America's "Dirty War" Against Iraq

[redstar2000]

US Military Uses Dirty Bombs: THAT'S Why They Hate Us, GW! (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/339725.shtml)

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

[red team]

Another reason why you shouldn't join up with the imperialist murder crew. Not that you would want to anyway, right? If you do, you'll end up dying a slow, painful death from cancer. Serves you right for being a member of the imperialist murder crew in the first place.

[The Resistor]

You know what, iraq before and after ,,,you should review,,,isn't postiv,,,,and btw i think that they see it like this: 1 american death =-1.000 iraqy deaths ....ohh and its there one fault 11 sept, ....The sovjets came to (liberate) afganistan,,,but america was scared, and supperted (gave guns and money) to no one else then,,,yes THE TALIBAN.....they are the reason of the power of the taliban..........ridiculous!!!!!REALY THINK BEFORE U ACT,,,did so many people all over the world have to die for the wishes of america??? RESIST GLOBAL USA DOMINATION

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 10 2006, 09:39 PM
You know what, iraq before and after ,,,you should review,,,isn't postiv,,,,and btw i think that they see it like this: 1 american death =-1.000 iraqy deaths ....ohh and its there one fault 11 sept, ....The sovjets came to (liberate) afganistan,,,but america was scared, and supperted (gave guns and money) to no one else then,,,yes THE TALIBAN.....they are the reason of the power of the taliban..........ridiculous!!!!!REALY THINK BEFORE U ACT,,,did so many people all over the world have to die for the wishes of america??? RESIST GLOBAL USA DOMINATION
Zachtjesaan met die leestekens ;)

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I just don't get why you guys continue to live in a country you detest so much.

And wish humiliation and defeat for your fellow citizens.

We all have free will on where to live. And are not bound to live in the same house, city or state where we are born. For you guys, I would recommend taking it just one step further.

You detest America and everything it stands for. Just do us all a favor and leave.

And don't let the door hit your a$$ on the way out.

[Enragé]

wish humiliation and defeat for your fellow citizens.

no, only for the bourgeois who herd the people into war.

We desire nothing but the victory of our fellow citizens against the system which perverts our lives.



We all have free will on where to live. And are not bound to live in the same house, city or state where we are born. For you guys, I would recommend taking it just one step further.

I can only speak for myself but i have no hatred for the place i live, only for those who control that place. Running away wont solve anything; confronting that which makes it a fucked up place does.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 10 2006, 05:48 PM
I just don't get why you guys continue to live in a country you detest so much.

And wish humiliation and defeat for your fellow citizens.

We all have free will on where to live. And are not bound to live in the same house, city or state where we are born. For you guys, I would recommend taking it just one step further.

You detest America and everything it stands for. Just do us all a favor and leave.

And don't let the door hit your a$$ on the way out.
Relocating to a different country requires substantial resources, CL. But I've made the point in many posts here that young lefties in the U.S. would be well advised to get out of this shithole while the getting is good.

Were I free to do so, I would be on the next plane to New Zealand.

It's difficult to imagine living in a country where one could read the morning newspaper and not feel deeply ashamed.

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

[overlord]

Were I free to do so, I would be on the next plane to New Zealand.


Is that an endorsement of capitalism? Why not relocate to Cuba, Venezuela or Bolivia where you would be in good company?


Relocating to a different country requires substantial resources, CL. But I've made the point in many posts here that young lefties in the U.S. would be well advised to get out of this shithole while the getting is good.


It is true. US is printing money like crazy to pay their ridiculous debt. Public and private debt is huge and no-one in power seems to give a damn. U.S. dollar is doomed in the long run and America will no longer be able to maintain hedgemony in 20 years. China will take control. I thought someone like you would like to stay in the US to see it going down Redstar?

[The Resistor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 11:58 AM

Were I free to do so, I would be on the next plane to New Zealand.


Is that an endorsement of capitalism? Why not relocate to Cuba, Venezuela or Bolivia where you would be in good company?


lol, so it stupid to move to a beautiful country?Where there is peace and quiet. No isn't an endorsement of capitalism. I believe that NZ is just not very touched by big western company, no maybe nothing toe seize there.... And there are a lot of socialists all over the world...

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Rave and rant all you want to Redstar. The US military is what it is. You are fond of citing history... everything from Nazis in America to St. Petersburg.

You seem to also believe that the US military should mutiny, kill its leaders, and basically turn America into your version of Utopia. Study your history a bit harder. The US military has never even come close to anything like that. It is something they take great pride in (look that word "pride" up sometime). It has to do with honor and integrity (you may want to look those up, too). It is what has separated the US military and indeed, America, from many other countries. We don't have military coups here, we won't have one any time soon, so maybe you should attempt to deal in reality.

Look around the real world at the countries which employ your ideal of how things should be. How successful are any of them? How well off are the proletariat? How stable is their military? Their economy? Food and water supplies?

Many have employed Marxist/Socialist/Communist theories to their governments. Very few have survived. The ones that have are places where your personal freedoms are not what they are here in America (and other bourgeoisie places like us). Ever been outside of USA? You have the freedom here to make all the silly comments and raves and rant you want to (unless you yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater, or preach sedition), and the resources and infrastructure to do it with.

That's what makes America so great

[The Resistor]

http://xm.gnostika.org/art/radicallypoetic/Communism_by_RadicallyPoetic.jpg

[violencia.Proletariat]

The US military has never even come close to anything like that. It is something they take great pride in (look that word "pride" up sometime). It has to do with honor and integrity (you may want to look those up, too). It is what has separated the US military and indeed, America, from many other countries.

Who's history have you been reading?

GI resistance in Vietnam

http://www.nlg.org/mltf/giresistance.html

http://libcom.org/history/articles/vietnam...tance/index.php (http://libcom.org/history/articles/vietnam-gi-resistance/index.php)

A new film about the resistance,

Sir No Sir

http://www.sirnosir.com/

May I also remind you of what happens when you don't pay your mercenaries. Remember the Bonus army?

[Sabocat]

It has to do with honor and integrity (you may want to look those up, too). It is what has separated the US military and indeed, America, from many other countries. We don't have military coups here, we won't have one any time soon, so maybe you should attempt to deal in reality.

Was it honor or integrity that was used to kill women and children at the Ludlow Massacre?

Was it honor or integrity that was used to kill 4 college students at Kent State?

[red team]

Is that an endorsement of capitalism? Why not relocate to Cuba, Venezuela or Bolivia where you would be in good company?

Get's tiring repeating "no hable Espanol" to everybody.

[Comrade-Z]

You detest America and everything it stands for. Just do us all a favor and leave.

Yes, because things are so much better in all of the other capitalist countries. :rolleyes: (Actually, sad to say, it's looking like that more and more as the godsuckers and corporate oligarchs tighten their grip in the U.S. At least in a place like France I could find more atheists and at least have a chance of participating in a real communist revolution during my lifetime. In fact, I do plan to permanently move to either France or Germany the first chance I get. I'm currently studying both languages (French-4 semesters, German-just got started) And yes, I have been to France before on a school trip, and I rather liked it. Didn't miss America one bit and, in fact, when I stepped off the airplane I immediately noticed how abrasive and brutish all of the American airport officials were in comparison to the French ones. And the negative marks against the U.S. didn't stop there.)

But the point is, the despotism of capital is the despotism of capital, no matter where you are.

It's not just America that we detest, so simply leaving this particular capitalist country won't fix all the problems.

To get back to the original topic somewhat, remember that America isn't the only country which has been equipped with and/or used DU weaponry. The U.S. is just the "shining star" in that regard.

And I'm not interested in living in a developing State-capitalist country like China or Cuba either. I need something better than red flags and rhetoric to satisfy my desires. Like real self-management, for instance.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jun 11 2006, 11:50 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jun 11 2006, 11:50 AM)
Capitalist [email protected] 10 2006, 05:48 PM
I just don't get why you guys continue to live in a country you detest so much.

And wish humiliation and defeat for your fellow citizens.

We all have free will on where to live. And are not bound to live in the same house, city or state where we are born. For you guys, I would recommend taking it just one step further.

You detest America and everything it stands for. Just do us all a favor and leave.

And don't let the door hit your a$$ on the way out.
Relocating to a different country requires substantial resources, CL. But I've made the point in many posts here that young lefties in the U.S. would be well advised to get out of this shithole while the getting is good.

Were I free to do so, I would be on the next plane to New Zealand.

It's difficult to imagine living in a country where one could read the morning newspaper and not feel deeply ashamed.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Oh, don't give me any lame a$$ excuses... a friggin SIXTEEN year old managed to put together the resources to go to Iraq for some journalism project a bit ago.

I'm sure you can afford a lousy bus one way bus ticket to Canada.

I read the US papers every day (on line) and am not ashamed of the US. But if you are, fine. Put your money where you mouth is and go.

Most US soldiers and Marines are US citizens. As are you I presume. Hence, by definintion, they ARE your fellow citizens.

But since you have declared them your enemy (I read in another thread), then yes, you ARE a traitor.

Go join Al Quaida and enjoy the fanatical Islamists while you spew your hatred of America.

I'm sure you will find a willing and eager audience there to hear your vile rants.

[Enragé]

oh NO we're traitors

:rolleyes:

i guess i should turn myself in now?

Also
what have my self-appointed leaders ever done for me to earn my loyalty?

[Comrade-Z]

Go join Al Quaida and enjoy the fanatical Islamists while you spew your hatred of America.

You just demonstrated incredible ignorance of revolutionary leftist politics with that statement. You should know that the fundamentalist Islamists are our ideological enemies too. The fact that we happen to find ourselves temporarily on the same side with them concerning one particular issue (U.S. imperialism) doesn't mean we support each other. It's quite a historical accident.

I'd have to be out of my mind to enlist with Al Qaida. You are aware of their "policy" concerning atheists, n'est-ce pas?

After we get rid of Christianity in the U.S., we're going after Islam.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
I read the US papers every day (on line) and am not ashamed of the US.

That's because you are utterly shameless.

Atrocity in pursuit of gain is perfectly "ok" with you.

Most countries do not welcome elderly immigrants for fear that we will run up huge medical bills in the last years of our lives...hence, I figure I would need something along the lines of $250,000 to be welcomed as a landed immigrant in Canada or New Zealand. I will be relocating soon fairly close to the Canadian border.


I'm sure you will find a willing and eager audience there to hear your vile rants.

I guess my "vile rants" are getting to you.

Truth hurts...I take it. :lol:

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

[Janus]

Dirty bombs? I would think that the US would be much more discrete and professional in their killings. If they're simply putting some radioactive material on some explosives, then their standards are getting low.

Of course, there's also a lot of other things that the military isn't letting the people in on.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Were I free to do so, I would be on the next plane to New Zealand.

Correct me if I'm wrong but...doesn't New Zealand have a capitalist economy? A slightly more "humane" one than ours (according to most people here) but it is capitalist none the less.

[bezdomni]

You know what's funny, CL?

Redstar actually likes you. Whenever there is an OI person he doens't like, he compares how shitty the person is to you and publius.

Anyway, don't be a moron. Communists have nothing to do with al-quaida. Just because we don't dance around every time a US soldier kills an arab doesn't mean we suddenly support al-quaida.

Yes, New Zealand does have a capitalist economy. They actually have a centre-right government, last I heard. I fail to see what RedStar would want there, aside from living in a beautiful place.

Maybe he just really likes sheep? o_O

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 12 2006, 11:16 PM

Were I free to do so, I would be on the next plane to New Zealand.

Correct me if I'm wrong but...doesn't New Zealand have a capitalist economy? A slightly more "humane" one than ours (according to most people here) but it is capitalist none the less.
By all accounts, it is not as "dog eat dog" and "war of all against all" as the U.S. or the U.K.

It's also well outside the "fallout zone" should the U.S. and North Korea toss a few nukes at each other.

Likewise in the event of an inter-imperialist war between China and Japan.

It doesn't hurt to keep these things in mind. Were I still a young man, I would choose Italy or France...they look to be good possibilities for communist revolution.

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

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Depleted Uranium? I thought this article would be about bombs that actually incorporated large amounts of material that produces dangerous levels of radiation :rolleyes: I mean seriously, this is a classic case of media sensationalism over the Radiation Boogeyman. I mean there is such a thing as natural background radiation for fuck's sake. No mention of the amount of radiation is is seen at all.

There are plenty of good reasons to oppose the US's invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, but sensationalist articles like this is kind of like making a beautiful wedding cake out of the finest ingredients and then, as a finishing touch, using feces instead of icing.


Dirty bombs? I would think that the US would be much more discrete and professional in their killings. If they're simply putting some radioactive material on some explosives, then their standards are getting low.

Depleted uranium is use in weapons as a kinetic penetrator due to it's weight and self-sharpening properties while traveling through armour, not because of the comparitively miniscule radioactivity it has - it's for busting armour, not poisoning the enemy (Of which there are much better ways of doing that)
Of course, they could use tungsten instead, but depleted uranium is cheaper. That's capitalism for you.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

You just demonstrated incredible ignorance of revolutionary leftist politics with that statement. You should know that the fundamentalist Islamists are our ideological enemies too. The fact that we happen to find ourselves temporarily on the same side with them concerning one particular issue (U.S. imperialism) doesn't mean we support each other. It's quite a historical accident.


If you have happened to mentioned a critical word toward Al Quiada, I must have missed it.

You may not share its idealogy, but you certainly share it goals. The defeat and humiliation of America and its allies. And for THAT you DESERVE to be called a traitor.


After we get rid of Christianity in the U.S., we're going after Islam.

You are living in a dreamland if you think you and your leftist revolutionaries will ever stamp out Christianity in the US. Certainly not with the numbers of Hispanic and Latin American immigrants arriving every day, both legal and illegal.

And you can add Judaism and Islam to that list as well.



guess my "vile rants" are getting to you.

Truth hurts...I take it.

No, your vile ranting in search of a coherent thought are not "getting to me". But it is nice to see you recognize you problem. It is the first step to recovery.


