Iraq & The Left

[ZX3]

What is the opinion of the political Left, in the mideast, to present USa policy there?

According to Amir Teheri, it is one of support:

1. The Iraqi Communist party is opposed to a USA pullout.

2. The Iraqi Social Democratic Party is opposed to a USA pullout.

3. In Iran, the Left wing parties there support present USA policy toward Iran.

4. Walid Jumblatt, long standing rabble rouser and red in Lebanon, completely supports USA action, as he is battling Hezbollah.

Why would European and american leftists oppose efforts to overthrow a tyrant in Iraq, block the growth and spread of an theocratic state?

What is it about a saddam Hussein or an Islamic theocrat which is preferable to an advanced industrial state?

[KC]

I support the Iraq Freedom Congress (http://www.ifcongress.com) and completely agree with their position which is outlined in their Manifesto.


Why would European and american leftists oppose efforts to overthrow a tyrant in Iraq, block the growth and spread of an theocratic state?

Sorry, but just because a country is ruled by a dictator doesn't justify the invasion of that sovereign country. There's dictatorships all over the place worldwide (many propped up by the CIA) and to invade all these countries just to topple dictatorships would be completely unrealistic.

In this case, the war wasn't started to depose Saddam. Prior to the invasion the Iraqi government was attempting to bargain with the US government. Some of their concessions included handing over someone that was on the FBI's initial 22 most wanted terrorists, and even having internationally monitored elections within two years. In the end Saddam even agreed to step down, but none of it was even considered by the US. Their policy towards these concessions was to not even listen to them.

The war was started to gain control of Iraqi oil, not so much for the profit as much as the political power it would give the US over its adversaries, most notably China which is going to require a lot of oil in the coming years as it develops. This way the US can keep countries like China in check and keep them from doing something that could cripple the US economy, like debt collection.

Also, I don't know what you mean by "block the growth and spread of an [sic] theocratic state". When Saddam was in power Iraq was secular, women had much more rights than they do now and quality of life was much better. If anything, Saddam was the one blocking the growth of a theocratic state - Iran.


What is it about a saddam Hussein or an Islamic theocrat which is preferable to an advanced industrial state?

Saddam isn't an Islamic theocrat by any means at all. Moreover, Saddam wasn't the one keeping Iraqi economy from developing; I would say that the bombing of Iraq (which specifically targeted necessary infrastructure such as sewage and water) and the subsequent invasion, followed by the strictest sanctions ever placed on a country in the history of the Earth (they weren't so much sanctions as much as they were a complete acquisition of Iraqi budget). Because of the bombing and the acquisition of the Iraqi national budget, Iraq wasn't able to rebuild its country since the US vetoed any attempt to issue enough funds. In fact, I believe it was UNICEF that released a report saying that 500,000 children died as a result of the "sanctions" to which Madeline Albright replied that it was a "necessary consequence". Because of the lack of funds, people were starving. Saddam implemented one of the most effective food distribution systems ever, one which was lauded by the UN. So I don't really see Saddam preventing "an advanced industrial state" in Iraq; it's always been the US that has done that.

[IcarusAngel]

Yeah, I was going to say that there exists a variance in both Iraq and Iran of socialist groups, some real some fake. The Manifesto of the Iraq Freedom Congress really sums up the position of the deomcratic leaders in Iraq quite nicely, so I won't say more.

"Throughout [the rule of Saddam Hussein] the Iraqi democratic opposition have been in exile... [T]hey're there, and they're perfectly respectable bankers in London, architects, quite articulate. They have always been excluded from the media. You can understand why. They have always been opposed to U.S. policy. In fact, their positions have always been pretty much those of the peace movement. Prior to August 1990 they were opposed to George Bush's support for Saddam Hussein. They were rebuffed by Washington. They refused to talk to them when they came here to request support for calls for parliamentary democracy in Iraq. They got cut out of hte media. From August through February, they were opposed to the buildup for war. They didn't want to see their country destroyed. They were calling for a political settlement, and even calling for withdrawal of troops from the region. You could read their reports in the German press, the British press, or in Z Magazine. But they were totally blanked out of the American press. I don't know if there was a word about them, in fact. If there was, I couldn't find it."

--Noam Chomsky, Chronicles of Dissent, page 388.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Urm all people cooperating with the New Iraqi government are going to be wanting the Americans to stay.

Its because once the USA leave, the 'green zone' will be just like the rest of Baghdad and the 'communist party of iraq' have been cooperating with the Americans and will be strung up just like the rest of the polticians.

And almost everyone on the left is against the war. how can we support imperialism? LOL

[KC]

Urm all people cooperating with the New Iraqi government are going to be wanting the Americans to stay.

The funny thing is that the US is starting to turn against the current Iraqi government. Because the government is Shi'ite, they are becoming close with the Iranians, and because of that the Iranians are gaining a lot more influence in the area. Recently it has been shown that the US is funding Sunni groups that have trained at al Qa'ida training camps in order to counter the growing power of Shi'ites. Basically, the US is playing these groups against each other in order to maintain power, but in the process they are inciting more war and violence between these groups. The US occupation is making the situation worse.


Its because once the USA leave, the 'green zone' will be just like the rest of Baghdad and the 'communist party of iraq' have been cooperating with the Americans and will be strung up just like the rest of the polticians.

What Communist Party of Iraq? The WCPI was a founding member of the IFC.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Sorry Zampano i was referring to the Iraqi communist party who cooperate, not the workers communist of Iraq.

I get confused about stuff like that from time to time.

[colonelguppy]

i wasn't aware iran had political parties. in any case, i would imagine that their political rivals are at odds with the US, so it's kind of a "enemy of your enemy" deal.

[TC]

The Iraqi Communist Party Cadre, Iraqi Communist Party General Command, Kurdish Workers Party, Workers Communist Party of Iraq, and Mujahideen al-Khalq (persian communist army in Iraq), Iraqi Patriotic Opposition (marxist group), all support armed resistance to US occupation.

The Iraqi Communist Party are the minority in the Iraqi Left to collaborate with the occupation, but even they opposed the invasion.

[RNK]

3. In Iran, the Left wing parties there support present USA policy toward Iran.

This is over-simplification. Iranian left-wing parties see Iran as a dictatorial theocracy and an imperialist power, and to this end work to destroy the Iranian government. This does not mean they "support the present US policy towards Iran". Please stop making gigantic assumptions.

[Mariam]

Saddam implemented one of the most effective food distribution systems ever, one which was lauded by the UN. So I don't really see Saddam preventing "an advanced industrial state" in Iraq; it's always been the US that has done that.

Agreed..and when a statment was made on the same topic ( the UN\US preventing the development of Iraq) before what can be called a minor-american-offical he said we've never had Saddam in our hands, never helped him, never tried or intended to harm the Iraqi people, we're not there for oil, and we are sorry because we don't have a future plan to end what is happining in Iraq.. "we just stumble into things"..however we felt it was our duty to kick his ass!! :!:
Saddam was simply an excuise, some people just can't understand!

[Mariam]

The Iraqi Communist Party are the minority in the Iraqi Left to collaborate with the occupation, but even they opposed the invasion.

And they are still hunted today by ba'thists, because of what seems to be an oxymoron attitude towards the foreing troops.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 03:06 pm
Why would European and american leftists oppose efforts to overthrow a tyrant in Iraq, block the growth and spread of an theocratic state?

What is it about a saddam Hussein or an Islamic theocrat which is preferable to an advanced industrial state?
To understand our point of view, consider the following situation from your point of view: The Soviet Union invades Iraq and deposes Saddam Hussein. Do you support the new Soviet authorities?

You are always stuck between a rock and a hard place when there is a war between two of your enemies. Do you support one of them? Do you stay neutral? Do you encourage or discourage the war?

From the leftist point of view, that is the situation in the Middle East right now. Two of our enemies (capitalism and islamism) are at war. It is only to be expected that the leftists in each country will oppose the enemy that is closer to home. Thus, western leftists will oppose the capitalist enemy more, while middle eastern leftists will oppose the islamist enemy more.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:30 pm
i wasn't aware iran had political parties. in any case, i would imagine that their political rivals are at odds with the US, so it's kind of a "enemy of your enemy" deal.
http://www.broadleft.org/ir.htm

http://www.broadleft.org/iq.htm

Some are recent.

"The basis of socialism is the human being… Socialism is the movement to
restore human being's conscious will."
-Mansoor Hekmat, some iranian socialist.

Your second sentence isn't exactly true, the US supports a lot of their "rivals" too, and especially in the past was alligned with policies and leaders they opposed.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

This is over-simplification. Iranian left-wing parties see Iran as a dictatorial theocracy and an imperialist power, and to this end work to destroy the Iranian government.


Huh?!

How can they view Iran as an "imperialist power" ?! :huh: