Is Iran a threat?

[graffic]

Is Iran really a threat?

According to the CIA;

“Iran continues to use its civilian nuclear energy program to justify its efforts to establish domestically or otherwise acquire the entire nuclear fuel cycle. Iran claims that this fuel cycle would be used to produce fuel for nuclear power reactors, such as the 1,000-megawatt light-water reactor that Russia is continuing to build at the southern port city of Bushehr. However, Iran does not need to produce its own fuel for this reactor because Russia has pledged to provide the fuel throughout the operating lifetime of the reactor and is negotiating with Iran to take back the irradiated spent fuel.”

I believe Iran is a threat, however I don't think the US should interfere on this one.

What are peoples views on this?

[Revolution Until Victory]

I think that Iran is defenatly a threat. No question about it.

Iran is a threat to US, Western imperilaism, and thus, to capitalism.

Iran fights for weaking US imperilaism and thus paving the way for socialist revolutions in the area.

Iran is the allie of all progressive forces, leftists, anti-imperilaists, and communists.

Iran is a threat to your ilk.

[Whitten]

Iran doesn't have the power to be a serious military threat. Even if hypotheticly Iran were aiming to produce nuclear weapons, even by American estimates it would take months to produce enough purified fuel for one bomb. This is assuming it actually works, that they somehow overcome the fact that they have no long-range delivery system and ignoring the fact that they could far more easily pick up one of the hundreds of ex-soviet bombs now floating around on the black market.

[Guerrilla22]

Iran is not a threat to anyone or anything, except for maybe U efforts to dominate the Middle East. The level alarmism in the US government and being espoused by commentators in the mass media is completely absurd. Yesterday, I saw John Hagee, head of the Christian Zionist movement on CNN, warning us all of that Iran is a "threat to Western Society." Co,pletely absurd.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Revolution Until [email protected] 17, 2007 04:52 pm
I think that Iran is defenatly a threat. No question about it.

Iran is a threat to US, Western imperilaism, and thus, to capitalism.

Iran fights for weaking US imperilaism and thus paving the way for socialist revolutions in the area.


well i hope somewhere along the line they abolish the compulsory wearing of burkhas for women and their disgusting bigotry against gays.

:rolleyes:

until then, theyre no comrades of ours.

[graffic]

This confirms the suspicions that RUV is in fact a nutcase.

[bezdomni]

Iran should have nukes.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:18 pm
This confirms the suspicions that RUV is in fact a nutcase.
i dont think hes a nutcase, just that he buys heavilly into the 'an enemy of our enemy is our friend' syndrome.

[Revolution Until Victory]

well i hope somewhere along the line they abolish the compulsory wearing of burkhas for women and their disgusting bigotry against gays.



until then, theyre no comrades of ours.

Ulster, how many times do I have to say this allience is only TEMPRORARY???

it doesn't mean we agree with them on everything, nor does it mean we share or accept or their positions.

It simply means we, as anti-imperilaist communists, will allie ourselves with different anti-imperialist forces who are helping us reach our goals.

I won't care about Iran if it wasn't anti-imperialsit or if it finished its job.

This is merely a tactical move.

Repeating the same line of the imperialists will make you join their ranks. No such thing as I'm opposed to both sides. This is not "neutral". this means you are with the agressor against the victims.


until then, theyre no comrades of ours.

fine, but I want to make sure you realize they actually don't give a shit about us communists?? do you realize this? they don't need us. They don't need the weak communist movment worldwide. It is us, the communists, that need them.


i dont think hes a nutcase, just that he buys heavilly into the 'an enemy of our enemy is our friend' syndrome.

actually, I buy heavely into the common sense and logic syndrome. I realize that a tactial, temproray allience with a force that shares a specifc goal with us but got an overall different ideology is positive. I also buy into the fact that the "neutral" crap doesn't work. You are either with the imperilasit or against him. In additoin, I heavely buy into the fact that imperialists are our no.1 enemy and we should ALWAYS oppose them. I also realize that such attitudes as those of Ulster is what weaking communist presence and movment worlwide. The closer the communists are to the imperialists, the weaker and less popular they are. The farthest away and the most hateful towards imperilaism, the more popular and powerful they become. The perfect, garanteed recepie to loose power and support: Join the imperialists.

Mao:


We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports.

[hajduk]

the story about Iran is the same story about Iraq
Bush & CO. whant to secure that oil will flow safely trough those states,so in that manner they will do anuthing which is needed to,to provide that

[RGacky3]

Yeah, but how about this, is the US a threat??? Yup, and a much much bigger one.

[Jazzratt]

I'm more scared of the police in my own country than I am of Iran.

[ComradeR]

Iran is only a threat to US imperial interests in the region.
You know when I hear statements about how Iran is a threat from other US workers that old saying comes to mind "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me", of course it unfortunately would be more accurate if it were "fool me once shame on you, fool me a hundred times shame on me".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Revolution Until Victory
Ulster, how many times do I have to say this allience is only TEMPRORARY???

it doesn't mean we agree with them on everything, nor does it mean we share or accept or their positions.

It simply means we, as anti-imperilaist communists, will allie ourselves with different anti-imperialist forces who are helping us reach our goals.

I won't care about Iran if it wasn't anti-imperialsit or if it finished its job.

This is merely a tactical move.

Repeating the same line of the imperialists will make you join their ranks. No such thing as I'm opposed to both sides. This is not "neutral". this means you are with the agressor against the victims.


Is it really that difficult to simply oppose both the imperialists and the Iranian ruling class?

Supporting a theocratic state, no matter how conditional that support is, leaves a bad taste in my mouth.


fine, but I want to make sure you realize they actually don't give a shit about us communists?? do you realize this? they don't need us. They don't need the weak communist movment worldwide. It is us, the communists, that need them.

Fuck that! We don't "need" reactionaries of any stripe! If they don't give a shit about us, then what the hell is the point of cheerleading them?


actually, I buy heavely into the common sense and logic syndrome. I realize that a tactial, temproray allience with a force that shares a specifc goal with us but got an overall different ideology is positive. I also buy into the fact that the "neutral" crap doesn't work. You are either with the imperilasit or against him. In additoin, I heavely buy into the fact that imperialists are our no.1 enemy and we should ALWAYS oppose them. I also realize that such attitudes as those of Ulster is what weaking communist presence and movment worlwide. The closer the communists are to the imperialists, the weaker and less popular they are. The farthest away and the most hateful towards imperilaism, the more popular and powerful they become. The perfect, garanteed recepie to loose power and support: Join the imperialists.

If winning the battles means losing the class war, count me out.

So, what does one actually do in support of Iran? Does one simply cheerlead for them? or does one give them some kind of material aid? It does not matter what we say or don't say, Iran is going to do it's own thing without any kind of input from communists or leftists of any kind. They have their own agenda, seperate from ours.

The ends do not justify using any means no matter what.

[graffic]

I think its more to do with the fact that Iran aids Palestinians, not because of anti-Imperialism more to do with the fact the leader is a religous nutcase who calls the Holocaust a myth..

"Israel is about to crash. This is God's promise and the wish of all the world's nations."

He also claims there are no Homosexuals in Iran whatsoever.

Why not give him your support!

[RNK]

Only reactionaries would try and force people to choose between two war-mongering, oppressive dictatorships.

Like everyone's said, I'm more afraid of my own country than I am of Iran. And I'm more afraid of Israel than I am of Palestine, so fuck off and get hit by a rocket.

[Revolution Until Victory]

Is it really that difficult to simply oppose both the imperialists and the Iranian ruling class?

It is impossible to oppose both the imperialist powerful agressor, and the weaker, anti-imperialist vicitm. You will not end up "neutral". You will end up on the side of the imperialists. And that's why Mao said:


We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports.


Supporting a theocratic state, no matter how conditional that support is, leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

lol, who said it leaves a "good taste" in my mouth or the mouth of any communist??
I didn't say this is the best that could happen. No, this is a measue that should be taken due to difficutl situations. There isn't much choice.


Fuck that! We don't "need" reactionaries of any stripe!

ok, we strive for a workers revolution. Imperialism must be eradict before this revolution could take place. Who is more powerful, and thus, got a higher chance of weaking imperialism in this region? Could you name me any pro-working class or socialist state/movment who can?? I can't think of any. In other words, our only hope of weaking imperilaism, and thus paving the way for a socialist revolution, which is our goal, is the most powerful anti-imperialist force in the region. What is this force?? IRAN. So we do acutally "need" this force to help us reach our goals. As I said many times before, this allieance is only temproray and will end when we get what we want from them. It doesn't mean we support and agree with all their positions.

Nothing is wrong with temproray allience to defeat the imperilaists, wether it is between third world peoples/governments or classes within the same country.

Mao:


When imperialism launches a war of aggression against such a country, all its various classes, except for some traitors, can temporarily unite in a national war against imperialism. At such a time, the contradiction between imperialism and the country concerned becomes the principal contradiction, while all the contradictions among the various classes within the country (including what was the principal contradiction, between the feudal system and the great masses of the people) are temporarily relegated to a secondary and subordinate position.

the contradiction between the anti-imperialists (which means the allience of the communists, as an anti imperialist force, with the thirld world, as an anti-imperilaist force and as victims of imperiliasm) and the imperialists is the major contradiciton during an imperialist aggression.


If they don't give a shit about us

what I meant by this is that they are powerful enought that they don't need the communist movment around the world.

We need them coz they will help us, wether they give a shit about us or not.


If winning the battles means losing the class war, count me out.

what?? who said the class war will be lost?? This whole allience is to win the class war, by first wining the anti-imperialist one.


So, what does one actually do in support of Iran? Does one simply cheerlead for them?

1. The communists worldwide should clearly declare thier positoin in support of Iran.

2. Militarly, buy targeting US interests around the world or attacking US bases around the world that will be used to launch attacks against Iran. Just like what the Palestinian PFLP did during the Vietnam war when it bombed US warships in its way to bomb Vietnam, in support of the Vietcong and the people of Vietnam.


It does not matter what we say or don't say, Iran is going to do it's own thing without any kind of input from communists or leftists of any kind.

It does matter a lot what is our position. As I said, the best way to loose support is to join the imperialists.


The ends do not justify using any means no matter what.

I'm not saying we should use "any means". I'm only saying a temproray, tactical allience with an anti-imperialist force, which due to lack of choice, we have to join to defeat the imperialists and pave the way for the workers emancipation.

[Great Helmsman]

The third world 'bourgeoisie' have typically been more revolutionary and anti-imperialist than most oppressor nation leftists. There's no such thing as taking a neutral stance on imperialism, support it (tacitly or otherwise), or actively oppose it. That's what divides opportunists and communists.

[graffic]

Depends what sort of revolution you want..

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Revolution Until Victory+--> (Revolution Until Victory)It is impossible to oppose both the imperialist powerful agressor, and the weaker, anti-imperialist vicitm. You will not end up "neutral". You will end up on the side of the imperialists.[/b]

False dichotomy. I despise the imperialists, as I despise the ruling class of Iran. You can't make me choose either one.


And that's why Mao said:


We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports

Don't make appeals to authorities, especially those whose revolutions and ideologies completely and utterly failed.

The ruling class opposes Nazi organisations, that's why they send agents provocateurs into them to get them into trouble. By Mao's logic, we should support Nazi groups because they are opposed by the ruling class.

By the same logic, we should be against free education, as the ruling class supports it by instituting it. Yet I have seen very few, if any, leftists that oppose free education and support Nazi groups.

Mao's "logic" is completely fallacious - it is the ultimate in hasty generalisation.


lol, who said it leaves a "good taste" in my mouth or the mouth of any communist??
I didn't say this is the best that could happen. No, this is a measue that should be taken due to difficutl situations. There isn't much choice.

There is another way, that is to not see this as a black-and-white issue and to oppose both. Politics isn't a football game, where there are only two sides and you can only support one or the other.


ok, we strive for a workers revolution. Imperialism must be eradict before this revolution could take place. Who is more powerful, and thus, got a higher chance of weaking imperialism in this region? Could you name me any pro-working class or socialist state/movment who can?? I can't think of any. In other words, our only hope of weaking imperilaism, and thus paving the way for a socialist revolution, which is our goal, is the most powerful anti-imperialist force in the region. What is this force?? IRAN. So we do acutally "need" this force to help us reach our goals. As I said many times before, this allieance is only temproray and will end when we get what we want from them. It doesn't mean we support and agree with all their positions.

Nothing is wrong with temproray allience to defeat the imperilaists, wether it is between third world peoples/governments or classes within the same country.

It's not an "alliance" it's cheerleading for a ruling class that in all likelyhood doesn't know of your support and would kill you if they had the chance.

One can of course hope that the imperialist aggressor will lose, but if wishes were fishes we'd all have an aquarium. Unfortunately, in the real world wishes hopes and dreams do diddly squat.


Mao:

More appeals to a worthless authority. Get your nose out of Mao's dead arse and try doing your own thinking for a change.


what I meant by this is that they are powerful enought that they don't need the communist movment around the world.

We need them coz they will help us, wether they give a shit about us or not.

No they won't. If an old imperialist power is suffeciently weakened, other powers are perfectly willing and able to take the crown. Nature abhors a vacuum, and politics is no different. If the US were to fall today, others would take it's place. The only way the working class of the world is to be free is if all imperialists and potential imperialists (IE the ruling class) are destroyed.


what?? who said the class war will be lost?? This whole allience is to win the class war, by first wining the anti-imperialist one.

Replacing imperialists with the local ruling class is not winning the class war, is simply a change of bosses. Bossa nova, similis bossa seneca.


1. The communists worldwide should clearly declare thier positoin in support of Iran.

No. Communists worldwide should declare their opposition to imperialism, and their support for the Iranian working class. Supporting the Iranian ruling class should be the last thing on any sensible communist's mind, second only to supporting imperialism itself.


2. Militarly, buy targeting US interests around the world or attacking US bases around the world that will be used to launch attacks against Iran. Just like what the Palestinian PFLP did during the Vietnam war when it bombed US warships in its way to bomb Vietnam, in support of the Vietcong and the people of Vietnam.

But why attack the US in support of Iran? Why not just do it for our own ends?


It does matter a lot what is our position. As I said, the best way to loose support is to join the imperialists.

And to support homophobic, sexist, reactionary theocracies like the Iranian government.


I'm not saying we should use "any means". I'm only saying a temproray, tactical allience with an anti-imperialist force, which due to lack of choice, we have to join to defeat the imperialists and pave the way for the workers emancipation.

As I have said, opposing US imperialism does not mean supporting Iran and vice versa.


Electronic Light
The third world 'bourgeoisie' have typically been more revolutionary and anti-imperialist than most oppressor nation leftists.

Oh sure, because genocide and oppression (which have been committed by third world ruling classes as well as first world) are so revolutionary :rolleyes: This kind of logic leads to support of fuckwit tinpot dictators like Mugabe, simply because they use anti-imperialist rhetoric but without employing any kind of revolutionary substance.


There's no such thing as taking a neutral stance on imperialism, support it (tacitly or otherwise), or actively oppose it.

I don't believe that anyone here is claiming a neutral stance on imperialism.


That's what divides opportunists and communists.

And what is more opportunistic than entering into an insubstantial "temporary, tactical alliance" with a reactionary ruling class that just happens to have attracted the ire of the world's number one imperialist?

[graffic]

Its no different from the anti-communist appeasement of Hitler.

[Revolution Until Victory]

False dichotomy. I despise the imperialists, as I despise the ruling class of Iran. You can't make me choose either one.

I'm not "making you choose" between anyone. You are just saying you despise both the imperilaists and the anti-imperialists? the agressor and the victim?


Don't make appeals to authorities, especially those whose revolutions and ideologies completely and utterly failed.

this is a different issue and shouldn't be discussed here, but no reason to look at who said, just the meaning of it and the logic behind it.


The ruling class opposes Nazi organisations, that's why they send agents provocateurs into them to get them into trouble. By Mao's logic, we should support Nazi groups because they are opposed by the ruling class.

no this isn't Mao's logic. Here you are speaking in the context of class struggle in one country. Our enemies are the ruling class, but so are all other anti-working class orgnizations, including the Nazi ones. In other words, those Nazi orgnizations are classified as our enemies that we should oppose whatever they support and support whatever they oppose.


By the same logic, we should be against free education, as the ruling class supports it by instituting it. Yet I have seen very few, if any, leftists that oppose free education and support Nazi groups.

not at all. By that logic, we should be against the idea that free education and such measures are enough, and press for the real solution of the workers revolt and abolition of exploitation and private ownership.


It's not an "alliance" it's cheerleading for a ruling class that in all likelyhood doesn't know of your support and would kill you if they had the chance.

it is a temproray alliance. We need to help them, both in position and militarly, to ensure the weakning of imperialism and thus the defeat of the local exploiters.
Wether or not they would kill us if they had a chance is a different issue, but no one denied there is a struggle between the ruing class and the opressed anyways.


More appeals to a worthless authority. Get your nose out of Mao's dead arse and try doing your own thinking for a change.

way to completely ignore the idea and the logic behind the quote.


No they won't. If an old imperialist power is suffeciently weakened, other powers are perfectly willing and able to take the crown. Nature abhors a vacuum, and politics is no different. If the US were to fall today, others would take it's place. The only way the working class of the world is to be free is if all imperialists and potential imperialists (IE the ruling class) are destroyed.

no, the defeat of the imperilaists by the iranian ruling-class will pave the way for the revolutoin, and the workers would now have to struggle against this ruling-class, not the imperialists anymore (the issue of them being "potential" imperialists is another thing).


The only way the working class of the world is to be free is if all imperialists and potential imperialists (IE the ruling class) are destroyed.

exactly, first, we should defeat the imperalists, with the help of the only able power, and then defeat the ruling-class. I agree with you.


Replacing imperialists with the local ruling class is not winning the class war, is simply a change of bosses. Bossa nova, similis bossa seneca.

lol, you are talking as if my goal was to defeat the imperilaist exploiters and replace them with another one!!!

no, the defeat of the imperialists isn't the end, rather, a mean to the end. The end is the defeat of the local ruling-class, that will happen after the defeat of the forgien imperialists, ironicly, on the hands of the local ruling-class.


No. Communists worldwide should declare their opposition to imperialism, and their support for the Iranian working class.

that would be the case if the Iranian workers were the only targeted group. But this isn't the case. Both the working AND the ruling class of Iran are the targetes of imperilaist aggressions. That's why communists should declare their support of the vicitims of imperilaism.


Supporting the Iranian ruling class should be the last thing on any sensible communist's mind, second only to supporting imperialism itself.

supporing the Iranian ruling-class, which is anti-imperilaist, is the vicitm of imperilaist agression, and its anti-imperialist actions will pave the way for the workers emancipation, is what every sensible communist should do.


But why attack the US in support of Iran? Why not just do it for our own ends?

we can do it for our own ends. But doing it in support of the victim of imperilaism, who got a higher chance of defeating imperilaism, will be more efficent.


And to support homophobic, sexist, reactionary theocracies like the Iranian government.

that's non-sense. We declare our tactical, temproray alliance with them while not supporing all thier positions.

[Comrade Rage]

Iran's nuclear research is peaceful and permitted under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He as allowed inspection of his facilities.
Mohamed ElBaredei, head of the IAEA says it's peaceful.
George W. Bush 'President of the US' says it isn't.

Who would you believe? :lol:

Post Script: The US has yet to sign the NPT, has surpassed it's limits, and is the only country to have detonated a nuclear weapon. The US has also militarily struck other nations over 22 times since WWII.

Who's the threat? The imperialists!!

[Comrade Rage]

I also want to add that Iran is an ally of leftists, especially Hugo Chavez. If the US were to attack Iran, it would put Venezuela in a sticky situation, as Chavez would be treaty-bound to respond in-kind.


Originally posted by graffic
According to the CIA;
Of course, they'd never lie!!!!!
:rolleyes: :lol: :rolleyes: :lol: :rolleyes: :lol:

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 08:52 pm
I think its more to do with the fact that Iran aids Palestinians, not because of anti-Imperialism more to do with the fact the leader is a religous nutcase who calls the Holocaust a myth..

"Israel is about to crash. This is God's promise and the wish of all the world's nations."

He also claims there are no Homosexuals in Iran whatsoever.

Why not give him your support!
I love how you make a statement about a human rights issue and clarify the supposed ideology by saying that it has to do with holocaust denial.

How the fuck do you get one from the other? What the hell is wrong with you?

"I support opposition to genocide in Darfur"

"Oh yeah? Well you must have loved the bombing of Hiroshima."

[Great Helmsman]

Oh sure, because genocide and oppression (which have been committed by third world ruling classes as well as first world) are so revolutionary This kind of logic leads to support of fuckwit tinpot dictators like Mugabe, simply because they use anti-imperialist rhetoric but without employing any kind of revolutionary substance.

I said typically, not in all circumstances. Mugabe and the people of Zimbabwe have done 100x more in the service of anti-imperialism than any westerner in the last two decades. Your willingness to write off all national liberation and nationalist struggles is indicative of your deep-seated western chauvinism.


I don't believe that anyone here is claiming a neutral stance on imperialism.
I could have sworn...



And what is more opportunistic than entering into an insubstantial "temporary, tactical alliance" with a reactionary ruling class that just happens to have attracted the ire of the world's number one imperialist?
Jumping on the neoconservative 'stop Islamofascism' bandwagon. But we wouldn't want to offend your sensibilities, now would we?

[graffic]

Dean: I was pointing out that Irans anti-American stance is a religous fundamentalist one, nothing to do with Imperialism more to do with reactionary religous darkness.

I repeat - you are no different to the anti-communist appeasers with Hitler.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:53 pm
Dean: I was pointing out that Irans anti-American stance is a religous fundamentalist one, nothing to do with Imperialism more to do with reactionary religous darkness.

I repeat - you are no different to the anti-communist appeasers with Hitler.
Why? I don't support Iran on more than a few points; it has been going down a bad path for along time.

And why the fuck do you have to make everything a racist issue? Can't you lay off your anti-arabism and Jewish Nationalism? It is disgusting, racist, and hypocritical, but mostly unwanted and barbaric.

[Handala]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 08:52 pm
I think its more to do with the fact that Iran aids Palestinians, not because of anti-Imperialism more to do with the fact the leader is a religous nutcase who calls the Holocaust a myth..

"Israel is about to crash. This is God's promise and the wish of all the world's nations."

He also claims there are no Homosexuals in Iran whatsoever.

Why not give him your support!
Iran aids Palestinian! Are you serious? what aid are you talking about? sending out some bullets and some decimals AK-47 or hunderds of M16?
What about USA that support Israel with F16 and all kinds of warcrafts, from tanks aircraft and heavy guns?
You can't apply those critiques on Iran and forget about USA - So this is not a threat to us or anyone else. only a threat to the USA and its state (Israel) and of course capitalism.
--
Even if he denies the Holocaust?! who gives a damn! Jews are pro-Imperlism. and pro-USA, so who really gives a damn!
--
About homosexuals - They are ruling with a religion, so what do you expect? So how is it a threat, or are you scared that if you get there you can't find a mate to have an affair with?
--

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:59 am

--
Even if he denies the Holocaust?! who gives a damn! Jews are pro-Imperlism. and pro-USA, so who really gives a damn!

--
jews arent, zionists are. Be careful.

[graffic]

Why can't you understand that democracy is a necessary condition for social advance. All leftists should support and have solidarity with the democratic forces and liberals in Iran, it doesnt matter that Iran is anti-US Imperialism - that Iran is anti-Imperialist is a positive thing, it doesnt however mean leftists should actively support and share goals with the Iranian government.

Democracy is the voice of the people and represents the people therefore supporting regimes which are facist and dictatorship in whatever name is opposing the workers and people. Supporting Iran is siding with the Iranian government not the people. The "temporary siding" is illogical. The worst thing about leftists who "support" Iran is the bad name it gives to the Left and the loss of support and delusion among what should be fellow comrades.

Handala, what about the Russian Neo-Nazis who oppose US Imperialism? Why don't you give them your support aswell? Do you not give a damn that they also denie the Holocaust? Do you not give a damn that they want Homosexuals killed?

This new oppurtunist and academic collapse - "temporary siding with reactionary religous facists" is baseless and requires minimal intelligence to support. The only legitimate prominent leftist who is part of this new phenomenon is George Galloway who - whilst reading the other threads, is virtually condemned by all leftists on this forum "he has isolated himself from the broad left" - "Galloway is a right wing hoard in leftist colours". Leftists should unite with each other not religous reactionarys.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Handala+October 23, 2007 04:59 am--> (Handala @ October 23, 2007 04:59 am)
[email protected] 20, 2007 08:52 pm
I think its more to do with the fact that Iran aids Palestinians, not because of anti-Imperialism more to do with the fact the leader is a religous nutcase who calls the Holocaust a myth..

"Israel is about to crash. This is God's promise and the wish of all the world's nations."

He also claims there are no Homosexuals in Iran whatsoever.

Why not give him your support!
Iran aids Palestinian! Are you serious? what aid are you talking about? sending out some bullets and some decimals AK-47 or hunderds of M16?
What about USA that support Israel with F16 and all kinds of warcrafts, from tanks aircraft and heavy guns?
You can't apply those critiques on Iran and forget about USA - So this is not a threat to us or anyone else. only a threat to the USA and its state (Israel) and of course capitalism.
--
Even if he denies the Holocaust?! who gives a damn! Jews are pro-Imperlism. and pro-USA, so who really gives a damn! [/b]
Are you really racist? I think you need to think long and hard about that one. And for the record, I don't deny the Holocaust (I don't know about the Iranian gov't though - I'm not sure which you were referring to) and I think it is terrible to belittle such an atrocious part of history.


About homosexuals - They are ruling with a religion, so what do you expect? So how is it a threat, or are you scared that if you get there you can't find a mate to have an affair with?
Religion doesn't justify homophobia.

I do like your avatar, by the way.

[graffic]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 21, 2007 05:07 pm
I also want to add that Iran is an ally of leftists, especially Hugo Chavez. If the US were to attack Iran, it would put Venezuela in a sticky situation, as Chavez would be treaty-bound to respond in-kind.
Who gives a fuck about Chavez? Chavez doesnt deserve any leftists support.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm not "making you choose" between anyone. You are just saying you despise both the imperilaists and the anti-imperialists? the agressor and the victim?

No, the big bully and the little bully. I support the working class, not the ruling class of any nation. By declaring your support for Iran you are supporting the Iranian ruling class, as the working class in Iran is not in control.


this is a different issue and shouldn't be discussed here, but no reason to look at who said, just the meaning of it and the logic behind it.

Maybe you have reading difficulties:


Originally posted by Mao the Failure
We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports

Notice the bolding I added. Notice the complete lack of qualification in that statement. Now see if you can notice what makes that statement a pile of tripe.


no this isn't Mao's logic. Here you are speaking in the context of class struggle in one country. Our enemies are the ruling class, but so are all other anti-working class orgnizations, including the Nazi ones. In other words, those Nazi orgnizations are classified as our enemies that we should oppose whatever they support and support whatever they oppose.

Your remarks only serve to illustrate the flaws in Mao's reasoning - the "enemy" is not a monolithic mass with one vision and goal, and Mao speaks as if they were so when in fact, as illustrated by my Nazi example and your subsequent correction, they are not.


not at all. By that logic, we should be against the idea that free education and such measures are enough, and press for the real solution of the workers revolt and abolition of exploitation and private ownership.

And just how does support of the Iranian ruling class help that realisation come to pass?


it is a temproray alliance.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. "Alliance" indicates that some kind of dialogue exists between you and the Iranian ruling class. Tell me, what kind of input do they get from you and people like you?

I believe the word you are looking for is "support". In this case, moral support IE vacuous cheerleading. Cheerleading for a brutal, sexist, homophobic, theocratic ruling class. But that's okay, they're having harsh words thrown at them* by a more powerful ruling class.

(*have you even taken into account what action the US has taken against Iran? They aren't exactly carpet bombing Tehran.)


We need to help them, both in position and militarly, to ensure the weakning of imperialism and thus the defeat of the local exploiters.

And what kind of "help" can Mao-quoting ideologues such as yourself provide? And if US influence in the area is weakened, that only serves to leave room to grow for Iranian influence.


Wether or not they would kill us if they had a chance is a different issue, but no one denied there is a struggle between the ruing class and the opressed anyways.

In that case, why aren't you supporting the Iranian working class?


way to completely ignore the idea and the logic behind the quote.

So you agree with Mao. I already knew that. I have pointed out why your support for the Iranian ruling class is not compatible with furthering class strugle.

Here's a hint: A boss is still a boss whether he was born in the same country as the native population or not!


no, the defeat of the imperilaists by the iranian ruling-class will pave the way for the revolutoin,

What makes you think that?


and the workers would now have to struggle against this ruling-class, not the imperialists anymore (the issue of them being "potential" imperialists is another thing).

So in the end, the Iranian ruling class has to go. So why support it in the first place? They serve only as an obstacle to working class liberation.


exactly, first, we should defeat the imperalists, with the help of the only able power, and then defeat the ruling-class. I agree with you.

"We" will not be doing anything of the sort - the various ruling classes will struggle amongst themselves, while people like you will be cheering for the underdog.


lol, you are talking as if my goal was to defeat the imperilaist exploiters and replace them with another one!!!

That is what your support of the Iranian ruling class entails.


no, the defeat of the imperialists isn't the end, rather, a mean to the end. The end is the defeat of the local ruling-class, that will happen after the defeat of the forgien imperialists, ironicly, on the hands of the local ruling-class.

What makes you so sure? Judging by Iraq, the imperialists aren't exactly the best ruling class when it comes to occupying foreign countries. I'm sure the Iranian government has a much tighter grip over Iran than the puppet government has over Iraq.

And of course, their is the baseless assumption that the local ruling class will fall after defeating the imperialists. They could just as easily use it as a propoganda coup to consolidate their power.


that would be the case if the Iranian workers were the only targeted group. But this isn't the case. Both the working AND the ruling class of Iran are the targetes of imperilaist aggressions. That's why communists should declare their support of the vicitims of imperilaism.

Why should we give a damn about the Iranian ruling class? They would be perfectly willing to throw working class lives into the fire in the pursuit of their goals.

And who is affected most of all by sanctions and bombings? Certainly not the ruling class with their supply stockpiles and fortified bunkers. I think you will find that the working class bears the brunt of both imperialist aggression and the whims of the local ruling class.


supporing the Iranian ruling-class, which is anti-imperilaist, is the vicitm of imperilaist agression, and its anti-imperialist actions will pave the way for the workers emancipation, is what every sensible communist should do.

Supporting the Iranian ruling class does not necessarily mean that working class liberation will automatically follow.


that's non-sense. We declare our tactical, temproray alliance with them while not supporing all thier positions.

In other words, you cheerlead for small bullies instead of simply opposing all bullies.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by graffic+October 23, 2007 05:34 pm--> (graffic @ October 23, 2007 05:34 pm)
COMRADE [email protected] 21, 2007 05:07 pm
I also want to add that Iran is an ally of leftists, especially Hugo Chavez. If the US were to attack Iran, it would put Venezuela in a sticky situation, as Chavez would be treaty-bound to respond in-kind.
Who gives a fuck about Chavez? Chavez doesnt deserve any leftists support.[/b]
Ah I see, care to give us a reason?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:34 pm

Who gives a fuck about Chavez? Chavez doesnt deserve any leftists support.
any iota of doubt i had that you are a right winger just flew out the window.

[Revolution Until Victory]

No, the big bully and the little bully

which means you suport the imperialist against the victim of imperilaism. You can't just call them big and little bullies. There is a major difference here. I would call them the big/little bully if both were imperilaists, but that isn't the case.


support the working class, not the ruling class of any nation.

Ture, but when the ruling class of a specific nation will be the sole force that is able to defeat imeperilaism and thus benifet the working class of that nation and other nations, then we got to support it.


By declaring your support for Iran you are supporting the Iranian ruling class, as the working class in Iran is not in control.

And you think I don't realize this??

Unfortuanly, the workers are not in control. They will get in control after thier local enemies in class struggle ( the national bourgeosie) defeat the imperilaists the pave the way for thier own distruction.


Notice the bolding I added. Notice the complete lack of qualification in that statement. Now see if you can notice what makes that statement a pile of tripe.

Doesn't change anything.


And just how does support of the Iranian ruling class help that realisation come to pass?

how many times do I have to repeat this in one post?

the ruling class, since they are the most powerful anti-imperilasit force in the region, will destroy or weaken imperilaism in the region which will pave the way for the workers to revolt, in the region and other places.


Tell me, what kind of input do they get from you and people like you?

what do you mean by "you" and "people like you"?


I believe the word you are looking for is "support".

temproray support, temproray alliance, call it whatever you like


In this case, moral support IE vacuous cheerleading.

I already said aside form moral and political support, there is a military one.


Cheerleading for a brutal, sexist, homophobic, theocratic ruling class.

a tactial, not stratigic, allieance ( or support) with a ruling class that will benifet us by defeating imperialism, doesn't necessarly mean we agree on all the positions of this class.


But that's okay, they're having harsh words thrown at them* by a more powerful ruling class.

1. You have been mistakenly attempting to equate both and cliaming the only difference beteween them is power. This isn't the case. The US ruling class is imperilaist; the Iranian one is anti-imperilasit big differnce (and plz don't start this "potential impeiralist" stuff. That's a differnent issue). Those are not 2 imperialists fighting each others. This an imperilaist aggression against the anti-imperilasit victim.

2. The support isn't for "harsh words", but coz they will benifet the working class whom they currently opress.


(*have you even taken into account what action the US has taken against Iran? They aren't exactly carpet bombing Tehran.)

of course, all of this is assuming Iran will get attacked by the imperilaists.


And what kind of "help" can Mao-quoting ideologues such as yourself provide?

This isn't a personal issue. Besides, you know nothing about me, so look for another one. And even if it was a personal issue, I wouldn't tell you what I will do on a public forum on the internet available for everyone to see.


And if US influence in the area is weakened, that only serves to leave room to grow for Iranian influence.

You mean Iranian bourgeosie class influence in the context of class struggle in Iran or you mean Iranian expansionist influence in the region?


In that case, why aren't you supporting the Iranian working class?

The position I hold is pro-working class. Just coz we should take advantage of the ruling-class before crushing them doesn't mean we are anti-working class.


So you agree with Mao. I already knew that.

So??


Here's a hint: A boss is still a boss whether he was born in the same country as the native population or not!

exaclty, that's why I didn't say our goal should be to have the native bosses rule. My position is that we should let the local bosses defeat the forgien imperialist ones, so that we could finally defeat the local ones. I never said we should defeat the imperialists and that's it. Defeating the imperialists (which got the higher chance of happning by the Iranian state) is not the end, it is merely the begning; the "begning" of class struggle and the proletarian revolution to change the social order inside Iran and other regions.


What makes you think that?

becasue by then the most powerful exploiters, the imperilaists, have been defeated and the working-class could concentrate on the local explioters.


So in the end, the Iranian ruling class has to go. So why support it in the first place? They serve only as an obstacle to working class liberation.

in a normal situation, no need to support the ruling class whom your goal is to destroy. In the case of imperilaist aggression, the ruling class should be supported since it is capable of defeating the imperilaists. During a war of liberation from imperilaism, the anti-imperialist ruling-class are a tool that the workers pave the way with for thier liberation, not the other way around.


"We" will not be doing anything of the sort - the various ruling classes will struggle amongst themselves, while people like you will be cheering for the underdog.

no, the imperialsit ruling class and the local, anti-imperilasit ruling class will fight amongest themselves, while people like me will support the anti-imeprialist (surpirse!)


That is what your support of the Iranian ruling class entails.

no it doesn't


Supporting the Iranian ruling class does not necessarily mean that working class liberation will automatically follow

of cousre, I never claimed anything other than that.


In other words, you cheerlead for small bullies instead of simply opposing all bullies.

no, I support the anti-imperialist victim against the imperialist agression.

[SocialistMilitant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 04:45 pm
Is Iran really a threat?

According to the CIA;

“Iran continues to use its civilian nuclear energy program to justify its efforts to establish domestically or otherwise acquire the entire nuclear fuel cycle. Iran claims that this fuel cycle would be used to produce fuel for nuclear power reactors, such as the 1,000-megawatt light-water reactor that Russia is continuing to build at the southern port city of Bushehr. However, Iran does not need to produce its own fuel for this reactor because Russia has pledged to provide the fuel throughout the operating lifetime of the reactor and is negotiating with Iran to take back the irradiated spent fuel.”

I believe Iran is a threat, however I don't think the US should interfere on this one.

What are peoples views on this?
Chomsky writes:


Today, the standard claim is that Iran has no need for nuclear power, so it must pursuing a secret weapons program: "For an oil producer such as Iran, nuclear energy is a wasteful use of resources," Henry Kissinger explains. When the shah was in charge, Kissinger, as secretary of state, held that "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserved for export or conversion to petrochemicals." Asked about his reversal, Kissinger responded with his usual engaging frankness: "They were an allied country" before 1979, so therefore they had a genuine need for nuclear energy."

Excerpt from "Failed States" by Noam Chomsky

Folks, that's pretty much an American politician's logic in a nutshell.

[graffic]

the ruling class, since they are the most powerful anti-imperilasit force in the region, will destroy or weaken imperilaism in the region which will pave the way for the workers to revolt, in the region and other places.

How the fuck do you work that out?

Supporting the Iranian ruling class is as bad as supporting US Imperialism.


This isn't a personal issue. Besides, you know nothing about me, so look for another one. And even if it was a personal issue, I wouldn't tell you what I will do on a public forum on the internet available for everyone to see.

Its obvious why you support Iran, because Iran is your best ally at the moment against Israel. All this bullshit about anti - Imperialism is a mask for your personal and selfish ambitions.

I wouldnt be surprised if you were not leftist at all. Your still the only leftist on this forum who denys Hamas are anti-semitic. You play down holocaust denial and defend Holocaust deniers, you support a religous backwards medieval theocracy and you believe all Israeli civilians are military targets. You don't give a fuck about social progression, you just want the Israelis driven into the sea as fast and as efficiently as possible.