Yes, because things are so much better in all of the other capitalist countries.nd I'm not interested in living in a developing State-capitalist country like China or Cuba either. I need something better than red flags and rhetoric to satisfy my desires. Like real self-management, for instance.

Cuba is a developing capitalist country? Does Comrade Fidel know this?

[Connolly]

You may not share its idealogy, but you certainly share it goals. The defeat and humiliation of America and its allies. And for THAT you DESERVE to be called a traitor.

:lol:

"Fight merry soldiers, for King and country, like sheep you will march into battle"!!!

WTF are you, another one of those conservative christian nutters who raise the "patriotic" flag each day?

Who gives a fuck if hes a traitor? Id rather be a traitor to my country than help defend its undemocratic state.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 11 2006, 11:19 PM


After we get rid of Christianity in the U.S., we're going after Islam.
What do you mean by this? The point is not to go after religious people, thereby promoting religoius fanaticism. The point is to destroy capital's grasp over religion, introduce actual separation of church and state, and then the advanced productive forces and the sciences of socialism will ensure that religion will die a natural death.

Has anyone even read what Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotksy said about how religion goes away?

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 04:26 PM
Depleted Uranium? I thought this article would be about bombs that actually incorporated large amounts of material that produces dangerous levels of radiation :rolleyes: I mean seriously, this is a classic case of media sensationalism over the Radiation Boogeyman. I mean there is such a thing as natural background radiation for fuck's sake. No mention of the amount of radiation is is seen at all.

There are plenty of good reasons to oppose the US's invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, but sensationalist articles like this is kind of like making a beautiful wedding cake out of the finest ingredients and then, as a finishing touch, using feces instead of icing.


Dirty bombs? I would think that the US would be much more discrete and professional in their killings. If they're simply putting some radioactive material on some explosives, then their standards are getting low.

Depleted uranium is use in weapons as a kinetic penetrator due to it's weight and self-sharpening properties while traveling through armour, not because of the comparitively miniscule radioactivity it has - it's for busting armour, not poisoning the enemy (Of which there are much better ways of doing that)
Of course, they could use tungsten instead, but depleted uranium is cheaper. That's capitalism for you.
It's already proven that depleted uranium has driven cancer rates up 1000% in Iraq and sharply in Yugoslavia as well. 'Gulf war syndrome' in Ameican vets is also well documented, it's happened to lots of former tank and artillery crews who used the shells.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 04:58 PM

The US military has never even come close to anything like that. It is something they take great pride in (look that word "pride" up sometime). It has to do with honor and integrity (you may want to look those up, too). It is what has separated the US military and indeed, America, from many other countries.

Who's history have you been reading?

GI resistance in Vietnam

http://www.nlg.org/mltf/giresistance.html

http://libcom.org/history/articles/vietnam...tance/index.php (http://libcom.org/history/articles/vietnam-gi-resistance/index.php)

A new film about the resistance,

Sir No Sir

http://www.sirnosir.com/

May I also remind you of what happens when you don't pay your mercenaries. Remember the Bonus army?
The Vietnam War produced a hell of a lot anti-war sentiment in the US and also in the US military. As the war dragged on, morale amongst the increasingly-consript US military worsened and worsened.

This was, however, due to the WAR itself.

Their was no such hostility towards "the system" or "the man" back home. Not enough to spark anything like a revolution. Once the war wound down, so did the "anti-war" movement.

To have a successful revolution, you need a populace whom are ready to overthrow the existing:

* social
* political
* economic

sytems in place.

In the US, in general, the social and economic systems in-place here since the English first colonised in the 1620s have gone relatively unchanged. The big political changes have been the American Revolution (which really wasn't a revolution, but more a "War of Independence") and the Civil War (end of slavery and transforming the previously-powerful South into an internal colony until the post-WW2 era).

Successsful revolutions are hard things to come by and, thus, don't happen very often.

What makes you guys think that YOU are the exception to the rule???

[Comrade-Z]

Their was no such hostility towards "the system" or "the man" back home. Not enough to spark anything like a revolution. Once the war wound down, so did the "anti-war" movement.

This is largely true. There were no army units which wanted to "march on Washington" with guns and take out the entire ruling class, although it might have gotten that way if the ruling class had kept the war going for too much longer. We could have seen large-scale defections, and once that happens it becomes well-nigh impossible to stop revolution from occuring even back home, much less in Vietnam.

Also remember that for the first gulf war and this current Iraq war, there were anti-war movements going before the wars even started. That's unprecedented. Vietnam took some 20,000 U.S. casualties and 4 years of heavy involvement before major anti-war sentiment materialized.

We have made some progress.

One reason that you won't see "liberal democracies" go to war with each other has nothing to do with the so-called "Democratic Peace Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory)", but everything to do with the fact that the respective armies and civilian populations wouldn't tolerate it. You'd see mass rioting in the streets, massive army defections, and possibly revolution if the U.S. went to war with Germany nowadays and activated the draft.

Nowadays, most people would recognize that as pointless, barbaric self-slaughter that only serves the imperialist interests of the ruling class.

So, we have to "settle for" going to war with developing countries, which are weaker militarily (and don't require a draft), easier to criticize and drum up hatred for, having more "human rights" abuses and the like and not being as far removed from barbarism and feudalism as the advanced capitalist countries are.


To have a successful revolution, you need a populace whom are ready to overthrow the existing:

* social
* political
* economic

sytems in place.


Successsful revolutions are hard things to come by and, thus, don't happen very often.

That's correct. That's why dozens of vanguard parties can think that "they are the truly gifted ones" who will be able to conjure up the right slogans and ignite the revolution, only to fail miserably every time.

Here at revleft, I don't think there are many people who claim to have these powers to "order up a revolution" like someone orders up a pizza.

We realize that it takes a tremendous intersection of many factors in order to spur the millions of masses to self-activity and make their revolution.

Through our theoretical and political discussion here, we try to advance that development ever so slightly. Perhaps we will be able to vanquish religion in 2060 instead of 2065. Perhaps a revolution will break out in 2070 rather than 2073. But we have little power over the broad sweep of history. Revolution will come when circumstances demonstrate to millions of people that it is in their self-interest to make revolution.

We have a bit of confidence that, as time goes on, capitalism will become more vulnerable because of our theoretical framework--the materialist conception of history and Marxist economics, which point in that direction. Corresponding to this, we also have historical precedents that show that economic systems are not eternal. Thus, we have some reason for some guarded optimism, especially the younger members on the board like me who actually dream of participating in a real proletarian revolution before death.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

You don't give the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War enough credit! As I recall the first American ground troops committed to the Vietnam War were dispatched in March of 1965. And the first sizeable (10,000 or more protestors) mass demonstrations began that summer.

Also, I disagree with your "liberal democracies don't go to war with each other" theory.

In 1914 Germany went to war with France and Britain. In all three of those countries there was democracy, with parliaments, prime ministers, etc. In Germany (land of the Kaiser) there was the strongest workers' movement in the Western world. Labor unions there were far more powerful than in Britain or America. Yet, when push-came-to-shove, they dropped their working-class boni-fides in favor of nationalistic fervor and supported the "War to End All Wars".

And tell me that, if Iraq hadn't gone better in 2003, the Bush administration wasn't prepared for covert war against France (a la its efforts agains the USSR during the Cold War). And (again, under the assumption that "Mission Accomplished" was for real in Iraq), the American people would have welcomed it.

Lastly, capitalism is a little stronger than you think.

Ever since the neanderthal tribes stumbled upon each other while looking for better hunting grounds, and, say, one tribe offered some goats for another tribe's surplus animal skins you've had capitalism.

And, barring a peaceful level of cooperative trade, you have had wars over materials.

Nothing changed over the last 10 million years except for technology.

Lastly (for real this time), look at your statement:


"Perhaps a revolution will break out in 2070 rather than 2073. But we have little power over the broad sweep of history. Revolution will come when circumstances demonstrate to millions of people that it is in their self-interest to make revolution."

That statement itself sounds to me to have a quasi-religious tone about it. Have faith, brothers. "Next year, in Jerusalem!"

Might not communism be nothing more than a pie-in-the-sky secular religion, with its adherents looking forward to a paradise-on-earth that will never come?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
Might not communism be nothing more than a pie-in-the-sky secular religion, with its adherents looking forward to a paradise-on-earth that will never come?

If that were true, then you'd have nothing to worry about, right? :lol: You don't sit around and worry about things that can "never happen", do you?

And why shouldn't rational humans desire a "paradise on earth"...we're certainly not going to get one "after we die", are we? :lol:

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

[redstar2000]

Pentagon Details U.S. Abuse of Detainees (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/17/national/w001913D92.DTL)

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

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jun 16 2006, 07:05 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jun 16 2006, 07:05 PM)
Capitalist Lawyer
Might not communism be nothing more than a pie-in-the-sky secular religion, with its adherents looking forward to a paradise-on-earth that will never come?

If that were true, then you'd have nothing to worry about, right? :lol: You don't sit around and worry about things that can "never happen", do you?

And why shouldn't rational humans desire a "paradise on earth"...we're certainly not going to get one "after we die", are we? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
I really don't know and neither do you or anyone else.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:07 PM
Pentagon Details U.S. Abuse of Detainees (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/17/national/w001913D92.DTL)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
The problems that have arisen in this situation is not evidence that the invasion was a bad choice. It is evidence that it must be done better next time around.

[Comrade-Z]

You don't give the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War enough credit! As I recall the first American ground troops committed to the Vietnam War were dispatched in March of 1965. And the first sizeable (10,000 or more protestors) mass demonstrations began that summer.

Significant U.S. involvement began long before 1965.

And it's also worth pointing out that the war didn't become a contentious issue among a large portion of the population until about 1968 or so. Before that, the previous pro-U.S. imperialist consensus mostly held. 10,000 demonstators does not quite constitute a movement.


Also, I disagree with your "liberal democracies don't go to war with each other" theory.

No, I specifically said that I don't buy into that "democratic peace theory."

What I do think is that in the advanced capitalist countries, citizens are now mostly unwilling to make large sacrifices for the wars of their ruling classes and go to war against other advanced capitalist countries.


Labor unions there were far more powerful than in Britain or America. Yet, when push-came-to-shove, they dropped their working-class boni-fides in favor of nationalistic fervor and supported the "War to End All Wars".

Yes, it was a truly shameful defeat for the working class. It just highlighted the irrational, nationalistic thinking and deference to authority that still plagued the working classes of the time and gave those workers' movements a terrible inner ideological rot.

I do not think that the same amount of nationalism, willingness for sacrificing one's self for the ruling class, going along with a draft, etc. is present in today's advanced capitalist countries.


And tell me that, if Iraq hadn't gone better in 2003, the Bush administration wasn't prepared for covert war against France (a la its efforts agains the USSR during the Cold War). And (again, under the assumption that "Mission Accomplished" was for real in Iraq), the American people would have welcomed it.

Like I have said, I'm talking about a large, openly violent war between advanced capitalist countries that demands significant sacrifices and a draft. The ruling classes of the advanced capitalist countries can't do that anymore. And more and more, the working classes of each country are objecting to any kind of imperialist war whatsoever, no matter how easy or successful they are.


Ever since the neanderthal tribes stumbled upon each other while looking for better hunting grounds, and, say, one tribe offered some goats for another tribe's surplus animal skins you've had capitalism.

Umm, no. You have no idea what capitalism is. You have no idea what class society is.

Was there systematic exploitation and oppression of one group of individuals with a common relationship to the means of production (a class) by another group with a an opposing relationship to the means of production?

Were there groups of individuals which managed this systematic exploitation and oppression in the interest of the ruling class (the state)?

Those are basic pre-requisites for class society. Now on to capitalism:

Were there individuals who had no access to the means of production other than their own labor, and who had to trade this labor to a group of individuals which maintained a monopoly on the means of production?

Back in the times of the Neanderthals, the means of production was everywhere and more or less plentiful. It would have been impossible, for instance, for a group of individuals to monopolize the ability to obtain meat from wild boars. First, these individuals would have had to entrap and domesticate these wild boars. Then these individuals would have had to guard these entrapments (farm property) from others.

What are these "others" who don't control the wild boar entrapments going to do? The ruling class has gathered up all the wild boars from the wild (collectively monopolized the means of production among themselves). This ruling class begins to produce a surplus value. This makes this ruling class of individuals more productive than others. Because of their surplus value, some of them are able to devote more time to weapon-making, chariot-making, etc., and with their superior weapons they enslave the "others." This lower class of "others" tends to the animals, and the ruling class "pays" the lower class enough food and housing in order to reproduce their labor the next day and keep the profitable system going.

Thus, a division of labor would have emerged between those who tended to the animals (the slaves), those who guarded the animals (the military), and those who owned the animals and directed those who guarded the animals (the ruling class), and the special committee appointed by the ruling class to settle disputes concerning the animals (the state). But the ruling class always has the position of control and leverage in these dealings, and the "deals" that they make with the other classes always come out disproportionately in favor of the ruling class. Thus, from this division of labor would have emerged classes and economic stratification.

Feudalism would only emerge when the population increased in an area to a great enough extent that the land inputs into production became scarce and more decisive than human inputs into production. There were now enough humans, but increasingly not enough land. Thus, those who owned land and who could introduce the other non-human inputs of production to make land more productive (the rising feudal aristocracy) would be able to outmaneuver, extort, and overthrow those who owned humans (the slave-owning ruling class).

Capitalism would only emerge when:

*The non-human, non-land inputs of the production process became more important than the human and land inputs. Thus, those who owned the factories could overthrow those who owned land, serfs, and agricultural production (the feudal aristocracy) and establish the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
*The trade networks became integrated enough physically (with road networks and shipping), and legally (through uniform property laws and currencies--usually thanks to the absolutist monarch regimes) that trade could be conducted efficiently and would become more decisive than land-owning.

Capitalism is called "capitalism" for a reason--it implies the existence of fluid capital.

CapitalistLawyer, I think you are confusing the market distribution mechanism with the capitalist mode of production. The market distribution mechanism has existed for as long as class society has been around.


And, barring a peaceful level of cooperative trade, you have had wars over materials.

The example that you describe with the Neaderthals and the surplus animal skins would be an example of a proto-class society era, because of the simple fact that surplus value is emerging, and the group that has the surplus value is going to use its advantage in production to create other advantages for itself, such as more advanced transport, weapon-making, etc., which would, in time, give itself the capability of enslaving or otherwise controlling other groups.

In addition, if a group had managed to completely monopolize the production of animal skins in an area (through domestication), then the other groups would be shit-outta-luck unless they stole the animal skins of the ruling group or submitted to the ruling group. Hence, wars begin.


Nothing changed over the last 10 million years except for technology.

Umm, technology is a biggie. You can't just ignore it. Residents of Manhattan do not live in the same world or the same type of society as the ancient Native American residents of "Manahatta" lived.


Might not communism be nothing more than a pie-in-the-sky secular religion, with its adherents looking forward to a paradise-on-earth that will never come?

No, the materialist conception of history looks to be a valid way of looking at human society, and this model necessarily implies communist revolutions that overthrow capitalism when certain material conditions are met, such as the possiblity of superabundance of resources, a sophisticated proletariat, a crisis of overproduction and falling rate of profit in the capitalist system, etc. All these factors seem to be transpiring as time goes on. I have rather high confidence in the hypothesis of communist society, and relatively high confidence of it emerging in the advanced capitalist countries before my death, judging from falling rates of religiousity, ballooning debt, increasing productivity, etc.

I have come to this conclusion through a rational, scientific analysis of past and present human society. That's the difference between utopian and scientific socialism that Engels talked about.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 01:14 AM

It's already proven that depleted uranium has driven cancer rates up 1000% in Iraq and sharply in Yugoslavia as well.
Got a source for that number? And why should it be because of DU and nothing else?


'Gulf war syndrome' in Ameican vets is also well documented, it's happened to lots of former tank and artillery crews who used the shells.

I don't see any reason to correlate use of DU with Gulf War syndrome.

[Janus]

Depleted uranium is use in weapons as a kinetic penetrator due to it's weight and self-sharpening properties while traveling through armour, not because of the comparitively miniscule radioactivity it has - it's for busting armour, not poisoning the enemy (Of which there are much better ways of doing that)
Of course, they could use tungsten instead, but depleted uranium is cheaper. That's capitalism for you.

I see. I have only heard of the term dirty bomb applied to explosives covered in radioactive materials that a terrorist might use.


I don't see any reason to correlate use of DU with Gulf War syndrome.
No one's sure but that's what the military blamed it on.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by NoXion+Jun 17 2006, 07:37 PM--> (NoXion @ Jun 17 2006, 07:37 PM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 01:14 AM

It's already proven that depleted uranium has driven cancer rates up 1000% in Iraq and sharply in Yugoslavia as well.
Got a source for that number? And why should it be because of DU and nothing else?


'Gulf war syndrome' in Ameican vets is also well documented, it's happened to lots of former tank and artillery crews who used the shells.

I don't see any reason to correlate use of DU with Gulf War syndrome. [/b]
No, I don't have a source, that is I don't recall what the source was. I could look it up and get back to you.

There was a pattern to cancer rates rising - it all happened with people who were in contact with DU in Yugoslavia, Iraq, US tank and artillery crews. I talked to a former artillery crew officer who seemed to think it was true as his unit didn't use the shells but another that did suffered from gulf war syndrome.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Personal anecdotes aren't all that convincing you know. I could say my uncle's friend's brother fought in the first Gulf War, regularly handled DU shells and didn't suffer anything worse than a runny nose. Then it would be a case of one stranger's word on the internet against another's.

According to this WHO page (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/), the radioactivity of DU is negligable, however DU is a heavy metal and chemical poisoning will occur with enough exposure.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 11:30 PM
Personal anecdotes aren't all that convincing you know. I could say my uncle's friend's brother fought in the first Gulf War, regularly handled DU shells and didn't suffer anything worse than a runny nose. Then it would be a case of one stranger's word on the internet against another's.


Actually, interviewing a military officer for his experiences is called primary source evidence. I didn't hear it second or third hand as in your example, I was interviewing him for something I was writing.


According to this WHO page (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/), the radioactivity of DU is negligable, however DU is a heavy metal and chemical poisoning will occur with enough exposure.

So you're just arguing that it's not radioactive, just poisonious? Fair enough. I'm not so much interested in why it's dangerous but if it is indeed so.

[overlord]

No offence to comrade Redstar2000, but he is clearly overenthusiastic in his progaganda activities and not a scientist and nor are the journalists who compiled this story. The premise of the story is bunk. Consider some key points:


"The U.S. has used more DU since 1991 than
the atomicity equivalent of 400,000 Nagasaki
bombs."

This is not to say the USA did indeed detonate 400,000 such bombs. Consider the use of the word: "atomicity". We are clearly measuring 'amount of atoms' here.



"...a sub-commission of the UN Human Rights
Commission determined in 1996 that depleted
uranium is a weapon of mass destruction that
should not be used..."

We all know what a joke the imperialist tool of the UN is. These are not 'dirty bombs', comrades. The only reason Uranium is used is to make the shells heavy, giving them the striking penetrative force required to destroy enemy tanks. As such, Uranium is the heaviest stable substance.



"Described as the Trojan Horse of nuclear war,
depleted uranium is the weapon that keeps
killing. The half-life of Uranium-238 is 4.5 billion
years, the age of the earth.

OMG, it will take 4 billion years to break down! :o In other words, it is stable and relatively unreactive. Uranium is not dangerous to handle. Anyone can handle it without deleterious effects. Its the stuff with half lives of a few minutes you need to watch out for.


And, as Uranium-238
decays into daughter radioactive products, in four
steps before turning into lead, it continues to
release more radiation at each step. There is no
way to turn it off, and there is no way to clean it
up. It meets the US Government's own definition
of Weapons of Mass Destruction."


OMG, its gonna take 4 billion years to turn into something as deadly as LEAD! Shock Horror! Someone call CNN! Evacuate IRAQ!

[overlord]

No offence to comrade Redstar2000, but he is clearly overenthusiastic in his progaganda activities and not a scientist and nor are the journalists who compiled this story. The premise of the story is bunk. Consider some key points:


"The U.S. has used more DU since 1991 than
the atomicity equivalent of 400,000 Nagasaki
bombs."

This is not to say the USA did indeed detonate 400,000 such bombs. Consider the use of the word: "atomicity". We are clearly measuring 'amount of atoms' here.



"...a sub-commission of the UN Human Rights
Commission determined in 1996 that depleted
uranium is a weapon of mass destruction that
should not be used..."

We all know what a joke the imperialist tool of the UN is. These are not 'dirty bombs', comrades. The only reason Uranium is used is to make the shells heavy, giving them the striking penetrative force required to destroy enemy tanks. As such, Uranium is the heaviest stable substance.



"Described as the Trojan Horse of nuclear war,
depleted uranium is the weapon that keeps
killing. The half-life of Uranium-238 is 4.5 billion
years, the age of the earth.

OMG, it will take 4 billion years to break down! :o In other words, it is stable and relatively unreactive. Uranium is not dangerous to handle. Anyone can handle it without deleterious effects. Its the stuff with half lives of a few minutes you need to watch out for.


And, as Uranium-238
decays into daughter radioactive products, in four
steps before turning into lead, it continues to
release more radiation at each step. There is no
way to turn it off, and there is no way to clean it
up. It meets the US Government's own definition
of Weapons of Mass Destruction."


OMG, its gonna take 4 billion years to turn into something as deadly as LEAD! Shock Horror! Someone call CNN! Evacuate IRAQ!

[overlord]

No offence to comrade Redstar2000, but he is clearly overenthusiastic in his progaganda activities and not a scientist and nor are the journalists who compiled this story. The premise of the story is bunk. Consider some key points:


"The U.S. has used more DU since 1991 than
the atomicity equivalent of 400,000 Nagasaki
bombs."

This is not to say the USA did indeed detonate 400,000 such bombs. Consider the use of the word: "atomicity". We are clearly measuring 'amount of atoms' here.



"...a sub-commission of the UN Human Rights
Commission determined in 1996 that depleted
uranium is a weapon of mass destruction that
should not be used..."

We all know what a joke the imperialist tool of the UN is. These are not 'dirty bombs', comrades. The only reason Uranium is used is to make the shells heavy, giving them the striking penetrative force required to destroy enemy tanks. As such, Uranium is the heaviest stable substance.



"Described as the Trojan Horse of nuclear war,
depleted uranium is the weapon that keeps
killing. The half-life of Uranium-238 is 4.5 billion
years, the age of the earth.

OMG, it will take 4 billion years to break down! :o In other words, it is stable and relatively unreactive. Uranium is not dangerous to handle. Anyone can handle it without deleterious effects. Its the stuff with half lives of a few minutes you need to watch out for.


And, as Uranium-238
decays into daughter radioactive products, in four
steps before turning into lead, it continues to
release more radiation at each step. There is no
way to turn it off, and there is no way to clean it
up. It meets the US Government's own definition
of Weapons of Mass Destruction."


OMG, its gonna take 4 billion years to turn into something as deadly as LEAD! Shock Horror! Someone call CNN! Evacuate IRAQ!