism, US nationalism, Arabic nationalism or any other. It's a struggle led by those who think that they are the better humans in the world.

You can claim yourself to be as socialist or leftist as you want to, but that doesn't make you any better then other national socialists, like your beloved Saddam, Stalin and Hitler, just to name some national socialists who thought that their "own people" were the "right ones".

[sin miedo]

The Iraqi museums were looted by Iraqis.

[MarxIsGod]

Between a U.S. imperialist government and Saddam's totalitarian rule, I'd take the U.S. because at least they won't torture, kill, and rape innocent Iraqis.

[hawarameen]

why would it be "wrong" for Doshka to support Hussein in the hopes of liberation from Israeli occupation yet it's ok for you to support U.S. imperialism in the hopes of liberation from Iraqi occupation of Kurdistan?

i support palestinian liberation AS MUCH as i support kurdish liberation, i know more about the plight of the kurds which is why i argue their case more. what i do not support is people who are willing to support an evil tyrant who kills hundreds of thousands for their own benefits. you keep stating that i support us imperialism and i dont know how many times i have to tell you to get it through your thick head that this is not the case. a us occupation of iraq is just ONE step towards freedom for the iraqi people which will at the very least bring freedom of speach. what i find hypocritical is the fact that numerous refernces are made to arab brothers and muslim brothers when saddam killed more muslims and arabs than israel. where were the arabs and muslims when this was happening? this was ignored because there was an infidel in the name of israel next door. i would not for instance want any help whatsoever from israel in liberating iraq or even kurdistan and in fact israel has supplied arms to turkey that have been used to oppress the kurds there.

Just as the U.S. victory is seen as hopeful from the standpoint of the Kurds, it is felt to be a disaster by Arab nationalists.

it is seen as a disaster for arab nationalists simply for religious reasons, they see it as a christian occupation of a muslim country and as i said, arabs and muslims all over the middle east were quite happy to see their 'brothers' being killed by saddam.

Are their dead any less mourned than your own?

whenever i see pictures of Halabja i have to leave the room, i cant stand to see what happened there. the dead were kurdish and yet i have the same feelings when i see Ali on TV and others like him, the many tortured arabs shown and the prisons they were kept in, the mass murder of shi'ites after the first gulf war. when i see these pictures i am happy that this regime is finally over.
but of course people like Doshka and republican guard prefer to keep saddam in power because he supports palestine and gave iraq a thriving economy.

I was saddend too by the fact that the musuems were looted, that the artifacts which proofed of an early civilisation were apperantly less important then oil. Does that make me a Saddam supporter or nationalist?

i agree with you completely, i would have to be some twisted individual or cappie to think that the artifacts looted in the museums were in some way worth less than iraqi oil. i am a big history lover and i am as sadened by those images as images of halabja. so no it does not make you a saddam supporter or nationalist and i believe the same applies to me.

I am saddend too by the fact that Hawarameen thinks that the struggle for the rights of the Kurdish people should be a nationalistic struggle.

tell me where i have said this, i cant remember saying this. the kurds make up only 15% of iraq, we have no case for nationalism. what i want to see is a free iraq with all the different groups free to have a say in its affairs. after decades of opression i choose to support human rights for my people, this does not make me nationalist.

Hawarameen Kurdish nationalism isn't any good, just as Jewish nationalism, US nationalism, Arabic nationalism or any other. It's a struggle led by those who think that they are the better humans in the world.

i have not once stated that kurdish people are better than anyone else in any way shape or form. quite the contrary, i believe many kurdish customs are stupid and many kurds still live in the dark ages with regards to equality etc. the in-fighting that has gone on between kurds in the past makes me ashamed.

if i misunderstood her post then i am sorry, but i dont believe i did.

like i said in a previous thread, i will believe the claims of americans running around killing babies and eating them as much as i believe the claims that they helping old ladies cross roads.

[Nic8]

Quote: from MarxIsGod on 4:42 am on April 22, 2003
Between a U.S. imperialist government and Saddam's totalitarian rule, I'd take the U.S. because at least they won't torture, kill, and rape innocent Iraqis.


That is why I support the war.

[redstar2000]

"...the U.S. won't torture, kill, and rape innocent Iraqis." --MarxIsGod, hawarameen & Nic8

Of course they won't...they will hire people to do that.

What planet have you people been living on? Do you know nothing of the last half century?

You piss and moan about Saddam Hussein...god-fucking-dammit, the United States murdered between two and three million civilians in Vietnam...that's in one small part of the empire, one tiny country. Yes, and there was plenty of torture and rape along with the killing...in fact, the U.S. actually has a military "school" where you can major in torture.

I don't know, this seems pointless; maybe if you read some books by Chomsky, you'd all begin to understand the magnitude of your collective ignorance of the real nature of U.S. imperialism.

Then again, maybe not. Given your present views, I'm sure the CIA would hire all three of you. :o

:cool:

PS: My understanding is that U.S. troops blew the museum doors down with a tank shell and then initiated the looting; Iraqis were invited to participate in the looting after the U.S. soldiers took what they wanted. You can't say the Americans aren't "generous" in victory.

(Edited by redstar2000 at 12:27 pm on April 22, 2003)

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

i agree with you completely, i would have to be some twisted individual or cappie to think that the artifacts looted in the museums were in some way worth less than iraqi oil. i am a big history lover and i am as sadened by those images as images of halabja. so no it does not make you a saddam supporter or nationalist and i believe the same applies to me.

I agree with you. The images of Halabja and revolters who got caught by the Iraqi army and were kicked, beaten, tortured, doesn't make me very "happy" either.

tell me where i have said this, i cant remember saying this. the kurds make up only 15% of iraq, we have no case for nationalism. what i want to see is a free iraq with all the different groups free to have a say in its affairs. after decades of opression i choose to support human rights for my people, this does not make me nationalist....i have not once stated that kurdish people are better than anyone else in any way shape or form. quite the contrary, i believe many kurdish customs are stupid and many kurds still live in the dark ages with regards to equality etc. the in-fighting that has gone on between kurds in the past makes me ashamed.

if i misunderstood her post then i am sorry, but i dont believe i did.

like i said in a previous thread, i will believe the claims of americans running around killing babies and eating them as much as i believe the claims that they helping old ladies cross roads.

I am sorry for getting the wrong impression of you, but it seems to me, that someone who supports an Imperialistic war, a war of the master against his puppet, a war that could cause the death of millions of people through par example DU, a war that would bring in an Imperialist army which would hold Iraq and the region in it's grip for decades if not even centurys, someone who would risk al this, would put other people's life at stake to support his own people, to claim rights for his own people, while the rights of others are beeing violated, that seems nationalistic to me.

Don't mistake me, I support the Palestinian independance just as much as I support the Kurdish independance, but not at this way. Because this would only cause (partly) independance from Iraq and even from Turkey, but would on the other hand cause dependance on the US.

Turning your beloved country into an Imperialist country.

The new "independant" government would probaly support a following war of the US in it's crusade for power, like all the other 3th world country's who are desperate in need of funds and so create their own dependance on the US.

[Guardia Bolivariano]

Of course It's posible to be leftist an suport war!
That is If the war is for the defense of the revolution.

[Nic8]

The U.S. killed between three and four million civilians in Vietnam, but the circumstances were very different then Iraq. The U.S. was fighting a revolutionary army with wide support in Vietnam, they are removing a fascist dictator with little support in Iraq. The war in Iraq killed two to three thousand, not the three to four million in Vietnam. It is a stupid comparison.

I would be very interested if you could please source the "school" of torture by the U.S. government.

And in final, this is a necessary step towards the revolution. The bourgeois revolution has to come before the communist revolution.

[hawarameen]

CCCP - i said freedom for IRAQI people. the people of IRAQ are freer now than they were a month ago. the freedom is at the expense of the minority who gained something from saddam being in power. saddam has been removed and like many iraqis i want the US to leave on the next plane out of there.

i do not support palestinian independance if my fellow supporter is a murderous tyrant by the name of saddam. and i would also not support kurdish independence if my fellow supporter is no better than saddam. this does not make me a nationalist, if you still think it does then i suggest you buy another dictionary.

i dont know about the "independant" government but the minute it starts doing US dirty work every man, woman and child will revolt in iraq, they wanted the US to leave iraq the same day saddam left so any idea that the people will support the US is clearly false.

[Spartacus2002]

i am pro anti-us war

[sin miedo]

The School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia, has trained many South and Central American soldiers and officers that have gone on to murder and torture civilians and dissidents throughout Latin America. If that's the torture school somebody was thinking of.

[redstar2000]

That's the one, sin miedo. It became so infamous that they had to change the name, but I believe it is still in operation.

Nic8, I don't understand your "logic" one bit. Are you saying that whenever the U.S. decides to install a new quisling, it's "ok" provided they "only" murder a few thousand civilians? How many Iraqis would have "had to die" before you, in your infinite wisdom, would have decided that "oh, that's too much, that's going too far"?

As to your last paragraph, I think it's generally accepted that Iraq had its bourgeois revolution in 1958. Doubtless, some of the current Iraqi bourgeoisie will be impoverished and fresh elements will be elevated...whoever obeys the will of the new masters will prosper.

Hell, for all I know this process of turning the Middle East into a copy of Latin America (with Islam playing the role of Catholicism) is indeed a historically "necessary" step on the road to world communist revolution.

But I fail to see how cheerleading for U.S. imperialism helps matters.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 9:49 pm on April 22, 2003)

[Sensitive]

Quote: from Nic8 on 5:54 pm on April 22, 2003
And in final, this is a necessary step towards the revolution. The bourgeois revolution has to come before the communist revolution.
Iraq was already bourgeois before the US invasion, and the US will only replace Saddam with an equally terrible pro-US dictator.

But hell, at least the Iraqi oil will no longer be nationalized. LIBERATION!

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

CCCP - i said freedom for IRAQI people. the people of IRAQ are freer now than they were a month ago. the freedom is at the expense of the minority who gained something from saddam being in power. saddam has been removed and like many iraqis i want the US to leave on the next plane out of there.

I agree on it, but the US is a facist state too and the US and a US supported government is much more powerfull and much harder to overthrow then the previous Iraqi government.

That's why I think that this imperialist war will eventually on the longer term disadvantage the Iraqi people and even make the US much stronger andso harder to overthrow.

i do not support palestinian independance if my fellow supporter is a murderous tyrant by the name of saddam. and i would also not support kurdish independence if my fellow supporter is no better than saddam. this does not make me a nationalist, if you still think it does then i suggest you buy another dictionary.

I don't believe any longer that you're nationalistic.

I support and propagandize equal human rights for all humans and when the situation is so diffucult(Palestine, Kurdistan) that there is only one way to claim those equal rights I would even support a new state, however I am strongly anti-nationalistic. From that point I support the Palestinian and Kurdish freedom fight.

dont know about the "independant" government but the minute it starts doing US dirty work every man, woman and child will revolt in iraq, they wanted the US to leave iraq the same day saddam left so any idea that the people will support the US is clearly false.

It's a very beautifull image that everyone would revolt at the moment the government would do dirty puppet work, but history has shown us many times, that it's not so true.

Many nations with US puppet governments didn't encounter any succesfull revolts, because all revolts were smashed down by CIA backed armies and US special forces.

Leaders were tortured, beaten, hung up. Men were electruted. Women were raped. Children were kidnapped and were trained to childsoldiers.

That's exactly what I am fearing, that the new government of Iraq won't go away by the will of the people, but only after a bloody and harsh revolt.

And lot of the protesters demand an Islamic state, can you imagine what an US backed Islamic state looks like?

Maybe a sort of mix of Pakistan and the Taliban?!

[exploding toast]

i dont think you are any less of a leftist...

but i think this war was on bush's agenda from the day he enetered office... partly to help his rich oil friends and secoundly to finish what his daddy started.

[Umoja]

After looking at how this war played out, I do think there exist a chance of it unfolding well. Looking at the facts, I came to realize that America is being watched by everyone. The entire world is watching unlike other conflicts, so we need to tread lightly, so perhaps we will be able to establish a stable (but still pro-US) government. Who knows....

[Organic Revolution]

i am pro class war not pro iraq oil war

[MarxIsGod]

I am still waiting to see WOMD (weapons of mass destruction). I have been supporting the war since the beginning although lately my support of the U.S. has been waivering. If we wanted to liberate the Iraqis, then Bush should have said that and not thrown in all the bullshit about Iraq being linked to terrorists and (as far as I can tell) having weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi people desperately needed liberation, but Bush should not have lied about it in order to gain support from the "ignorant rednecks" and other equally intelligent people in the midwest. ;)

Also, I have been reading an excellent book by Nancy Chang called "Silencing Political Dissent". This is an excellent and inexpensive (less than $10) book which exposes the USA PATRIOT Act in a comprehensible manner. It is informative and recommended by Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky.

[Republican Guard]

The Iraqi people desperately needed liberation

Not nearly so much as the American people...

[Republican Guard]

Which brings me to my next question...

How *the fuck* can you be "pro-war"?

"You like 'em innocent babies grilled or charred, sir?"

sigh...

War is a child of injustice, intolerance and inequality.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the basic underlying premise of socialism is to help eliminate injustice, intolerance and inequality?

s.

[MarxIsGod]

Quote: from Republican Guard on 8:56 pm on April 29, 2003
Which brings me to my next question...

How *the fuck* can you be "pro-war"?

"You like 'em innocent babies grilled or charred, sir?"

sigh...

War is a child of injustice, intolerance and inequality.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the basic underlying premise of socialism is to help eliminate injustice, intolerance and inequality?

s.

There a great deal of intolerance, injustice, and inequity (not to mentioned government organized torture and rape of political dissenters and non-Sunni Moslem religions) in Iraq and this war was/is helping to "eliminate injustice, intolerance and inequality". It is a good thing that we went into Iraq but most of the justifications given by Bush were lies and we are not conducting the war in an efficient manner and doing it in such a way that it is more suiting to us than to the Iraqis. Given the current way in which the U.S. in attempting to organize a government in Iraq, I believe that whatever new government comes into power in Iraq is destined to fail because the United States has not let Iraqis (except for the Kurds) take any part in this war and this shows the Iraqis that they cannot free themselves from their oppression and that they need the help of the rest of the world. Although it is regrettable that the United States, of all countries, led the war, one cannnot deny that the Iraqi people needed their freedom. Unfortunately, they will pay a painful price because the United States was the only nation willing to help them gain their freedom.

[redstar2000]

The problem in the western capitalist countries, RG, is that leftists don't become leftist in a vacuum.

When someone in the west begins to move towards a critical position with regard to their society, they often take a good deal of "luggage" with them. (Note this is not just "kids" I'm talking about here; adults sometimes carry even more luggage with them.)

Even after one decides that a socialist society would be a "fairer" or "more just" social order, that doesn't convey the automatic ability to see their own existing society in its true light.

It is quite common, in fact, for moderately prosperous people -- feeling a bit guilty about their prosperity -- to actually believe that pro-capitalist politicians "mean well", are "decent men"...who haven't grasped yet the rational proposition that "socialism" (of some fairly vague sort) would be "even better" than capitalism, which is "pretty good".

I don't wish to sound even more "arrogant" than I already am (:cheesy:), but such people know nothing of imperialism, class struggle, or Marxism.

To these kinds of "socialists", the war against Iraq was either a "tragic mistake" or even "nasty but necessary." Be assured that they are already busy inventing "socialist" excuses for the barbarous behavior of U.S. occupation troops...as well as the next imperialist war.

Depending on which side of the bed I get up on in the morning, these so-called "socialists" strike me as either extraordinarily pathetic or extraordinarily disgusting.

Yet they continue to turn up and some of them learn better over time...which is why threads like this exist.

But I quite agree with your sarcastic and indignant tone and think it is completely justified. How easy it is to sit in some comfortable western nation and "justify" the slaughter of the "natives"...which is always done "for their own good".

"Socialists" like that are just contemptable!

:cool:

[Comrade Gorley]

War is alright when necesssary, but only then. If you start lusting after war and will fight over nothing- that's not good. Look at Che, he was a peace-lover but he realized that he needed to kick some ass to get it.

As King Solomon said (and the Byrds quoted in "Turn, Turn, Turn"):
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die..
A time to kill, and a time to heal;
A time to break down, and a time to build up...
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
-Ecclesiastes 3: 1-8

[Republican Guard]

Call me a foolish visionary, but I think that universal peace is [could have been, actually] possible, and that war is not necessary except to cut out a larger evil. I didn't see that happen in Iraq. I seriously doubt that the people in general will be better off now than they were a year ago (when I was in Iraq).

That being said, let me be hypocritical and say that I'd love to see military factories of Raytheon, General Dynamics and Boeing in the US that build the weapons of war hit by a "terrorist attack". Which wouldn't really be one since I don't consider them civilian targets.

s.

[hawarameen]

also anyone who does not agree with RS is a cappitalist, imperialist, money mad, heartless, evil promoter of slave labour.

RS you are not the authority on socialism get off your high horse.

so much for equality!!

[MarxIsGod]

Quote: from Republican Guard on 3:28 pm on April 30, 2003
Call me a foolish visionary, but I think that universal peace is [could have been, actually] possible, and that war is not necessary except to cut out a larger evil. I didn't see that happen in Iraq. I seriously doubt that the people in general will be better off now than they were a year ago (when I was in Iraq).

That being said, let me be hypocritical and say that I'd love to see military factories of Raytheon, General Dynamics and Boeing in the US that build the weapons of war hit by a "terrorist attack". Which wouldn't really be one since I don't consider them civilian targets.

s.


For someone who actually went to Iraq, you are pretty ignorant (not to mention hypocritical). There have been hundreds of FIRST HAND accounts of the torture methods that Saddam had performed on his own people. Men were forced to watch their wives being raped, men would be hung by their arms from prison walls and had a heavy weight hung from their genitals. They would even use electric carving blades to cut off people's penises and genitals. Iraqis desperately needed to be freed from this (Rape is something everyone can do without) and it is a shame that the U.S. is leading this war because they are executing it horribly. Bush is supposed to speak tomorrow on how the major fighting is over. I'll probably have to watch his bullshit speech for my U.S. History Class.

And about your wish for terrorist attacks on those supposedly "non-civilian" targets, most of the employees of those companies/factories (there are several hundred thousand, if not more) are CIVILIANS AND THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ARE MOST LIKELY TO DIE. Someone who WISHES for terrorist attacks must have a very sick mind and no regard for human life.

Just out of curiosity RG, what were you doing in Iraq??

[redstar2000]

No, hawarameen, those who disagree with me about the real nature of socialism are not necessarily all those bad things you listed.

Often, as in your own case, they just don't know any better. A few years of American occupation will teach you that I was right...unless you do become a quisling.

As to the actual points that I tried to make, what do you dispute? Their accuracy...or my right to say them?

:cool:

[Sandanista]

No it is simply not ok to support the war, you are an insult to marxists, yes saddam was brutal, but this war is not about human rights, its about oil and control of the middle east, very much imperialist thingys

[Republican Guard]

For someone who actually went to Iraq, you are pretty ignorant (not to mention hypocritical). There have been hundreds of FIRST HAND accounts of the torture methods that Saddam had performed on his own people. Men were forced to watch their wives being raped, men would be hung by their arms from prison walls and had a heavy weight hung from their genitals. They would even use electric carving blades to cut off people's penises and genitals. Iraqis desperately needed to be freed from this (Rape is something everyone can do without) and it is a shame that the U.S. is leading this war because they are executing it horribly. Bush is supposed to speak tomorrow on how the major fighting is over. I'll probably have to watch his bullshit speech for my U.S. History Class.

And about your wish for terrorist attacks on those supposedly "non-civilian" targets, most of the employees of those companies/factories (there are several hundred thousand, if not more) are CIVILIANS AND THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ARE MOST LIKELY TO DIE. Someone who WISHES for terrorist attacks must have a very sick mind and no regard for human life.

Just out of curiosity RG, what were you doing in Iraq??


I love it how any who is unable to dispute their argument fluently and cohesively tries to make up for that failure with personal insults and teenagery angst.

For the last time, I said it before and I'd say it again: it was Saddams' time to go. He got corrupted by his "vision" and went way too far with what he though Baathism represented. Baathism was the closest thing to socialism the arab world had ever seen, and properly executed it would have created a superpower out of the arab world. If it were Che who took power back in 1958, Baghdad would be a powercentral of the world today.

That being said, THIS (http://www.emitmag.com/photos.html) was NOT the way to go about it. Can you give Ali his arms back? No.

So guys, shut the fuck up and sit down. Go fill up your car with your american oil, go hang out at your local McDonalds, and look stylish in your nike running shoes and levis jeans. While you're at it, why don't you personally fly down to Iraq and help those Marines mow down my family. You're already helping capitalism so much, MarxIsGod, why not just add to the fun?

Your name is ironic, because you obviously don't know what the fuck Marx even stood for.

Pro-war CNN-bait zombies like you make me so fuckin' sick.

sigh.

Oh, and I was in Iraq helping some friends and family out (Arabs, Kurds, and Christian Assyrians), and getting one last good look at Baghdad before it became a pancake, like it has hundreds of times in the past 5000 years.

(Edited by Republican Guard at 10:20 am on May 1, 2003)

[MarxIsGod]

I know exactly what Marxism stands for and I know that Marx was born a Jew, became an atheist and was opposed to religion because he viewed it as exploiting the faith of the populace. Being 15, I don' really have a choice about staying in America or not and if I had the choice I would leave and not come back until Bush and his totalitarian regime are out of power and the USA PATRIOT Act is repealed. It is not my fault that so many Americans are ignorant enough to fall for Bush's bullshit propaganda. By the way, speaking of not knowing one's information, there is no such fucking thing as "American Oil" as all of the fuel at our gas stations comes from the Middle East or Mexico. There have been far fewer casualities in this war on BOTH sides than anyone could have expected.

I willl admit that the U.S. handling of this whole affair has been absolutely horrible but I do not believe that U.S. troops would intentionally shoot Iraqi civilians unless the troops themselve felt threatened (as they might be after a car bomb was set off at a checkpoint).

Also, please recognize that although people like me still choose to live in America, it does not mean that we support the war like some of the ignorant people running around. I know this may seem strange to people who have read my first post on this topic but I know feel that Bush has used the American public for his own self-interests and I have had enough of it.

RG, please don't take my question about why you were in Iraq as being accusatory or prejudicial. I really was just asking "out of curiousity" and if I have offended you than I am sorry as that was not my intention. I hold no grudge against you personally and am simply disagreeing with your opinions. Perhaps Bush and the rest of the world could learn something from our online community where people whose ideas are diametrically opposed are able to talk about their opinions civilly and respectfully.

[redstar2000]

"I do not believe that U.S. troops would intentionally shoot Iraqi civilians unless the troops themselves felt threatened." -- MarxIsGod, emphasis added.

I suppose we all have our "beliefs", MIG, but the evidence suggests that American troops are a pack of trigger-happy barbarians...who, naturally, always "feel threatened."

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...m=22&topic=2263 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=2263)

Is it ok for you to open fire on some passing stranger on the street because you "feel threatened"?

Maybe I shouldn't ask that...the answer might be yes. :o

:cool:

[MarxIsGod]

Perhaps I was not explicit enough in what I said. When I said "feels threatened" I meant a serious threat or belief that one's life or well-being is seriously in danger.

RedStar, in regards to your final comment, I would not do as you suggest. I do not own a gun nor will I ever seek to purchase guns. They are instruments of death, not of protection.

[metalero]

Republican guard, u really got the words out of my mouth for this guy! i can´t comprehend how someone who claims himself as being commited to overcome the unjustices of the system can act as an apollogetic of this dirty war..MIG maybe u think that just saying that u r marxist will make u believe that everything is fine..the same as the other stupid who saw the war as an effort to accellerate the revolution, Tony Blair is from the "labor party" and he´s as shameless responsible bastard for the death of innocent civilians as BUSH,all the pseudo intellectuals and all the petty burgouise kids with their I-want-to-be-a-revolutionaire attitude are... more respect for dignity and humanity have the capitalists who didn´t support the war despite somehow it was going to benefit them than a naive self-claimed marxist supporting an agression MADE IN USA.

[Organic Revolution]

the iraqi war is a war for imperialism and oil. buash dont give a fuck about the people..... they hot 7 boys at a anti occupation protest so who ever argues that this war is good tell me what u think in 20 years when the us oppresor forces are sitting in iraq kicking people around pushing christian bullshit and are controling a facist goverment.

[Organic Revolution]

my bad i meant shot

[MarxIsGod]

As I think I've stated before (if not in this topic then in another one), I wholeheartedly regret the U.S. had to lead this war but, as RG said, it was time for Saddam to go. I do wish that the Iraqis had taken it upon themselvs to rise up or that the U.S. allowed Iraqis to fight in the war because the only group in Iraq that feels like it has freed itself is the Kurds. Though I would have supported a campaign to get rid of Saddam based solely on his torture of Iraqis, Bush needed to throw in some bullshit about Iraq having WOMD and being part of the "Axis of Evil". We know for a fact that North Korea is building a nuclear arsenal and yet we still attack Iraq for oil and (at least for Bush) for revenge. Ever since
9-11 Bush has been taking advantage of the ignorant Americans who were in so much shock that Bush could have gotten away with anything. Even in Congress, this feeling of fear and shock was obvious in the amazing 98 to 1 passing of the USA PATRIOT Act. I did not intend to show support for the U.S. army, but rather I meant to show support for U.S. troops and although they may be trigger-happy, my uncle is a dentist in the Navy reserves and was sent to Kuwait about 3 weeks ago. His wife, my aunt, and his 5-year-old son live in San Francisco and I am just concerned for his safety. He did not have the choice of whether or not to go but now that he is there I am just hoping that he gets back safely and that Bush's war for oil won't continue too much longer. There are many U.S. soldiers who believe all of Bush's bullshit and have become so anti-Arab/anti-Muslim that they would shoot on any Iraqi just for the hell of it. They are ignorant butchers who have been suckered in by every little piece of propaganda. If I'm against the war, I don't see anything wrong with wanting the troops to be safe (as long as they keep themselves safe without unnecessary risk to Iraqi civilians, which I doubt they can do anyway but...) so that my uncle will come back alive and my aunt won't have to raise her 5-year-old son by herself.

[redstar2000]

"I don't see anything wrong for wanting the troops to be safe...so that my uncle will come back alive and my aunt won't have to raise her 5-year-old son by herself." -- "MarxIsGod"

Ok, folks, wipe those tears out of your eyes and pull yourselves together!

First of all, MIG, your uncle may not be coming home soon anyway...the U.S. is planning a permanent military base in Iraq to keep the "natives" in line. You knew that, didn't you?

Secondly, why should you hope that American soldiers are "safe"? They have invaded another country. Do they deserve to be "safe"?

Thirdly, "he had no choice". Bullshit! Everybody always has a choice...if ordered to perform a criminal act (a war of imperial aggression qualifies), one can always refuse to do it! Even under the Nazis, there were a few brave people who refused to participate in the holocaust...and nothing happened to them but a transfer.

While you're worrying over the safety of that uncle, spare a few moments for the 2,000 to 3,000 dead Iraqi civilians and the many thousands of dead Iraq soldiers "who won't be coming home". What did they do to "deserve" being murdered?

:cool:

[MarxIsGod]

RedStar, you need to calm the fuck down because you're tirades do nothing to help the Palestinians. If you care so fucking much then why dont' organize a protest or something useful like that. Writing angry posts to a 15-year-old kid about why he should feel sorry for the Palestinians and Iraqis doesn't solve anything. Actions speak louder than words. Instead of sitting in front of your computer and typing cynical, hypocritical posts, go out and do something with your life. Make a difference. If you want people to listen to you and respect you, go do something about it. Granted, writing a letter to dubya isn't likely to get you recognition, but a letter sent to dubya signed by 500,000 plus people who agree with you might. :angry:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Ooooo, a fellow anti-redstar member! how wonderful.

[hawarameen]

redstar just makes rediculous assumptions on peoples beliefs, he doesnt read posts (or chooses not too), he bases ALL beliefs on the past. his pure hatred of america has taken over his senses and while most people here are sickened at american actions if america cleared world debts, save the rainforests, put an end of pollution etc etc.. he would still curse america nomatter what. whereas i would give credit where credit was due.

i may live in a cossy nation out of harms way but he well knows why i am here and why i left kurdistan, i find him arrogant, he doesnt listen to firsthand evidence and whilst i and many people are pro liberation and at the same time criticise america we are still bush worshipers for someone of your age you should be able to read or are your eyes going?

if you hate america so much why dont you do something about it, leave america because as far as i know you live there.

[MarxIsGod]

While I certainly agree with what hawarameen and SoM said, turning this topic into an anti-RedStar forum would simply lower ourselves to his [RedStar's] level. The comments on this board have been very constructive thus far and the nature of the topic can cause people (myself included) to get very...uh...passionate. :)
So, let's move along and try to keep the posting civil. I find that, having become a Marxist not so long ago, one of the great things about the Left wing as a whole is that they are better at using words (and, as Bush shows, putting together sentences) than Right-Wing Conservatives who have their heads up their asses!
(So much for being civil)! ;)

[hawarameen]

in another thread in which i hadnt made a contribution RS refered to me and other kurds as nationalist, in this thread he is telling me and other people what our ideologies are, arrogance is a quality RS has taken to a fine art

[redstar2000]

How interesting that all of you who support U.S. imperialism find my "arrogance" intolerable.

Even more interesting is that all of you are evidently incapable of replying to an argument of fact or interpretation...choosing instead the path of personal abuse.

Fine. It's not altogether unexpected.

Nevertheless, each and every time I catch you guys trying to pass bullshit for Marxism or even leftism, I'm going to call you on it.

Ain't life a *****? :cheesy:

:cool:

[canikickit]

RedStar, you need to calm the fuck down

Redstar, although I'd imagine you are usually quite calm, if you are not, then don't take the above advice.

Although I think Redstar is a little harsh and over the top in his criticisms of people, I think they are generally true, if not to the extent that he portrays.

[Republican Guard]

Quote: from MarxIsGod on 8:55 am on May 4, 2003
I did not intend to show support for the U.S. army, but rather I meant to show support for U.S. troops and although they may be trigger-happy, my uncle is a dentist in the Navy reserves and was sent to Kuwait about 3 weeks ago. His wife, my aunt, and his 5-year-old son live in San Francisco and I am just concerned for his safety. He did not have the choice of whether or not to go but now that he is there I am just hoping that he gets back safely and that Bush's war for oil won't continue too much longer. There are many U.S. soldiers who believe all of Bush's bullshit and have become so anti-Arab/anti-Muslim that they would shoot on any Iraqi just for the hell of it. They are ignorant butchers who have been suckered in by every little piece of propaganda. If I'm against the war, I don't see anything wrong with wanting the troops to be safe (as long as they keep themselves safe without unnecessary risk to Iraqi civilians, which I doubt they can do anyway but...) so that my uncle will come back alive and my aunt won't have to raise her 5-year-old son by herself.


Well I understand and sympathize with how you feel about your uncle. When we or someone we care about are personally involved in something that we know is fundamentally wrong, it tends to skew our perspective more than a little. I'm no different; after all we're all only human.

Do understand though that I feel very differently about how moral accountability can be distributed amongst soldiers - both the ones that are brainwashed, hardcore murderers and the ones who are there because they think that they are "doing the right thing".

Basically, I believe that you renounce your status as an "innocent civilian" as soon as you join the armed forces, whether you're there because you want to be or because you think you don't have a choice, and whether you're an F-16 pilot or a dentist. On a idealogical level, I place an American soldier right under a Palestinian suicide bomber: While they are both fighting for a cause which they think is the right one, I respect someone who is willing to die for what they believe in so much more than someone who is willing to kill for the same reason. So while I'm sure you're uncle is a great guy (my great-uncle was an incredible person and loving father too... biochemist killed in the Israeli terrorist attack on the French-built Osirak-type nuclear reactor in Iraq, 1981), he forfeited his claim to innocence the minute he strapped on a US armed forces suit.

Oh and Redstar, I sympathize with how you feel... I've barely been here for a month and already been called a coward, an asshole, a liar, a hypocrite, a spoiled brat (probably by someone MUCH younger and spoiled than myself hehehe) and told that I should be killed.

Not bad for a mere 40-something posts...

;)

s.

[MarxIsGod]

Thirdly, "he had no choice". Bullshit! Everybody always has a choice...if ordered to perform a criminal act (a war of imperial aggression qualifies), one can always refuse to do it! Even under the Nazis, there were a few brave people who refused to participate in the holocaust...and nothing happened to them but a transfer.

He did have a choice of whether or not to join the armed forces, but that was 15-20 years ago! With regards to fighting in this war, he had no choice.

[hawarameen]

the personal insults started when you called everyone who didnt agree with you a nationalist and a supporter of imperialism.

arguing with you is futile because it is clear you dont read other peoples post, this is your arrogance.

[Republican Guard]

Quote: from hawarameen on 8:52 am on May 6, 2003
the personal insults started when you called everyone who didnt agree with you a nationalist and a supporter of imperialism.

arguing with you is futile because it is clear you dont read other peoples post, this is your arrogance.



Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You told me to go fuck myself and said that my family prospered on the blood of the Kurds, just because I said I'm a Christian Iraqi.

Equality indeed!

s.

[redstar2000]

hawarameen, look at your own damn sig and tell me you're not a Kurdish nationalist...not to mention your frequent posts in support of U.S. imperialist aggression against Iraq.

Or have you changed your mind but are not yet ready to publicly admit it?

Sorry, MIG, your uncle did have a choice...perhaps it would have involved unpleasant consequences, but it did exist.

And, just in passing, how can you call yourself a "Marxist" and think that a letter to George W. Bush signed by 500,000 anti-imperialists would make any difference whatsoever?

Are you under the impression that he reads his mail? :cheesy:

I know, you'll plead that you're "only 15" and that I should make allowances. It's no disgrace to be 15 or any other age; it is a disgrace to support U.S. imperialism at any age.

:cool:

[Republican Guard]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 10:38 am on May 6, 2003
And, just in passing, how can you call yourself a "Marxist" and think that a letter to George W. Bush signed by 500,000 anti-imperialists would make any difference whatsoever?

Are you under the impression that he reads his mail? :cheesy:

:cool:

Even more disturbing... are you under the impression that he can read at all?

s.

[hawarameen]

wanting freedom for an oppressed majority is nationalism???

are you stupid as well as blind?

an oppressed proletariat majority that wants freedom is nationalism so... the russian and cuban revolution to free the oppressed was nationalism?

RG if you like i will find your quote, you yourself told everyone in another thread that your family prospered thanks to saddam hussain and that is why you supported him. i know nothing about your family i just said that in mosul they were throwing out kurdish families and giving their houses to arabs with a great deal of money, car and a job. so yes if your family was one of those arabic families that were given everything then they did prospered on the blood of the kurds.

[Republican Guard]

Quote: from hawarameen on 3:03 pm on May 6, 2003
wanting freedom for an oppressed majority is nationalism???

RG if you like i will find your quote, you yourself told everyone in another thread that your family prospered thanks to saddam hussain and that is why you supported him. i know nothing about your family i just said that in mosul they were throwing out kurdish families and giving their houses to arabs with a great deal of money, car and a job. so yes if your family was one of those arabic families that were given everything then they did prospered on the blood of the kurds.

Don't bother "finding" my quote, here are both of ours.:


(hamawareem)i am really glad that your family has prospered under saddam, good for you, great. just know that your families prosperity has come at a price to many other people living in iraq for instance there are TO THIS DAY people living in tents who were evicted from their homes in kurdish cities back in the 1980's. your families prosperity has meant that people have had to live in tents for 20 years, i am really happy for you.

Ahhh i see we get the picture now, saddams rise to power has meant your family has prospered. why didnt you say? i give people respect, then its up to them to loose it, this is haw i work.




(my reply)I'm sorry. I am a proud Iraqi and have MANY Iraqi friends and family. Some of us did suffer unduly under Saddam. Most of us didn't. In this light, I could just as well be Russian, Cuban, Jordanian, or Egyptian...


Hamawareem, Seeing that you lack basic comprehension skills, I'll be kind enough to help decipher that tricky little bit of english for you.

"My family (christians) prospered - along with most other Iraqi families before 1980 - under his RULE. WHETHER THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH SADDAM HIMSELF OR NOT IS IRRELEVANT. THE POINT IS, THINGS GOT *BETTER* for the majority AFTER HE CAME INTO POWER. And yes, they declined with the start of the Iran Iraq war. So, I DIDN'T prosper THANKS to Saddam Hussein like you said. Nice way to play the sentence though.

Has anyone ever told you that you should have been an editor for CNN?

I'm sure many non-nazi germans prospered as well during Hitlers reign, and were killed with the rest of them. Can YOU give them life back hamawareem? Probably not, yet you're so eager to dish out death...

I've noticed one thing about you hawaremeen. No matter what I've ever said in every single one of my postings, you've *never* been able to dispel anything I've proven to everyone else here about anything I've said. Instead, you carefully tread the topic and try bashing me personally by misquoting me and insulting everyone who doesn't think that Kurds are the "poor, oppressed victims" you make them out to be.

FACT: KURDS have killed MORE Kurds than Saddam has. The CIVIL WAR in northern iraq between the KDP and the PUK has claimed more lives than the regime has.

FACT: The KURDS were left alone until they became power hungry and demanded [violently] an independent Kurdistan. If Castro saw a group of rebels trying to split Cuba up, what do you think he would do?

And for the record (again), I'm not even "arab". I'm Assyrian. Christian arab is a common blanket term that unfortunately applies to assyrians, chaldeans, and syriac christians.

Must be so hard to read with your eyelids shut, no?

s.

[MarxIsGod]

Quote: from Republican Guard on 10:52 am on May 6, 2003

Quote: from redstar2000 on 10:38 am on May 6, 2003
And, just in passing, how can you call yourself a "Marxist" and think that a letter to George W. Bush signed by 500,000 anti-imperialists would make any difference whatsoever?

Are you under the impression that he reads his mail? :cheesy:

:cool:

Even more disturbing... are you under the impression that he can read at all?

s.


While I certainly don't think Bush is the most intelligent body to walk the earth, I think that while jokingly we can make fun of his inability to speak a complete sentence, the fact is that rich and influential parents will only get you so far and that to get where he is today, Bush must have had some (albeit very little) intelligence. People are constantly making fun of his IQ and yet his approval rate is still over 50%. I think if people were more concerned with the legislation he has gotten passed and what proposals he makes, then perhaps people would care more and not support this tyrant. I realise (at least I certainly hope) that no one supports Bush but we must look at the big picture and realise that Bush has a healthy majority of the country that supports him. However, a list 500,000 or a million signatures would certainly get his attention, and if not, then a copy sent to the major media networks would certainly impact his reputation. An exposure of Bush's fascist ideals needs to publisized in methods that, although dislikeable, are mainstream and are the easiest way to spread the word.

[hawarameen]

you contradict yourself in your own post, telling me i never prove anything then wildly plucking "facts" out of thin air! now THIS is what i call the pot calling the kettle black. i know very well what went on in kurdistan and i am ashamed at the behaviour of our so called leaders and other kurds (my nationalism creeping in again!!).

i dont know where you get your facts from but you ridiculed yourself when you said that the kurds havnt been doing well for themselves in the past 12 years.

people in baghdad have recently gone to visit places like sulaimani and have been shocked at the difference between the north and south.

you say you prospered under his rule but you didnt prosper thanks to saddam husain. what the fuck!! doesnt make sense, as far as i was aware saddam was the ruler, the one and only he made decisions and while many prospered many others were killed.

do you listen to the news? the kurds have never asked for independance, it is impractical we all know that but what is wrong with fighting for your human rights? i believe this is what castro did. your comparison of castro to saddam is strange to say the least, castro does not to my knowledge discriminate between minorities living in cuba. if he was i would support the rebels.

RS ok take no action, stay at home in freedom dont complain, raise your voice, sign petitions, protest or anything. MIG at least takes some action however small it may seem to you it is more than what you are doing.

you live in america and its tough i know living there where you can say what you want, do what you want, go anywhere. america is a dictatorship of sorts i agree but give me that dictatorship ahead of one run by saddam anyday, once you have lived and suffered from oppression then you can see both sides of the story.

i stand for oppressed people's everywhere be it palestine, iraq, america or anywhere else, people are more important to me than oil, money or gold and limited freedom is better than no freedom

[hawarameen]

"Hmmm... my heritage is Christian Assyrian, and let me assure you that compared to how we were treated BEFORE Saddam, his "Iron Grip" led my family to prosperity and respect that would have been unheard-of under the British-instilled monarchy"

this was the ACTUAL post i was refering to made on 4 April in you hello thread

[redstar2000]

Another post full of contradictions, hawarameen.

What have we got here?

"Wanting freedom for an oppressed majority is nationalism. Are you stupid as well as blind?"

Gee, I was not aware that Kurds were a majority in Iraq...but maybe you're actually speaking of all Iraqis. Are they all going to live in "free Kurdistan"?

"An oppressed proletariat majority that wants freedom is nationalism, so..."

Who are you talking about? Kurds? Arabs? Both??? And given this sudden attack of "class consciousness" (come on, now, have you ever used the word proletariat in any other post on this board?), why doesn't your "sig" say "Proletarian Revolution for Kurdistan"?

"The Kurds have never asked for independence." RG says they not only asked for it but fought for it. And what meaning does "Freedom for Kurdistan" have if it doesn't mean independence?

Is it "freedom" to have part of your country run by an American pro-counsul? Or a Polish underling?

I don't understand why you are so upset to be properly labelled a Kurdish nationalist...it's not exactly a "disgraceful term". Considering how your people have been persecuted by Iraqis, Turks, and Iranians...who should have more right to be a nationalist? I'm in favor of independence for Kurdistan, all of it.

I just don't think kissing American ass is the way to get it. :angry:

Now, hawarameen, as to what I do to oppose U.S. imperialism...I think you know as well as I that it is foolish to discuss one's own political activities on the internet. Consequently, to suggest that I "do nothing" is just a way of distracting people from what we do here...discuss the best way to look at political questions from a revolutionary standpoint.

But I can say your picture of America clearly comes from a television commercial. Unless you are upper-middle class or better, you cannot "go where you want to go." Certainly, you can "say what you want" here...it's only if anyone listens that you get in trouble.

As to "doing what you want", I suppose it depends on what you want to do. Go to a overpriced restaurant? See a crappy movie? Buy a gas-guzzling death-trap SUV? Live in fear in a gated community? If you've got the money, it's a consumer's paradise!

But if you're referring to public dissent from the Bush regime...things are not quite what they seem to you to be. Police beatings have become routine; actual torture appears confined so far to people who "look Middle Eastern". But, hey, once they start down that road, why should they balk at torturing ordinary Americans? Perhaps the first cases will publicly emerge in the next year or two...

I'm quite willing to concede that living anywhere in the Middle East is shit compared to living in the United States...at least until somebody starts bombing us back in a serious way. So what? It's not like I picked the damn place to be born in.

If I had the resources, I'd leave immediately. I constantly urge young communists in America to get the hell out of here...go someplace where you can do something useful (instead of writing letters to Bush!).

But I have a question for you, hawarameen. Instead of coming to this board and talking about Kurdistan as if you were a Kurdish nationalist, how is it that you're not here talking about class struggle in the United Kingdom? Or class struggle anywhere?

The fact is that you don't talk like any kind of leftist; you talk like a Kurdish nationalist. So why get mad at me for drawing the logical conclusion?

:cool:

[hawarameen]

i was indeed refering to the whole of iraq because i do not believe that a minority deserve more freedom than a majority, the whole of iraq needs to be free.

i have used the terms class strugle and proletariat many times and like i have also said it does not look like you read my posts so this would explain alot, also i ws not aware that your leftism was based on how many times you used the word proletariat or the term class strugle. i have conducted television and radio interviews here in wales and i always try and bring the coversation round to socialism and freedom but i do not think i need to prove myself to you.

also i would take what RG says with a pinch of salt, anyone that has gone to north iraq has commented on how better the people have lived in the last 12 years, he however thinks otherwise.

freedom doesnt neccesarily mean independance, you can have freedom of speach, movement, trade etc without being independant, here in wales there is no independance yet they have freedom.

i am upset by the term you use because it isnt true,if i was nationalistic i would defend myself totally as a nationalist, but i think it is a term used by you because you know people here dont like being called it.

i am not saying that you live in paradise or that yo have it made, but if i for example made these posts in iraq then me and my family would have been killed, if it was the us governments wish they could find you and deal with your anti-americanism but they havnt, if you were making such anti government remarks in iraq you would not last very long.
there are many young people here who say they have refused to say the pledge at school, now if that was iraq! the kid would be killed for not saying it and their family would also be killed for encouraging it.

and with regards to what i do or talk concearning class struggle i DO as much as i can rather than talk as much as i can but i dont do what i do to prove myself to others.

[mentalbunny]

As one fo your friendly mods, may i remind you not to flame, although you seem to be doing fairly well!

Hawarameen, I recommend you take a deep breathe and re-read your post before you submit, just in case you are tying yourself in knots. Most of us, at least all the leftists here, should have pretty good reasonoing skills but sometimes inthe heat of the moment we can all make mistakes and say things we don't really mean.

I woul;d very much like to agree with Redstar's comment on how it is irrelevant to talk about our other political activities (except in the Practice forum) and to do so in a derogatory way (ie saying/implying that redstar does nothing) is an ad hominem arguement and therefore fallacious.

[redstar2000]

The word "nationalist" seems to me to be a very ordinary word with a straight-forward meaning. I've certainly never used it, knowingly at least, "because" I thought it would make anyone especially disliked.

Be that as it may, it still leaves a problem. You consider yourself a "leftist" who is in favor of "freedom for all Iraqis"...and yet you have never explained how U.S.-British military occupation of Iraq is going to do that...going to make Iraq "like Wales".

Perhaps you think that "Wales" is some kind of imperialist "norm"...that sooner or later, all the provinces of the empire will be "like Wales."

The British had the chance to deal fairly with Iraq and the whole Arab world back in the years after World War I...but they didn't. You don't dispute that, do you?

You have seen already how America has dealt with Kosovo and Afghanistan, haven't you? Nothing much in those places to remind you of Wales, is there?

Now it's Iraq's turn to be subdued and exploited; do you believe that America will suddenly "change for the better" and treat the Iraqis generously? On what grounds do you base this belief?

Do you believe that Iraq is going to be "like Wales" under American occupation?

Your views are a real conundrum, hawarameen. As a Kurdish nationalist, it would make sense that you would support U.S. imperialism in order to get "freedom for Kurdistan"...some kind of nominal autonomy or independence. But you say you're a "leftist", not a "nationalist".

On what grounds then could you possibly support the American attack on and occupation of another country? What kind of "leftism" is this? And what other countries is it "ok" in your view for America to attack and occupy and plunder?

The reason I called you a "nationalist" is because it makes sense. As a self-proclaimed "leftist", your views on U.S. imperialism don't make any sense.

That's not my fault; that's your fault.

:cool: