The Iraq War

[Fodman]

Don't get me wrong, I am against the Iraq War and imperialism, however I struggle to think of another way in which Saddam could have been removed...

I mean, many Iraqis were in favour of the invasion at first, as they wanted to see Saddam removed, but they seem to resent the troops being there now

There is just 2 questions I am struggling to find an answer for:

1. Was there any other way that Saddam could have been removed?

2. Is the coalition any better off economically in regard to the oil?




by the way: I am fully aware that the US installed Saddam as Iraq's Head of State in 1979, and was allied to him up until the Gulf War

[quirk]

1. Was there any other way that Saddam could have been removed?

By the Iraqi people.

[Fawkes]

I wouldn't have really had a problem with foreign intervention in Iraq if an uprising had already been started against Saddam's regime by the Iraqi people and the purpose of sending in foreign troops was just to aid in the rebellion. The people have to liberate themselves, you can't do it for them. Granted, there was some support in the beginning for U.S. troops in Iraq, but I don't think troops should have been sent in at all unless there was a huge uprising by the Iraqi people and they were in need of help. Of course, if that were the case, the U.S. would most likely not aid them because it wouldn't be up to them what the new form of government would look like.

[welshred]

In regard to the oil question Im not sure, but I would expect that they are. All that oil would make a big profit. And Im sure that bush wouldnt leave it there!

[The Grey Blur]

Only the Iraqi people had the right to remove Saddam. And the reason for the American intervention was Imperialism and protection of their own interests, not "Iraqi Freedom".


I wouldn't have really had a problem with foreign intervention in Iraq if an uprising had already been started against Saddam's regime by the Iraqi people and the purpose of sending in foreign troops was just to aid in the rebellion
:blink: No. We must oppose all miltary interventions by the capitalists. They will use them only to extend their influence and suppress radical movements, not to mention that the human and infrastructural damage that would result from an intervention. That's a pretty naive idea really, I'm surprised at you.

Anyway, an uprising did take place against Saddam during the Gulf War and guess what America did? Shook Saddam's bloody hand and bombed the rebels to death. Description from Libcom (http://libcom.org/history/1991-the-south-iraq-and-kurdistan-uprisings)

[KC]

I wouldn't have really had a problem with foreign intervention in Iraq if an uprising had already been started against Saddam's regime by the Iraqi people and the purpose of sending in foreign troops was just to aid in the rebellion.

So you're supporting a bourgeois infiltration of a legitimate mass resistance movement?


In regard to the oil question Im not sure, but I would expect that they are. All that oil would make a big profit. And Im sure that bush wouldnt leave it there!


No, the government certainly isn't any better off economically because of the oil. Granted, a lot of it has gone to non-Iraqi private firms, but the government doesn't see any of that money (aside from "bribes" by those companies). The primary purpose of the invasion and subsequent occupation was to gain control of oil as a political tool, not as a means of making money.

[Fodman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:26 pm

1. Was there any other way that Saddam could have been removed?

By the Iraqi people.
yes, but they had been trying to rise up against him for years, and were getting massacred as a result - they were suppressed easily. How were they supposed to do it by themselves?

plus, is it at all possible that Syria has the alleged WMDs (if they even exist)?

[Fawkes]

Permanent Revolution and Zampanò:


Originally posted by Myself
Of course, if that were the case, the U.S. would most likely not aid them because it wouldn't be up to them what the new form of government would look like.
I recognize that foreign intervention by a capitalist nation would most certainly only take place if the results would favor that said nation. What I was talking about was something more along the lines of what the International Brigades did during the Spanish Civil War. I know it would be naive to think that the U.S. would actually aid any uprising that would actually benefit the people of the rising nation in the end. I was defending foreign intervention in revolutions if they have already been started by the inhabitants of that area, not necessarily intervention by a bourgeois nation.

[Question everything]

Originally posted by The Weatherman+April 20, 2007 07:41 pm--> (The Weatherman @ April 20, 2007 07:41 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 12:26 pm

1. Was there any other way that Saddam could have been removed?

By the Iraqi people.
yes, but they had been trying to rise up against him for years, and were getting massacred as a result - they were suppressed easily. How were they supposed to do it by themselves?

plus, is it at all possible that Syria has the alleged WMDs (if they even exist)? [/b]
Not only have they been rising up for years, rather than "helping" them, the US has been giving Sadam the power (ie. Bombs, Air power, etc.) to put down the insurgency even after the 1st Gulf War.

[Fodman]

but do you think they could have overthrown the government without the US giving aid to Saddam? He would have just got his weapons elsewhere... Russia for example...

+ I also struggle to see how an immediate pull out of all the troops any time soon would stop the violence - I mean, its Iraqi versus Iraqi most of the time

[Fodman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 08:15 pm
I recognize that foreign intervention by a capitalist nation would most certainly only take place if the results would favor that said nation
what about peacekeeping forces? Such as the one that may be deployed to Darfur soon?

(it would technically be a UN force however)

[Question everything]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 20, 2007 08:41 pm
but do you think they could have overthrown the government without the US giving aid to Saddam? He would have just got his weapons elsewhere... Russia for example...

+ I also struggle to see how an immediate pull out of all the troops any time soon would stop the violence - I mean, its Iraqi versus Iraqi most of the time
Accually The US was the only one that could allow him to use his airforce, (due to recent invasion, and the follow santions the Iraqi Airforce was grounded until Stromin Norman Gave him his permission) and the only ones that tried to denie rebels access to weapons.

[The Grey Blur]

+ I also struggle to see how an immediate pull out of all the troops any time soon would stop the violence - I mean, its Iraqi versus Iraqi most of the time
No, I believe that's wrong - the US forces are the catalyst for the entire conflict. They need to be actively resisted by Iraqi comrades and the rest of us have to actively call for their withdrawal, that's the solution.


I was defending foreign intervention in revolutions if they have already been started by the inhabitants of that area, not necessarily intervention by a bourgeois nation.
Okay, sorry. I think you should have really phrased your first post better though.


but do you think they could have overthrown the government without the US giving aid to Saddam?
That's not the point. The point we were making is that the political situation of Iraq is the remit of the Iraqi people, foreign intervention which violates this right to self-determination should be opposed. Especially in this case where the cause of "freedom" is a complete lie to cover up the real goals of the Capitalist class and their political representatives.


what about peacekeeping forces?
This is something I've actually wondered about myself. Is the intervention of peace keeping forces to be supported or opposed? I've heard of some of the NATO misdeeds in the Bosnian conflict but also feel situations like Darfur need some sort of intervention...I don't really have a position on it right now...

[Fodman]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 20, 2007 09:07 pm

+ I also struggle to see how an immediate pull out of all the troops any time soon would stop the violence - I mean, its Iraqi versus Iraqi most of the time
No, I believe that's wrong - the US forces are the catalyst for the entire conflict. They need to be actively resisted by Iraqi comrades and the rest of us have to actively call for their withdrawal, that's the solution.


I was defending foreign intervention in revolutions if they have already been started by the inhabitants of that area, not necessarily intervention by a bourgeois nation.
Okay, sorry. I think you should have really phrased your first post better though.


but do you think they could have overthrown the government without the US giving aid to Saddam?
That's not the point. The point we were making is that the political situation of Iraq is the remit of the Iraqi people, foreign intervention which violates this right to self-determination should be opposed. Especially in this case where the cause of "freedom" is a complete lie to cover up the real goals of the Capitalist class and their political representatives.


what about peacekeeping forces?
This is something I've actually wondered about myself. Is the intervention of peace keeping forces to be supported or opposed? I've heard of some of the NATO misdeeds in the Bosnian conflict but also feel situations like Darfur need some sort of intervention...I don't really have a position on it right now...
I am fully aware that the reason why there is such a conflict between Sunnis and Shia in Iraq is because of the divide and rule policy of the coalition, but this conflict will still exist if and when the troops leave - won't it?

I fully support peacekeeping forces that are there to prevent genocide, i.e. Darfur, Rwanda, even the gassing of the Kurds


Yes, the Iraqi people would most definitely have been the best people to overthrow Saddam and rule the country afterwards, much like the American Revolution - Spanish and French forces contributed to the rebels, however they did not actively fight the British in it.
Is that what should have been done in Iraq then? - Fund and arm the rebels, but do not actually invade with any foreign forces?
I thought nationality did not matter from a lefist perspective - so why should their struggle be singled down just to them?

Would you have supported the British and/or French governments in 1936 if they had helped the Spanish government in the Civil War?

[Spike]

By the Iraqi people.
With the help of the CIA, no less. It is through internal subversion how imperialism in the latter half of the 20th century has installed subservient regimes. The Iraqi "people" (read: coup) had as much of a right to overthrow the Baathists as the Romanian "people" did in overthrewing the Communists.

I fully support peacekeeping forces that are there to prevent genocide, i.e. Darfur
To support the deployment of "peacekeepers" in Darfur is to cheerlead imperialism. Characterizing the civil war in Darfur as genocide is slanderous. The Sudanese people are trying to protect themselves from imperialist intrigues through the CIA first in Southern Sudan by that monster Garang and now in Darfur. The "peacekeepers" already in Darfur engage in slaughter as well:
Darfur Rebels Slaughter and Rape Aid Workers (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-darfur13mar13,1,7968094.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&ctrack=1&cset=true)
African Union Peacekeepers Raping Refugees in Sudan (http://www.channel4.com/more4/news/news-opinion-feature.jsp?id=211)

[yns_mr]

i think Iraqi people were much happier during Saddam reign than they are now. Because they used to have necessary facilities such as water, drainage, electric supply. But none of them is available now and Saddam would execute much less Iraqi people than USA is doing now.

And during Saddam reign, there were no conflict between groups like sunni, kurd

[Devrim]

And during Saddam reign, there were no conflict between groups like sunni, kurd


Originally posted by Wiki
During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, the regime implemented anti-Kurdish policies and a de facto civil war broke out. Iraq was widely-condemned by the international community, but was never seriously punished for oppressive measures such as the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians, the wholesale destruction of thousands of villages and the deportation of thousands of Kurds to southern and central Iraq. The campaign of Iraqi government against Kurds in 1988 was called Anfal ("Spoils of War"). The Anfal attacks led to destruction of two thousand villages and death of between fifty and one-hundred thousand Kurds.

Devrim

[KC]

I am fully aware that the reason why there is such a conflict between Sunnis and Shia in Iraq is because of the divide and rule policy of the coalition, but this conflict will still exist if and when the troops leave - won't it?

Not nearly on the level we're seeing now.


i think Iraqi people were much happier during Saddam reign than they are now. Because they used to have necessary facilities such as water, drainage, electric supply. But none of them is available now and Saddam would execute much less Iraqi people than USA is doing now.

There was a poll recently in which the majority of Iraqi people said they'd rather live under Saddam than in the current conditions. Unfortunately I can't find it online, but I'm sure someone else has a link to it.

Devrim: While what you have posted is true, I think that it would be more beneficial to put your statement into a better context. During the Iran-Iraq war, Kurdish rebels were helping the Iranians fight against Saddams forces from within the country. The Iraqi government responded with the Anfal campaign against the Kurds.

I guess my point is that the Anfal campaign was based on legitimate tactics (i.e. the capturing and/or killing of Kurdish rebels), however to what extent was legitimate and to what extent it was ethnic cleansing of the Kurds is what I'm unsure about, as I haven't really studied the campaign as a whole outside of the Halabja gas attack.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Zampanò+April 24, 2007 07:34 pm--> (Zampanò @ April 24, 2007 07:34 pm) Devrim: While what you have posted is true, I think that it would be more beneficial to put your statement into a better context. During the Iran-Iraq war, Kurdish rebels were helping the Iranians fight against Saddams forces from within the country. The Iraqi government responded with the Anfal campaign against the Kurds.

I guess my point is that the Anfal campaign was based on legitimate tactics (i.e. the capturing and/or killing of Kurdish rebels), however to what extent was legitimate and to what extent it was ethnic cleansing of the Kurds is what I'm unsure about, as I haven't really studied the campaign as a whole outside of the Halabja gas attack. [/b]
I posted it because what was claimed was untrue.


Originally posted by Zampanò@
I guess my point is that the Anfal campaign was based on legitimate tactics


Wiki
The Anfal attacks led to destruction of two thousand villages and death of between fifty and one-hundred thousand Kurds.

If that is what you call legitimate, I would be shocked by what you could call illegitimate.

Devrim

[KC]

If that is what you call legitimate, I would be shocked by what you could call illegitimate.

I was afraid that you'd misinterpret what I said, and since I wrote it rather ambiguously, I'm not surprised that you did. What I meant was that the Anfal campaign had a legitimate tactical base in the sense that a suppressing of the Kurdish rebels would have been a legitimate tactical action; however, the extent to which it was a legitimate campaign against the Kurdish rebels and the extent to which it was Kurdish ethnic cleansing is what I was unsure about, as I haven't studied the Anfal campaign aside from what hapened at Halabja.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Zampanò
What I meant was that the Anfal campaign had a legitimate tactical base in the sense that a suppressing of the Kurdish rebels would have been a legitimate tactical action

I am not sure what you are even saying here. Are you suggesting that mass murder of civilians is acceptable if it is part of a 'legitimate' campaign against rebels? Although I presume that there must be some misundertanding, that is how I read your point.

Devrim

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 20, 2007 11:41 am
2. Is the coalition any better off economically in regard to the oil?
The point was never to steal Iraqi oil to benefit American economy. The Americans still buy oil from Iraq, just like they did while Saddam was in power, and just like they would do if Osama Bin Laden was in power.

The point was to control the flow of oil as part of a grander economic geostrategic plan. Why? the answe is simple, China is rising, and within two or so decades, it will be the worlds leading economic force, and any American with a brain, which is the only type who can actually be in charge of any power for any amount of time (Bush isnt really in control of anything himself) knows this. They are niave enough to think that invading Iraq to control the oilflow of the Persian Gulf will stop, or even hinder this inevitability.

China needs oil to industrialize to the level it needs for superpower status, and the US knows this, and so does the UK, which is hitching along for one last imperial ride. They are foolish in thinking that this would do anything to stop China from overtaking them economically. All they hyave done is:

1-kill alot of people
2-de-stabilized the region, and hindered their oilflow
3-drive global support far away from the US
4-waste a tonne of their money on this project
5-create a situation they cant back out of, and;
6-make it a good decade for owners of military weapons corporations


Good fucking job, New American Century my ass. The American Empire will be extremely lucky to make it to 2020, and I, for one, wish them absolutely no luck.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 20, 2007 08:41 pm
but do you think they could have overthrown the government without the US giving aid to Saddam? He would have just got his weapons elsewhere... Russia for example...

+ I also struggle to see how an immediate pull out of all the troops any time soon would stop the violence - I mean, its Iraqi versus Iraqi most of the time
never ever. ever doubt the power of the people.

[KC]

Are you suggesting that mass murder of civilians is acceptable if it is part of a 'legitimate' campaign against rebels?

No, I am saying that a campaign against the Kurdish rebels is a legitimate tactic for the Iraqi government to take and that the extent to which the Anfal campaign was a campaign against Kurdish rebels and the extent to which it was Kurdish ethnic cleansing is what I was uncertain about.

[Fodman]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+April 25, 2007 07:57 am--> (R_P_A_S @ April 25, 2007 07:57 am)
The [email protected] 20, 2007 08:41 pm
but do you think they could have overthrown the government without the US giving aid to Saddam? He would have just got his weapons elsewhere... Russia for example...

+ I also struggle to see how an immediate pull out of all the troops any time soon would stop the violence - I mean, its Iraqi versus Iraqi most of the time
never ever. ever doubt the power of the people. [/b]
sorry, but when a regime is in power that the vast majority of the people detest, and they haven't managed to overthrow it within the near-quarter of a century of its ongoing power, then this make me doubt the power of the people in this sense.

yes, the Iraqi rebels were restricted from arms from outside forces, but what about the people who have lived in dictatorships for decades in other parts of the world? The lack of overthrowing of these regimes shows that some peoples can not do it by themselves - I thought we were supposed to be united, undistinguished by nationality?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:44 am
i think Iraqi people were much happier during Saddam reign than they are now.
yea because under Saddam, when a kid didn't show up to school, his classmates thought he was sick, not like know, where they presume he's been fucking blown up

[Question everything]

Originally posted by The Weatherman+April 29, 2007 06:39 pm--> (The Weatherman @ April 29, 2007 06:39 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:57 am

The [email protected] 20, 2007 08:41 pm
but do you think they could have overthrown the government without the US giving aid to Saddam? He would have just got his weapons elsewhere... Russia for example...

+ I also struggle to see how an immediate pull out of all the troops any time soon would stop the violence - I mean, its Iraqi versus Iraqi most of the time
never ever. ever doubt the power of the people.
sorry, but when a regime is in power that the vast majority of the people detest, and they haven't managed to overthrow it within the near-quarter of a century of its ongoing power, then this make me doubt the power of the people in this sense.

yes, the Iraqi rebels were restricted from arms from outside forces, but what about the people who have lived in dictatorships for decades in other parts of the world? The lack of overthrowing of these regimes shows that some peoples can not do it by themselves - I thought we were supposed to be united, undistinguished by nationality? [/b]
poorly armed, disorganized and fighting against attack helicopters... there are revolutions and there are small uprisings. this was a small uprising crushed under the patronage of the most powerful nation in the world.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+April 29, 2007 01:48 pm--> (LeftyHenry @ April 29, 2007 01:48 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2007 08:44 am
i think Iraqi people were much happier during Saddam reign than they are now.
yea because under Saddam, when a kid didn't show up to school, his classmates thought he was sick, not like know, where they presume he's been fucking blown up [/b]
If they even go. Now, well in 2006, 30% of Iraqi children went to school. Before the war, school attendance was nearly 100%.

[Fodman]

Originally posted by Question everything+April 29, 2007 06:57 pm--> (Question everything @ April 29, 2007 06:57 pm)
Originally posted by The [email protected] 29, 2007 06:39 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:57 am

The [email protected] 20, 2007 08:41 pm
but do you think they could have overthrown the government without the US giving aid to Saddam? He would have just got his weapons elsewhere... Russia for example...

+ I also struggle to see how an immediate pull out of all the troops any time soon would stop the violence - I mean, its Iraqi versus Iraqi most of the time
never ever. ever doubt the power of the people.
sorry, but when a regime is in power that the vast majority of the people detest, and they haven't managed to overthrow it within the near-quarter of a century of its ongoing power, then this make me doubt the power of the people in this sense.

yes, the Iraqi rebels were restricted from arms from outside forces, but what about the people who have lived in dictatorships for decades in other parts of the world? The lack of overthrowing of these regimes shows that some peoples can not do it by themselves - I thought we were supposed to be united, undistinguished by nationality?
poorly armed, disorganized and fighting against attack helicopters... there are revolutions and there are small uprisings. this was a small uprising crushed under the patronage of the most powerful nation in the world. [/b]
but how do you make small uprisings into one revolution?

small uprisings are insignificant if they do not change anything

[RedKnight]

What I do not understand is where were all of these insurgents when Saddam Hussein was in power. We have all of these armed groupscommiting acts of violence against the coalition forces. Why then did they not rise up against the previous ruler?

[Question everything]

Originally posted by The Weatherman+April 29, 2007 07:45 pm--> (The Weatherman @ April 29, 2007 07:45 pm)
Originally posted by Question [email protected] 29, 2007 06:57 pm

Originally posted by The [email protected] 29, 2007 06:39 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:57 am

The [email protected] 20, 2007 08:41 pm
but do you think they could have overthrown the government without the US giving aid to Saddam? He would have just got his weapons elsewhere... Russia for example...

+ I also struggle to see how an immediate pull out of all the troops any time soon would stop the violence - I mean, its Iraqi versus Iraqi most of the time
never ever. ever doubt the power of the people.
sorry, but when a regime is in power that the vast majority of the people detest, and they haven't managed to overthrow it within the near-quarter of a century of its ongoing power, then this make me doubt the power of the people in this sense.

yes, the Iraqi rebels were restricted from arms from outside forces, but what about the people who have lived in dictatorships for decades in other parts of the world? The lack of overthrowing of these regimes shows that some peoples can not do it by themselves - I thought we were supposed to be united, undistinguished by nationality?
poorly armed, disorganized and fighting against attack helicopters... there are revolutions and there are small uprisings. this was a small uprising crushed under the patronage of the most powerful nation in the world.
but how do you make small uprisings into one revolution?

small uprisings are insignificant if they do not change anything [/b]
Mass following, Seizure of police armories, A hope in Hell...

[Fodman]

do you view the USSR's helping of other nations to fight imperialism in a good light? - that is a form of aid in my view - if the US was really trying to promote freedom in the world (at least, what they see as freedom), then shouldn't they be doing what the USSR had done, rather than involving itself in direct conflicts around the world?

[Question everything]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 30, 2007 07:30 pm
do you view the USSR's helping of other nations to fight imperialism in a good light? - that is a form of aid in my view - if the US was really trying to promote freedom in the world (at least, what they see as freedom), then shouldn't they be doing what the USSR had done, rather than involving itself in direct conflicts around the world?
... USSR didn't fight Imperialism any more than the US (although the US always had the Upperhand and was much more aggressive), If they do not involve themselves directly Liberal (if not "communist") gouvernments will ussually result, it is much better for them to denounce the leader of the country as evil, invade the country (after of course paying the military industrial complex a huge bonus), seize the resourses, celebrate their victory over the evil leader, then install an ironfisted dictator who protects the status-quo...

[Blitz]

Originally posted by The Weatherman+April 29, 2007 06:39 pm--> (The Weatherman @ April 29, 2007 06:39 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:57 am

The [email protected] 20, 2007 08:41 pm
but do you think they could have overthrown the government without the US giving aid to Saddam? He would have just got his weapons elsewhere... Russia for example...

+ I also struggle to see how an immediate pull out of all the troops any time soon would stop the violence - I mean, its Iraqi versus Iraqi most of the time
never ever. ever doubt the power of the people.
sorry, but when a regime is in power that the vast majority of the people detest, and they haven't managed to overthrow it within the near-quarter of a century of its ongoing power, then this make me doubt the power of the people in this sense.

yes, the Iraqi rebels were restricted from arms from outside forces, but what about the people who have lived in dictatorships for decades in other parts of the world? The lack of overthrowing of these regimes shows that some peoples can not do it by themselves - I thought we were supposed to be united, undistinguished by nationality? [/b]
when a hegemon overthrows a regime, it does it for its own reasons...not for the people of that country...iraqi's were better under saddam then they are now...

the iranians were able to overthrow the US-installed shah...

[Question everything]

Originally posted by Blitz+May 02, 2007 08:45 pm--> (Blitz @ May 02, 2007 08:45 pm)
Originally posted by The [email protected] 29, 2007 06:39 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:57 am

The Weatherma[email protected] 20, 2007 08:41 pm
but do you think they could have overthrown the government without the US giving aid to Saddam? He would have just got his weapons elsewhere... Russia for example...

+ I also struggle to see how an immediate pull out of all the troops any time soon would stop the violence - I mean, its Iraqi versus Iraqi most of the time
never ever. ever doubt the power of the people.
sorry, but when a regime is in power that the vast majority of the people detest, and they haven't managed to overthrow it within the near-quarter of a century of its ongoing power, then this make me doubt the power of the people in this sense.

yes, the Iraqi rebels were restricted from arms from outside forces, but what about the people who have lived in dictatorships for decades in other parts of the world? The lack of overthrowing of these regimes shows that some peoples can not do it by themselves - I thought we were supposed to be united, undistinguished by nationality?
when a hegemon overthrows a regime, it does it for its own reasons...not for the people of that country...iraqi's were better under saddam then they are now...

the iranians were able to overthrow the US-installed shah... [/b]
He was refering to the armed uprising that resulted from the first gulf war, although the US created conditions that lead to the situation it didn't support the uprising.