How many of you support the insurgency?

[Labor Shall Rule]

The corporate media has successfully lambasted the Iraqi insurgency as a homogeneous grouping of foreign 'Al-Qaeda' operatives who have deliberately targeted civilians. Vice President Dick Cheney himself, a few years ago, mentioned how the "insurgency was in its final throes," and that it was only "a few trouble-makers" that "are not popular whatsoever."

However, 92% of Sunnis, 62% of Shiites and 15% of Kurds have supported attacks on Coalition forces. The myth that they are 'terrorists' is unwarranted, considering that only 16% of all attacks were directed against domestic Iraqi forces, and 10% on civilians. These are all legitimate figures presented by the Department of Defense. There are multiple political tendencies within the insurgency also -- but Al-Qaeda in Iraq represents only 1% of the resistance.

If this is truly a 'war for oil' (as many on both the 'right' and 'left' now believe), then do the Iraqis have a right to resist a foreign occupation?

[Dean]

If this is truly a 'war for oil' (as many on both the 'right' and 'left' now believe),
I don't care what it is, besides the fact that it is an occupation.


then do the Iraqis have a right to resist a foreign occupation?
You're goddamn right they do, and I fully support their anti-coalition force violence. This is self defence. When you see videos of marine shitheads driving through baghdad errantly firing their guns at houses, and IEDS being dug up by comissioned local labor, it makes the whole situation clear. I have little sympathy for those who die after fighting for the U.S., primarily because of the good example that Israeli Refuseniks set, among others.

Don't get me wrong. I have friends in Iraq, U.S. soldiers. But it's a goddamn war, this isn't some tiptoe political issue. You need to take sides if you care about it at all, and it's pretty clear who is right and who is wrong.

[Red Economist]

the insurgency is the struggle for national independence- but at the expense of democracy (Bourgeosise of course...).

in other words- I can't really say if I'm for or against.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

As you correctly pointed out, there is no such thing as a single homogenous group called "the insurgency" - rather there are many different groups fighting the occupation for many different reasons. I only support such groups if they are progressive.

[Lenin II]

If this is truly a 'war for oil' (as many on both the 'right' and 'left' now believe), then do the Iraqis have a right to resist a foreign occupation?
Are you kidding me? If anyone on this board denies that the working class does not have a right to defend itself against the murderous beasts of imperialist lords seeking their blood, they should immediately and unquestionably be restricted, nay, BANNED for life.

the insurgency is the struggle for national independence- but at the expense of democracy (Bourgeosise of course...).
in other words- I can't really say if I'm for or against.

I only support such groups if they are progressive.
Firstly, if the democracy is bourgeoisie then it is not democracy, but a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Therefore, why should you care if it goes away? I say the sooner that phony democracy is swept away the better! Secondly, how can you say that fighting imperialism is not progressive?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Firstly, if the democracy is bourgeoisie then it is not democracy, but a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Therefore, why should you care if it goes away? I say the sooner that phony democracy is swept away the better!
That depends on what exactly replaces it. An Islamic theocracy, for example, is far worse - and far more reactionary - than a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.


Secondly, how can you say that fighting imperialism is not progressive?
One may fight imperialism because one opposes exploitation, or one may fight imperialism because one doesn't like the current imperialists and wishes to take their place. The former is progressive, the latter is not. The Iranian government is an example of a reactionary anti-imperialist force: their only objection to imperialism is that someone else is doing it, and they'd like to be able to do it themselves.

Why should we support wannabe imperialists against currently existing imperialists?

[Lenin II]

That depends on what exactly replaces it. An Islamic theocracy, for example, is far worse - and far more reactionary - than a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Technically yes, but that's not the point.

One may fight imperialism because one opposes exploitation, or one may fight imperialism because one doesn't like the current imperialists and wishes to take their place. The former is progressive, the latter is not. Nations like Iran, Zimbabwe, Palestine, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and North Korea are at the moment are inspiring hundreds of millions around the planet while the so-called revolutionary movement is cringing and repeating and amplifying every bit of chauvinist crusader propaganda spewing out of Washington and Tel Aviv. To inspire people into a more realistic view of the world through anti-colonialism is almost always progressive.



The Iranian government is an example of a reactionary anti-imperialist force: their only objection to imperialism is that someone else is doing it, and they'd like to be able to do it themselves.Iran has shown no imperialist tendencies. Its campaign in Iraq is not the same as imperialism, since the U.S., as an imperialist power, occupied that nation for years. As I've said in several threads, one cannot occupy and occupier.

Why should we support wannabe imperialists against currently existing imperialists?For the very reason that one is established and powerful and the other is not. Logically, materialistically, the established and powerful one is much more of a threat than an up-and-coming power which may not even fully bloom into a power.

[Joby]

Are you kidding me? If anyone on this board denies that the working class does not have a right to defend itself against the murderous beasts of imperialist lords seeking their blood, they should immediately and unquestionably be restricted, nay, BANNED for life.

Do you feel the same way about the mujahideen who fought the invading Soviets, in Afghanistan?

Or were the Soviets liebrators? :rolleyes:


Firstly, if the democracy is bourgeoisie then it is not democracy, but a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Therefore, why should you care if it goes away?

Fake democracy is much better than fascism.

[Winter]

Ya know, if someone invaded the U.S. all these militias would gather up and defend themselves. How are Iraqis any different? I feel bad for the Iraqi people and I also feel bad for the U.S. soldiers who think they're actually fighting and dying for some kind of greater good.

We in the U.S. are loaded up with so much bourgeois propaganda that the views of the majority become skewed and erred in a terrible way. I mean, their's still people out there who think Iraq had a part in 9/11! Unbelievable.

I'm not letting the citizens who believe this go without blame though, they do have to take responsibility for their own ignorance, but for the most part, it's propaganda and indoctrination.

Anyway, I'm way off topic from the original question, but yea, I support any nation's people defending themselves against capitalist invaders seeking more resources for there crook friends. But yet I probably wouldn't support what they want to establish themselves, chances are it has nothing to do with socialism.

[RedDawn]

So going off the comparison that if the US was invaded...

Its one thing if militias rise up and try to reinstate the constitution. That's a return to bourgeosie democracy and Lenin supports the freedom of oppressed nations. I would still give critical support and I would still agitate for socialism, hopefully forming a united front.

But its a whole 'nother thing if a bunch of Christian fundies and racists start their own militias. Fuck them, I'll shoot them and the occupying force.

[Nakidana]

Do you feel the same way about the mujahideen who fought the invading Soviets, in Afghanistan?

Or were the Soviets liebrators? :rolleyes:

No, the Soviet troops weren't liberators, but if the CIA hadn't fucking aided the Islamists in the civil war, the situation might never have reached the point where the USSR decided to move in.

On topic: Yeah, I support the resistance.

[Lenin II]

Its one thing if militias rise up and try to reinstate the constitution. That's a return to bourgeosie democracy and Lenin supports the freedom of oppressed nations. I would still give critical support and I would still agitate for socialism, hopefully forming a united front.
But its a whole 'nother thing if a bunch of Christian fundies and racists start their own militias. Fuck them, I'll shoot them and the occupying force.
Well, that is not an option. To suggest so is anti-materialist. And how do you know the insurgency are a bunch of "fundies," as you put it? And yes, Lenin did respect the freedom of oppressed nations. This is because Lenin knew the importance of the fight against imperialism, which has been lost on much of the left, who insist on weakening the fighting capacity of the working class by suggesting imaginary “solutions”, which, within the imperialist crisis reality, are an impossibility and a dangerous trap as much recent history has demonstrated.

[RedDawn]

Well, that is not an option. To suggest so is anti-materialist. And how do you know the insurgency are a bunch of "fundies," as you put it? And yes, Lenin did respect the freedom of oppressed nations. This is because Lenin knew the importance of the fight against imperialism, which has been lost on much of the left, who insist on weakening the fighting capacity of the working class by suggesting imaginary “solutions”, which, within the imperialist crisis reality, are an impossibility and a dangerous trap as much recent history has demonstrated.

Once again, there is no insurgency as a whole. There are many different groups/factions. You don't just drop all revolutionary pretensions.

Don't forget that Lenin called for an end to "revolutionary defensism" vs. Germany. Or that he supported Kerensky kicking out the Duma, but also was against Kerensky taking power. Forgetting these things is what makes a real revisionist.

[Luís Henrique]

There isn't such thing as "The Resistance". It's a Bushite fantasy and anything more than that.

Luís Henrique

[Nakidana]

There isn't such thing as "The Resistance". It's a Bushite fantasy and anything more than that.

Luís Henrique

What planet are you living on? In case you haven't noticed, foreign troops are dying every day in Iraq. That's all friendly fire is it? :D

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

of The bulk of the insurgency is comprised of Iraqi nationalists, former Baathists, etc. While I can't stand those Titoites(the Baathists), I support them in principle because they are under a brutal foreign occupation. I am disappointed with the Communists for sucking up to the occupiers instead of trying to convert the Baathists away from their old Titoite ways.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Regardless of whether an Islamic theocracy is set up when the Americans leave (Which seems likely now that the more religious Sunnis have more or less ethnicly cleansed the Shias), what is important is for the occupation to end ASAP and for the Iraqis to take control of their own country. The idea being that in the absence of imperialism, proletarian/working class interests are more likely to be addressed.

Although, of course, a secular dictatorship would be preferable to an Iranian-style theocracy, self-determination of the Iraqi nation is necessary for either of those things to come to pass.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

It's the Shiites who are more numerous and religious, they want a Shiite theocracy. The only theocrats technically on the Sunni side are the Al Qaeda types, which are a minority and also at odds with the Sunni nationalists.

[Juche96]

Do you feel the same way about the mujahideen who fought the invading Soviets, in Afghanistan?

Or were the Soviets liebrators? :rolleyes:

The Soviets were in Afghanistan at the request of a revolutionary government. Calling their actions an "invasion" is dubious. In fact, the Soviets entered Afghanistan after Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the CIA funded warlords and foreign mercenaries. Thus, it was imperialists and their allies that first destabilized Afghanistan.

However, I don't think that it was a good idea for the Soviets to "invade". It probably made things worse by emboldening their enemies, and besides, it wasn't their country anyway. having foreign troops enter a country to stabilize it is rarely a good idea.

[non-vio-resist]

it doesn't matter who the insurgents are. the fact is this: another country's military regime illegally invaded iraq. i am generally always opposed to armed conflict, but i do believe people have a right to defend themselves, and this should be the sole purpose of a military. i live in the united states. do you honestly think, with all the gun-nut yanks, that citizens would not defend themselves against an invader? guess what? some of the people defending themselves would be right-wing wacko militias and the kkk (who hopefully the invader would target first:D). this is simple and the different semantics, eg "terrorists"; "insurgents"; etc. is completely dodging the main point that the u.s. broke international law and invaded a country.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's the Shiites who are more numerous and religious, they want a Shiite theocracy. The only theocrats technically on the Sunni side are the Al Qaeda types, which are a minority and also at odds with the Sunni nationalists.


Is it? Oops, my bad.

[Luís Henrique]

What planet are you living on? In case you haven't noticed, foreign troops are dying every day in Iraq. That's all friendly fire is it? :D

No, it's fire from a dozen or more different groups with mutually exclusive political aims, all of them at odds with each other, and not one of them called "The Resistance".

Luís Henrique

[Nakidana]

No, it's fire from a dozen or more different groups with mutually exclusive political aims, all of them at odds with each other, and not one of them called "The Resistance".

Luís Henrique

Yeah, keep watching Fox News... :rolleyes:

There are two sides in Iraq. For occupation and against occupation. Which side are you on?

[Comrade Rage]

Which side are you on?I can't speak for LH, but I am all for the resistors. I am not for their politics, but I HAVE to respect their right to self-determination, which is what this debate is all about.

[Green Dragon]

[
quote=COMRADE CRUM;1060923]I can't speak for LH, but I am all for the resistors. I am not for their politics, but I HAVE to respect their right to self-determination, which is what this debate is all about.[/QUOTE]

But the "resistors" are not for self-determination. They seek to impose their politics (ie religion) on all Iraqis.

How does battling for NATIONAL self-determination in Iraq (assuming such accurately describes the situation) further the aim of INTERNATIONAL harmony and cooperation and worker brotherhood ect ect ect.?

[Comrade Rage]

*GROAN* I find the aims of these groups (at least the fundamentalist ones) sickening, but it isn't my place to judge them, and oppose them by backing an illegal war effort.

Refusing such interventionist/imperialist tendencies helps worker brotherhood, "ect ect ect" (etc., etc., etc. ?) because I am fighting against a CAPITALIST WAR OF AGGRESSION.

[Green Dragon]

*GROAN* I find the aims of these groups (at least the fundamentalist ones) sickening, but it isn't my place to judge them, and oppose them by backing an illegal war effort.

Refusing such interventionist/imperialist tendencies helps worker brotherhood, "ect ect ect" (etc., etc., etc. ?) because I am fighting against a CAPITALIST WAR OF AGGRESSION.


Okay, so you are not willing to judge such sickening theocrats.
How does supporting theocrats who fight for goals you find sickening, advance your goals?

But you are willing to judge such "CAPITALIST WAR OF AGGRESSION."

Based on your comments on the Anti-fascist board, you are willing to judge fascists and to illegally fight them.

I am not playing "gotcha" here, i am simply trying to understand your reasoning...

[Zurdito]

I support the resistance, which the media calls an "insurgency" to deny its legitimacy.

Get the troops out now!

[Zurdito]

Okay, so you are not willing to judge such sickening theocrats.
How does supporting theocrats who fight for goals you find sickening, advance your goals?

But you are willing to judge such "CAPITALIST WAR OF AGGRESSION."

Based on your comments on the Anti-fascist board, you are willing to judge fascists and to illegally fight them.

I am not playing "gotcha" here, i am simply trying to understand your reasoning...

try by analysing the concrete situation then. why should an occupied nation such as Iraq is right now not have the right to resist occupation? can you tell us, Green Dragon? Do you think democracy is worth fighting for? if so, then how can there be a democracy when the world's largest miltiary power, withahistory of overthrowing elected governments and backing murderous dictatorships, is occupying your country, and building 14 permanent military bases on your soil. Wouldn't you resist that?

[Nakidana]

Okay, so you are not willing to judge such sickening theocrats.
How does supporting theocrats who fight for goals you find sickening, advance your goals?

But you are willing to judge such "CAPITALIST WAR OF AGGRESSION."

Based on your comments on the Anti-fascist board, you are willing to judge fascists and to illegally fight them.

I am not playing "gotcha" here, i am simply trying to understand your reasoning...

Okay, here's the thing:

Before occupation -> ~stability

After occupation -> 1 million Iraqis dead, hundreds of thousands fleeing, country in chaos

Got that, imperialist?

[Publius]

Yeah, keep watching Fox News... :rolleyes:

There are two sides in Iraq. For occupation and against occupation. Which side are you on?

No, there aren't... have you paid ANY attention to what is actually occurring in Iraq? Quite a bit of the fighting isn't even between "the insurgents" and the invaders, as there is quite a bit of fighting between groups inside Iraq. Shit, just a few months ago the country was on the verge of an all-out CIVIL war, to go along with the actions against invading troops.

So really you're just completely wrong. Some sides in Iraq are for foreign occupation, but not American occupation. Foreign occupation by Iranian interests, al Qaeda is undeniably playing some role, etc.

Furthermore, even a purely "Iraqi" theocratic state would be a travesty. Aren't you supposed to abhor nationalism? Why is an "Iraqi" theocratic state to be preferred to anything else?

So yes, I support those acts of resistance that actually accomplish something worthwhile. Those that further theocratic, nationalist, or sectarian interests are just forms of imperialism on a smaller scale, and are thus deserving of nothing but scorn.

Maybe a prolonged war in Iraq could have a good side-effect: weakening US imperial interests while also suffocating reactionary forces inside Iraq, as well as in the Middle East proper. Though truth be told, it could just as easily have the opposite effect.

[Publius]

*GROAN* I find the aims of these groups (at least the fundamentalist ones) sickening, but it isn't my place to judge them, and oppose them by backing an illegal war effort.

Yes, yes it is. It is your place because you're supposed to be an outside observer with a vested interest in the welfare of the Iraqi people.

If the group in question has no concern for Iraqi life (as some of them do not), then what is it to be preferred to?

You mean to tell me that if Charles Manson and his goons were in Iraq killing invading troops (as well as Iraqi civilians), you'd support the effort?

What a fucking joke.



Refusing such interventionist/imperialist tendencies helps worker brotherhood, "ect ect ect" (etc., etc., etc. ?) because I am fighting against a CAPITALIST WAR OF AGGRESSION.

No, you're not doing a god damn thing. You aren't in Iraq. You're typing words on a computer screen and expressing solidarity with religious extremists who'd think nothing of killing you.

Why not just support those groups who actually share your humanitarian interest? Can't you see that this "enemy of my enemy is my friend" bullshit is exactly what got us into this situation? Are you that blind to history?

[Publius]

try by analysing the concrete situation then. why should an occupied nation such as Iraq is right now not have the right to resist occupation? can you tell us, Green Dragon?

I'll answer for myself:

They have every right to resist the occupation.

But if in the process they mean to enact policies even more detrimental to human rights, I can't see how I can or should support them.

Now those forces in Iraq which are secular and which are (relatively) progressive, I fully support. And if the whole resistance was like this, I'd have no issue at all.

But you'd have to be a total moral black hole not to see the idiocy in supporting sadistic thugs who blow up children (Iraqi children.)

Those people aren't fighting for the Iraqis, they are FIGHTING THE IRAQIS. The fact that they also happen to kill some troops every now and then is inconsequential.



Do you think democracy is worth fighting for? if so, then how can there be a democracy when the world's largest miltiary power, withahistory of overthrowing elected governments and backing murderous dictatorships, is occupying your country, and building 14 permanent military bases on your soil. Wouldn't you resist that?

Yes.

And I'd resist the thugs and the theocrats even more harshly, because, in speaking for myself, I can say I'd rather live in American dominated state than in a Taliban state.

Look at the relative differences in human rights, gay rights, civil rights, free expression, etc.

It's a closed case.

[Nakidana]

Calm down Publius, you've made it quite clear you're on the side of the occupation. :)


Maybe a prolonged war in Iraq could have a good side-effect: weakening US imperial interests while also suffocating reactionary forces inside Iraq

This is where third campism takes you, suddenly imperialism is a progressive force and provides breathing space for the working class.

Thank you for suffocating our people, US! :rolleyes:

[Green Dragon]

[
quote=Zurdito;1061146]try by analysing the concrete situation then. why should an occupied nation such as Iraq is right now not have the right to resist occupation?

The question I would ask is why do INTERNATIONALISTS defend resistance on NATIONALIST terms?


Do you think democracy is worth fighting for?

Freedom certainly is.


if so, then how can there be a democracy when the world's largest miltiary power, withahistory of overthrowing elected governments and backing murderous dictatorships, is occupying your country,

This goes a little bit off. I would certainly question the claim that the insurgents are battling for Iaqi democracy. They are fighting for the restoration of the old Ba'athist regime (perhaps you judge saddam's freguent re-elections as proof of a previous democratic Iraq), or the imposition of some sort fundamentalist state (either along a Sunni or Shiite basis). Why wold success by any of the resistors groups constitute a victory Revleftism? Would not a victory of the USA which crushed the religious fanatics, forced the Ba'athists to accept a genuine democracy and freedom be more a victory for the Revleft? Becuase then they could use that freedom to agitate for those ideals which you all believe in a much freer environment?

[Juche96]

The question I would ask is why do INTERNATIONALISTS defend resistance on NATIONALIST terms?

To answer this adequately, I would first suggest that you read Mao "On Contradiction", and Lenin, "Imperialism, the final stage of capitalism".

If you can't have them, or don't have the time, that's OK. Just to give you the gist though, the idea is that the main dialectic or contradiction in the world today is between Oppressor nations and Oppressed nations (why? because oppressor classes are largely contained in oppressor nations). Imperialist nations like US, (EU if you want to conveniently refer to it as a nation) and Japan control most of the world's banking capital and wealth. Almost everyone in the US for example, is above the 90th percentile of world income. Imperialist countries maintain their wealth by controlling markets of weaker nations...through force, intimidation, proxy wars, and outright military invasion if necessary.


would certainly question the claim that the insurgents are battling for Iraqi democracy. They are fighting for the restoration of the old Ba'athist regime (perhaps you judge Saddam's frequent re-elections as proof of a previous democratic Iraq), or the imposition of some sort fundamentalist state (either along a Sunni or Shiite basis).


Why wold success by any of the resistors groups constitute a victory Revleftism? Would not a victory of the USA which crushed the religious fanatics, forced the Ba'athists to accept a genuine democracy and freedom be more a victory for the Revleft? Becuase then they could use that freedom to agitate for those ideals which you all believe in a much freer environment?

The left supports the Nationalism of oppressed nations...regardless of whether they want a theocracy, capitalist, or Ba'athist style government for the reasons described above. It may sound counterintuitive for Internationalists to support Nationalist movements, but there are reasons (like unity of the oppressed within an oppressed nation) behind it.

[Tungsten]

To answer this adequately, I would first suggest that you read Mao "On Contradiction", and Lenin, "Imperialism, the final stage of capitalism".

If you can't have them, or don't have the time, that's OK. Just to give you the gist though, the idea is that the main dialectic or contradiction in the world today is between Oppressor nations and Oppressed nations
What an absolute load of crap. How the hell is EU an "oppressor nation", how is Japan one?

(why? because oppressor classes are largely contained in oppressor nations).
And a lot of them largely aren't.

Imperialist nations like US, (EU if you want to conveniently refer to it as a nation) and Japan control most of the world's banking capital and wealth.
Erm, no. The EU controls its own wealth and Japan controls its own wealth. The US is trillions in debt depite its imperialistic ventures. None of them control the whole world's wealth. What about China and India? The world's fastest growing economies are curiously absent from your list; which countries have they invaded/intimidated/bullied to put themselves is such a auspicious position?


Almost everyone in the US for example, is above the 90th percentile of world income. Imperialist countries maintain their wealth by controlling markets of weaker nations...through force, intimidation, proxy wars, and outright military invasion if necessary.
I thought this absurdity had been dropped long ago in favour of anti-corporatism and anti-golbalisation (i.e. the theory that multinational corporations, not nation states, oppress the third world).

Your theories sound not so much progressive as dated.

[Green Dragon]

If you can't have them, or don't have the time, that's OK. Just to give you the gist though, the idea is that the main dialectic or contradiction in the world today is between Oppressor nations and Oppressed nations (why? because oppressor classes are largely contained in oppressor nations). Imperialist nations like US, (EU if you want to conveniently refer to it as a nation) and Japan control most of the world's banking capital and wealth. Almost everyone in the US for example, is above the 90th percentile of world income. Imperialist countries maintain their wealth by controlling markets of weaker nations...through force, intimidation, proxy wars, and outright military invasion if necessary.


I certainly do not accept that analysis, but that's okay.
Assuming it is true, what does this have to do with supporting local movements who are against the Revleft creed? How does that benefit the Revleft world?





The left supports the Nationalism of oppressed nations...regardless of whether they want a theocracy, capitalist, or Ba'athist style government for the reasons described above. It may sound counterintuitive for Internationalists to support Nationalist movements, but there are reasons (like unity of the oppressed within an oppressed nation) behind it.
[/QUOTE]

Okay. So nationalism is not counter-revolutionary. Fair enough.

[cb9's_unity]

I refuse to be on either side for either group. Why? because to make a small list if I support 99% of the resistance I am inherently supporting
Violent homophobia!
Rampant Sexism!
Complete religious intolerance!

All things that like it or not the US is far more progressive on. In America if you go after a catholic publicly all you get is a fat, bald, and angry guy *****ing about it on national T.V the next day. If your a Sunni going after a Shiite publicly your children are beheaded on national T.V the next day. Sorry their is nothing glorious about pretty much any of the insurgency and certainly any progressive or anti-imperialist beliefs they are toting are far out weighed by their many reactionary beliefs.

Now on the other hand if I support the 'Coalition' then i'm naturally on the side of rampant and continual global imperialism. While the fact is that the U.S is far less reactionary on many issues concerning leftism the fact is they could never and would never be able to transpose any of those beliefs on to the Iraqi people. The U.S is also woefully incapable of any sort of peace keeping and is only creating a bigger battlefield for a cultural war thats a thousand years in the building.

So basically I say let the U.S leave so we can just get this god damn bloodbath going so it doesn't just get bigger. However to support or defend any of the actions by the insurgency is to support the intolerant theocracy that is to naturally follow the civil war.

[RedStarOverChina]

All things that like it or not the US is far more progressive on. In America if you go after a catholic publicly all you get is a fat, bald, and angry guy *****ing about it on national T.V the next day. If your a Sunni going after a Shiite publicly your children are beheaded on national T.V the next day. Sorry their is nothing glorious about pretty much any of the insurgency and certainly any progressive or anti-imperialist beliefs they are toting are far out weighed by their many reactionary beliefs.

The fact that the US bloody occupation (and its enormous support for Alqaeda in Afghanistan) is the cause of all the religious extremism in Iraq seems to escape you.

According to you, so long as there are groups more reactionary than the US military in the occupied land, you'd be willing to accept the status quo. I dont see how anything could be more reactionary than invading a country and killing its people for money, but whatever.

If that's the case, all Bush needs to do is to setup violent thugs in every country that he invades, and then proclaim "the need of American presence to protect the locals". That's weak, if you ask me.

Unconditional support for the resistance and AGAINST the occupation!

[Tungsten]

The fact that the US bloody occupation (and its enormous support for Alqaeda in Afghanistan) is the cause of all the religious extremism in Iraq seems to escape you.
Can you run through how you came by this conclusion? It's just that if my country was occupied by a foreign force tommorow, I find it unlikely that they would be people queueing up to become Puritains or Muslims.

Judging from the casualty rate, I don't think the most of the bombing seems to be aimed directly at US forces anymore. If they are, these have to be the most incompetent terrorists in history.


According to you, so long as there are groups more reactionary than the US military in the occupied land, you'd be willing to accept the status quo.
Well there is a certain logic behind this. i.e. a US soldier will not decapitate you for drinking alcohol or having beard the wrong length.

[Lenin II]

But the "resistors" are not for self-determination. They seek to impose their politics (ie religion) on all Iraqis.
How do you know that all of them are theocrats?

Furthermore, even a purely "Iraqi" theocratic state would be a travesty. Aren't you supposed to abhor nationalism? Why is an "Iraqi" theocratic state to be preferred to anything else?
This presupposes much. For one, that a theocracy would be the result if the imperialist occupation were to end. This is nothing but speculation. And yes, we do hate nationalism, and includes the nationalism of the baby-killing cluster-bombing imperialist troops currently doing the killing over there, and not the "religious extremist" gunmen who are defending their people from exploitation and slavery.


No, you're not doing a god damn thing.
How do you know? Do you know us? Where do we live? What are our names? What organizations are we with? What are YOU doing that we aren’t?

You aren't in Iraq.
How do you know? Are you?

You're typing words on a computer screen and expressing solidarity with religious extremists who'd think nothing of killing you.
No wonder you’re restricted. You’re beginning to sound like “Islamofascist Awareness Week.” Once again, how do you know the insurgency are all “religious extremists?” Because they resist brutal occupation by an imperialist power? If so, sign me up for religious extremism!

Why not just support those groups who actually share your humanitarian interest? Can't you see that this "enemy of my enemy is my friend" bullshit is exactly what got us into this situation? Are you that blind to history?
Resistance to imperialism is stupid if it’s not communist, guyz! Lolz!

Now those forces in Iraq which are secular and which are (relatively) progressive, I fully support. And if the whole resistance was like this, I'd have no issue at all.
Puritan.

But you'd have to be a total moral black hole not to see the idiocy in supporting sadistic thugs who blow up children (Iraqi children.)
As opposed to the soldiers who napalm carpet-bomb, rape and shoot the children?

[Juche96]

What an absolute load of crap. How the hell is EU an "oppressor nation", how is Japan one?

Take a look at history. I'm not going to be pedantic and explain every act of military aggression or instance of colonial oppression committed by Europe against the third world, but there are plenty, dating back to the time of Colombus. Western European nations have a history of colonial oppression, colonization, slavery, and dividing up resource rich countries into colonies. As recently as a generation ago, European countries still colonized much of the world including Africa, and parts of South East Asia. Even the relatively small nation of Portugal had a colony in China (Macao), and Vietnam did not get its independence from France until the 50's. Even today, multinational corporations from the first world have the market rigged in their favor, and they often directly control the resources and markets of third world countries.

I shouldn't have to provide many details about Japan either. They ravaged most of Asia as recently as 60 years ago, and to this day they fail to admit to their crimes against humanity. By the way, they actually helped the US with the invasion of Korea in 1950 even though 5 years earlier the US issued a mandate saying they shouldn't have an army.

But don't take my word for any of this. The World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations issued a report in 2006 saying "The richest 1% of adults own 40% of the planets wealth." Financial services in particular (banking) and internet sectors account for much of the wealth. Europe the US and some pacific nations (Singapore, Japan) account for the wealthiest. Japan accounts for 27% of the total, the UK 6% and France 5% of the total.

Per capita wealth: $ 144,000 for Americans, 181,000 for Japanese and $127,000 for Japanese.

There you have it. The data don't lie. back up your arguments.



And a lot of them largely aren't. Back this up. Do a search for globalrichlist and type in the yearly salary for someone who makes minimum wage in the US or UK. You'll be surprised. Its near the 90th percentile of world income in market dollars


Erm, no. The EU controls its own wealth and Japan controls its own wealth.WOW! they control their own wealth...thats a huge surprise!


The US is trillions in debt despite its imperialistic ventures. None of them control the whole world's wealth. Debt? Debt is often recognized by banks in capitalism as the ability to pay, so people and institutions are often willing to invest in individuals in the first world who go into debt. Many Americans are in debt, but they still drive SUVs and live in nice houses. Donald Trump was in debt, but he was still flying in helicopters and wearing fancy clothes. On the other hand, people in India, Mexico etc. often don't have enough to eat or have access to adequate heath services. Furthermore, structural adjustment programs imposed on the third world prevent these countries from using their resources to provide food and services for their people.


What about China and India? The world's fastest growing economies are curiously absent from your list; which countries have they invaded/intimidated/bullied to put themselves is such a auspicious position? The per capita GDP and GNP of these countries is absolutely dwarfed by the first world (look at the report cited above in case you forgot). And this shows. UNICEF for example has shown that over 40 % of children in India are malnourished/undernourished. This is hardly auspicious.

As far as China is concerned, I would still argued that it is still socialist, despite introducing capitalist style reforms. There economy is growing, and you are right...they haven't bullied other nations. Their lending policies are actually quite fair. You therefore seem to be supporting the argument that socialism is in fact the right way to develop at a fast rate, eliminate and reduce poverty, and pursue peaceful relations with other countries.



Your theories sound not so much progressive as dated.I don't know if they are dated or not. This might be the case though. However, it hardly matters. The important thing is that it has more support than competing theories.

[Vendetta]

Isn't there a Leninist/Maoist section of the insurgency?

[Entrails Konfetti]

*cough cough*
No war, but class-war!
Workers have no country!

Everyone else is thinking in the short-term, or they are being pragmatic-- for what?
I dunno, maybe so their organizations actually have a toe in the door of real life politics, so that they won't just be selling papers, beating up neo-Nazis (that no one cares about), and waving signs that no one reads!

Those who say USA is progressive, again you are thinking in the short term, and they have propped up brutal puppet governments in the past.

Every single capitalist wants to dominate the world, all of them have Imperialist interests. Thats all I'm saying, I'm sticking to my principles while you stuff yours up your ass.

[Tungsten]

Take a look at history. I'm not going to be pedantic and explain every act of military aggression or instance of colonial oppression committed by Europe against the third world, but there are plenty, dating back to the time of Colombus. Western European nations have a history of colonial oppression, colonization, slavery, and dividing up resource rich countries into colonies.
Wealth=resources/colonization/slavery is another marxist falacy that doesn't add up. Japan, for instance is very resource-poor but mananges to maintain a rich economy. Compare, say, Zimbabwe. There are still places where slavery takes place- all poor.

As recently as a generation ago, European countries still colonized much of the world including Africa, and parts of South East Asia. Even the relatively small nation of Portugal had a colony in China (Macao), and Vietnam did not get its independence from France until the 50's. Even today, multinational corporations from the first world have the market rigged in their favor, and they often directly control the resources and markets of third world countries. I shouldn't have to provide many details about Japan either. They ravaged most of Asia as recently as 60 years ago, and to this day they fail to admit to their crimes against humanity.
Japan made some half-assed attempt to invade China, comitted a few war-crimes and were later driven out. I find it hard to link these acts to their current prosperity. Especially events from over 60 years ago.

But don't take my word for any of this. The World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations issued a report in 2006 saying "The richest 1% of adults own 40% of the planets wealth." Financial services in particular (banking) and internet sectors account for much of the wealth. Europe the US and some pacific nations (Singapore, Japan) account for the wealthiest. Japan accounts for 27% of the total, the UK 6% and France 5% of the total.

Per capita wealth: $ 144,000 for Americans, 181,000 for Japanese and $127,000 for Japanese.

There you have it. The data don't lie. back up your arguments.
Well, the data does lie, because it uses weasel words. It says the "planet's wealth" when it isn't the planet's wealth, it's individual wealth. Marxist economics is based on a false premise. We're imagining a collective pot of money ("the planets wealth") in which everyone has contributed to equally, which is now being divided out unevenly (and therefore unjustly). This is false anology. In reality, there are millions of pots, and not everyone's contribution is equal.

Back this up. Do a search for globalrichlist and type in the yearly salary for someone who makes minimum wage in the US or UK. You'll be surprised. Its near the 90th percentile of world income in market dollars

WOW! they control their own wealth...thats a huge surprise!
According to you, they control mine and yours, too, which is highly unlikely.

Debt? Debt is often recognized by banks in capitalism as the ability to pay, so people and institutions are often willing to invest in individuals in the first world who go into debt. Many Americans are in debt, but they still drive SUVs and live in nice houses. Donald Trump was in debt, but he was still flying in helicopters and wearing fancy clothes.
This is more of a (bad) lifestlye choice than anything else. Most of these are baby boomers, but don't worry, they'll be gone in a few decades, hopefully sooner. Then the debt will shrink.

On the other hand, people in India, Mexico etc. often don't have enough to eat or have access to adequate heath services. Furthermore, structural adjustment programs imposed on the third world prevent these countries from using their resources to provide food and services for their people.
I'm unfamiliar.

The per capita GDP and GNP of these countries is absolutely dwarfed by the first world (look at the report cited above in case you forgot). And this shows. UNICEF for example has shown that over 40 % of children in India are malnourished/undernourished. This is hardly auspicious.
Compared to what it was a few decades ago, it is.

As far as China is concerned, I would still argued that it is still socialist, despite introducing capitalist style reforms. There economy is growing, and you are right...they haven't bullied other nations. Their lending policies are actually quite fair. You therefore seem to be supporting the argument that socialism is in fact the right way to develop at a fast rate, eliminate and reduce poverty, and pursue peaceful relations with other countries.
The economy isn't growing because of socialism. Who is going to invest in a country that's likely to nationalise or confiscate their assets?

I don't know if they are dated or not. This might be the case though. However, it hardly matters. The important thing is that it has more support than competing theories.
So did the flat-earth theory at one time. Popular doesn't mean correct, or workable.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Tungsten, a surplus was gained from decades of direct political control over Manchuria, the Korean peninsula, soon other parts of China for a few years, and Formosa (later Taiwan). They currently are striving for control of vital oil and trade routes to the Middle East, Europe and Africa. It has defence arrangements with Burma, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Seychelles, Mauritius, Madagascar and India’s archrival Pakistan. Coincidently, they receive most of their manufacturing and petrochemical imports with these countries.

I think their intervention into Iraq alongside their British and American imperialist allies is strong evidence for their "neo-colonial" ties. Japan is totally dependent on imported oil, with the gulf states accounting for 76% of that. Their president admitted, “we do not need any words to say how important the Middle East is for Japan.”

Also, structural adjustment programs are policy changes orchestrated by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank that “are created with the goal of reducing a country's fiscal imbalances” by slashing social programs and environment regulations, setting wages for vast sectors of the economy, and privatizing key industries and public assets.

[Comrade Rage]

I am not playing "gotcha" here, i am simply trying to understand your reasoning...My reasoning is that it's not my war to fight.

My homeland invaded these people's homeland without provocation. They are free to fight the occupiers ANY WAY THEY SEE FIT. The religious fundamentalists are not quite fascist, although they are close. I'm going to focus on criticizing American soldiers first.

[Labor Shall Rule]

*cough cough*
No war, but class-war!
Workers have no country!

Everyone else is thinking in the short-term, or they are being pragmatic-- for what?
I dunno, maybe so their organizations actually have a toe in the door of real life politics, so that they won't just be selling papers, beating up neo-Nazis (that no one cares about), and waving signs that no one reads!

Those who say USA is progressive, again you are thinking in the short term, and they have propped up brutal puppet governments in the past.

Every single capitalist wants to dominate the world, all of them have Imperialist interests. Thats all I'm saying, I'm sticking to my principles while you stuff yours up your ass.

Where is your 'class war' in Iraq?

The Basra oil workers strike was remarkable because many of the workers were part-time insurgents -- modern-day minutemen that belong to self-defense committees in their neighborhood, who casted their ballot for 'Islamic' parties, and who support attacks on Coalition Forces. They don't differentiate between 'progressive' and 'reactionary' because their current interests are vested in expelling the imperialists.

There is no strong working class parties because there is no strong working class organization, and it is quite impossible to stimulate any of those two without a tradition and tendency towards past militancy by the Iraqi masses. But until there is struggle there can be no communist light-in-the-darkness; there is no mass independent socialist movement precisely because of the presence of imperialist armies. But, if you think it will work, you can to Iraq and start a true revolutionary group that I'm sure the desperate Iraqi farmers and workers will quickly join! :glare:

You are no different than a reformist, because just like a reformist, they have a narrow relative mindset that thinks a "good idea" will suddenly roll around and solve everything. There can be no 'class war,' or 'revolution' of any type in Iraq; there will be no 'principles' that you like that all of a sudden a bunch of Iraqis will catch on to. They will try the "good idea" when it is necessary for their working class to implement it themselves.

[Dean]

Why not just support those groups who actually share your humanitarian interest? Can't you see that this "enemy of my enemy is my friend" bullshit is exactly what got us into this situation? Are you that blind to history?

Actually, it was an "enemy of my enemy is my enemy" mentality, if you want to take that road.

Islam and politics are heavily intertwined in the middle east. Whenever a military action becomes a prerogative, god is used, and since religion and social organizations are so heavily mixed there, the resistance groups - much like Hamas and Hizb Allah - use religion and religious law as part of the campaign.

In the region, the militant islamic organizations tend to be the best there is. I don't mind supporting them at all.

[Juche96]

Wealth=resources/colonization/slavery is another marxist falacy that doesn't add up. Japan, for instance is very resource-poor but mananges to maintain a rich economy. Compare, say, Zimbabwe. There are still places where slavery takes place- all poor.

I don't exactly understand your argument. First of all, I'm not saying (and neither did Marx, Lenin, Adam Smith, or anyone for that matter) that slavery produces wealth as efficently as capitalism--a system with mechanized and socialized production. Second of all, nations that have colonized other nations, controlled their raw materials and the labor power of the population of the countries they colonized in the past (i.e., today's imperialist countries) are richer. This is an indisputable fact. Wealth doesn't come from the sky.
And yes, countries that are poor in resources tend to be richer because of imperialism. Nations rich in resources like Zimbabwe and most of Africa have been colonized and have had little control over their own destiny. If they were not rich in resources and had nothing to offer, they wouldn't have been colonized. Even today, they are threatened with military invasion, sanctions etc. if they do not bow to the will of imperialist nations.


Japan made some half-assed attempt to invade China, comitted a few war-crimes and were later driven out. I find it hard to link these acts to their current prosperity. Especially events from over 60 years ago.
Their invasion was hardly half assed. They were an unchecked military power that controlled most of Asia, and now they are completely allied with US imperialism.


Well, the data does lie, because it uses weasel words. It says the "planet's wealth" when it isn't the planet's wealth, it's individual wealth. Marxist economics is based on a false premise. We're imagining a collective pot of money ("the planets wealth") in which everyone has contributed to equally, which is now being divided out unevenly (and therefore unjustly). This is false anology. In reality, there are millions of pots, and not everyone's contribution is equal.

What does this mean? You are counterdicting a UN agency without offering your own data or theory. In any case, there is an X amount of wealth and resources on the planet. If there wasn't, then nobody would be poor, right?
And yes, not everybody has contributed equally. Look at the decadent parasite lifestyle that people in the First world live, and compare this to work that people do in the mines of Africa or Asia, or in sweatshops. Wealth is produced by keeping a profit, paying less than the value of a workers labor power. If you worked 15 hours a day in a mine in Sierra Leonne, and payed pennies while I sold it for 1,000 dollars to someone in the first world, I would be rich.


Compared to what it was a few decades ago, it is.
Look it up in an almanac. Global inequality is still about the same.


The economy isn't growing because of socialism. Who is going to invest in a country that's likely to nationalise or confiscate their assets? .
Their economy was among the fastest growing in the entire world during the cultural revolution. They also doubled their life expectancy and reduced the infant mortality rate by 2/3. They clearly laid the foundation. The capitalist reforms we see today are meant to procure more investment. I don't know how it will play out in the long run.


So did the flat-earth theory at one time. Popular doesn't mean correct, or workable.
I never claimed "my" theory is popular. I just claim it has more evidence in support of it than any other theory. Offer a better one that can be tested if you have one.

[Green Dragon]

In the region, the militant islamic organizations tend to be the best there is. I don't mind supporting them at all.
[/QUOTE]

Such millitants seem to be strapping bombs on developmentally disabled girls and blowing up them and other innocent civilians.

Is such exploitation of some of the most vulnerable people in any society justified?
Or are those millitants truly bastards who need to be defeated?

[Lenin II]

Such millitants seem to be strapping bombs on developmentally disabled girls and blowing up them and other innocent civilians.
Give me documented evidence of actions like this, and evidence that it was done against the person in question's will. Also that is was not completely a response in kind to the savagery and death wreaked upon them by imperialists killing their families?

Is such exploitation of some of the most vulnerable people in any society justified?
Or are those millitants truly bastards who need to be defeated?
Ever heard of the package deal fallacy?

[RedStarOverChina]

Can you run through how you came by this conclusion? It's just that if my country was occupied by a foreign force tommorow, I find it unlikely that they would be people queueing up to become Puritains or Muslims.

This thing called "al-qaeda" would not have been significant at all if it weren for American assistance in the 80s. Moreover, American send billions to the then dictator of Pakistan, General Zia, who spent pretty much of the them to give a huge boost to religious extremism in the region.

On the other hand, Saddam, while being a dictator, was secular and kept a lid on religious extremism in Iraq.

It was an unspoken factor in the American invasion of Iraq, that Americans are there to "liberate" Iraqi Shias and Iraqi Kurds from Saddam's Sunni rule. Everyone in Iraq knows their place--The Kurds and Shias welcomes the overthrow of Saddam--Though not necessarily the invasion, whereas the Sunnis realize that they are being "triple teamed" on by the Americans, Shias and Kurds. Therefore, each side MUST fight to take as much land and power as possible before the whole thing collapses.

So Americans essentially created a situation of extreme hostility.



Judging from the casualty rate, I don't think the most of the bombing seems to be aimed directly at US forces anymore. If they are, these have to be the most incompetent terrorists in history.

I wouldn't call them "model resistance fighters" either, but it's not difficult to understand WHY that is, when you read what I wrote above.


But if anyone's gonna drive the US out of the region, it's the Iraqis with guns. And THAT's good for, well, the world, essentially. Another defeat of the US Empire is desperately needed to boost the revolution.

[Tungsten]

Tungsten, a surplus was gained from decades of direct political control over Manchuria, the Korean peninsula, soon other parts of China for a few years, and Formosa (later Taiwan).
Read my reply to this person:

I don't exactly understand your argument. First of all, I'm not saying (and neither did Marx, Lenin, Adam Smith, or anyone for that matter) that slavery produces wealth as efficently as capitalism--a system with mechanized and socialized production. Second of all, nations that have colonized other nations, controlled their raw materials and the labor power of the population of the countries they colonized in the past (i.e., today's imperialist countries) are richer. This is an indisputable fact.
Or were they richer in the first place, and could therefore afford to colonise?

And yes, countries that are poor in resources tend to be richer because of imperialism.
There are plenty that are still rich and haven't much of an imperialist history and vice versa. Besides, I wouldn't trust any ideology that attributes all prosperity to theft and slavery.

Nations rich in resources like Zimbabwe and most of Africa have been colonized and have had little control over their own destiny. If they were not rich in resources and had nothing to offer, they wouldn't have been colonized. Even today, they are threatened with military invasion, sanctions etc. if they do not bow to the will of imperialist nations.
These threats wouldn't have anything to do with the ongoing genocide, by any chance, would they?

Their invasion was hardly half assed. They were an unchecked military power that controlled most of Asia,
Most of Asia? I don't know when that was, but it certainly wasn't during the war.

What does this mean? You are counterdicting a UN agency without offering your own data or theory.
I'm offering my own theory: Wealth is privately owned and not up for global grabs. I think you'll find there's plenty of evidence to support this.

In any case, there is an X amount of wealth and resources on the planet. If there wasn't, then nobody would be poor, right?
Except the wealth is growing in quantity and poor is a relative term.

And yes, not everybody has contributed equally. Look at the decadent parasite lifestyle that people in the First world live,
I see most of them working. Only with machinery in place of sweat (note this isn't a argument for fucking "technocracy"). Most of the jobs in the first world are service-related anyway and fundamentaly different.

and compare this to work that people do in the mines of Africa or Asia, or in sweatshops.
Look at that lazy first world farmer producing a hunded times as much food as a third world farmer for a hundreth of the effort! He obviously produces nothing- oh wait...

Wealth is produced by keeping a profit, paying less than the value of a workers labor power.
I'm not refuting the LTV again, I'm sick of doing it.

Look it up in an almanac. Global inequality is still about the same.
I wasn't talking about global inequality, I was talking how India is fairing better than it did decades ago. I'm not fussed about global inequality (because I don't believe in the LTV).

Their economy was among the fastest growing in the entire world during the cultural revolution. They also doubled their life expectancy and reduced the infant mortality rate by 2/3. They clearly laid the foundation. The capitalist reforms we see today are meant to procure more investment. I don't know how it will play out in the long run.
That's not a difficult task, considering how poverty striken the country was before. But then it's not much of a justification for the genocide that took place during the cultural revolution. To support this and then moan about acts of imperialism that were trifling in comparison is a somewhat disingenous.

[Tungsten]

Give me documented evidence of actions like this, and evidence that it was done against the person in question's will. Also that is was not completely a response in kind to the savagery and death wreaked upon them by imperialists killing their families?
How many of the 9/11 bombers were victims of imperialist savagery?

Get it yet? When a man becomes religious, the first thing he loses is his mind. They're not doing it out of desperation- they're doing it because they're lunatics.

[Lenin II]

How many of the 9/11 bombers were victims of imperialist savagery? All of them, since all of them were from Saudi Arabia, an authoritarian and fundamentalist government propped up and funded by the U.S. government.

Get it yet? When a man becomes religious, the first thing he loses is his mind. They're not doing it out of desperation- they're doing it because they're lunatics.And how exactly does a man become a lunatic? Does he become one for no reason? No. He becomes one out of desperation. No arguments about the nature of religion here. What do the hijackers have to do with the insurgents in Iraq?

[Dean]

Give me documented evidence of actions like this, and evidence that it was done against the person in question's will. Also that is was not completely a response in kind to the savagery and death wreaked upon them by imperialists killing their families?

Sadly, he's accurate in this claim. Of course, the argument against the resistance in Iraq hardly works in this regard. While militants are strapping bombs on the mentally challenged, the U.S. fuckers are dropping bombs on entire communities, killing mentally handicapped, elderly, young children and generally helpless people. Well, anyone who gets a bomb dropped on them is helpless. The U.S. media won't call it "terrorism" though, so it is ok.

[Green Dragon]

Sadly, he's accurate in this claim. Of course, the argument against the resistance in Iraq hardly works in this regard. While militants are strapping bombs on the mentally challenged, the U.S. fuckers are dropping bombs on entire communities, killing mentally handicapped, elderly, young children and generally helpless people. Well, anyone who gets a bomb dropped on them is helpless. The U.S. media won't call it "terrorism" though, so it is ok.

The "resistance" in Iraq, supported by members on this board, and on this thread celebrates such actions. They revel in it, they lap it up. It is how they "resist."

Nobody amongst the supporters of the war celebebrate when innocent civilians are killed in their operations. The objectives are not to kill the innocent.

[Lenin II]

The "resistance" in Iraq, supported by members on this board, and on this thread celebrates such actions. They revel in it, they lap it up. It is how they "resist."Why do you believe this? Because the bourgeoisie says so? Because thats all you ever see on television and the news?

Nobody amongst the supporters of the war celebebrate when innocent civilians are killed in their operations.Of course, no innocents would die if they weren't in Iraq in the first place. Anyway, this is not true. Anyone knows that civilians and armed civilian protecting their homes and families are labeled "insurgents" and "terrorists" when they are shot by coalition forces. It's a convenient case of compartmentalization.

The objectives are not to kill the innocent.I doubt aforementioned innocent care whether they "meant to" or not.

[Dean]

The "resistance" in Iraq, supported by members on this board, and on this thread celebrates such actions. They revel in it, they lap it up. It is how they "resist."
They "lap it up"? What, are you calling them fuckign animals? You are disgusting. They are just as human as your precious little pigs on the wing. They don't celebrate the deaths of their own people, in fact Iraq has been known for a long time for its unity between sects of Islam. It has been recent encouragement from outside forces which have flared tensions.


Nobody amongst the supporters of the war celebebrate when innocent civilians are killed in their operations. The objectives are not to kill the innocent.

This is just as true for the resistance in Iraq. Some celebrate, some don't. Most people in the U.S. I know say they want the whole middle east blown up.

[MT5678]

How many of the 9/11 bombers were victims of imperialist savagery?

You know, the Taliban grew out of a movement of angry Pashtun men who had lost family members due to the war that the U.S. (according to Brzeznski, at least) helped instigate and the Soviet Union exacerbated.


These threats wouldn't have anything to do with the ongoing genocide, by any chance, would they?


No. Your analysis is confounded. Because if these things had to do with the genocide, then the U.S. would care a lot more about the trouble in the Congo. The highest estimate is that 400,000 people have died in Sudan. Over 5 million have died in a similar time period in the Congo, and 1000 more die every day.


Nobody amongst the supporters of the war celebebrate when innocent civilians are killed in their operations. The objectives are not to kill the innocent.

Really? Remember Albright from the 1990s? When she heard that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were starving as a result of U.S.-U.K. sanctions, she said: "I think it is worth it". Why? To remove Saddam? If the U.S. was so concerned about this, then why didn't it help the Shiites and the Kurds when they rebelled after the Gulf War?

In all, 1.25 or so million people died. None of the corporate media or the rightist douche bags cared. Some revelled in it. After all, it made Iraq so weak that now, it was good for the getting.

And today, NATO has killed thousands of innocent Afghan civilians in bomb attacks. They don't care in the slightest.

And lets not forget about the many U.S.-backed dictators and their murders of tens of thousands of people

[Robert]

Most people in the U.S. I know say they want the whole middle east blown up.

Most? Come off it, Dean.

[Dean]

Most? Come off it, Dean.

The key word is "I know." This refers to a small segment of a population sample in central VA. This is still more compelling than someone saying that the Iraqis rejoice in the deaths of their compatriots.

[tsmommy]

The corporate media has successfully lambasted the Iraqi insurgency as a homogeneous grouping of foreign 'Al-Qaeda' operatives who have deliberately targeted civilians. Vice President Dick Cheney himself, a few years ago, mentioned how the "insurgency was in its final throes," and that it was only "a few trouble-makers" that "are not popular whatsoever."

However, 92% of Sunnis, 62% of Shiites and 15% of Kurds have supported attacks on Coalition forces. The myth that they are 'terrorists' is unwarranted, considering that only 16% of all attacks were directed against domestic Iraqi forces, and 10% on civilians. These are all legitimate figures presented by the Department of Defense. There are multiple political tendencies within the insurgency also -- but Al-Qaeda in Iraq represents only 1% of the resistance.

If this is truly a 'war for oil' (as many on both the 'right' and 'left' now believe), then do the Iraqis have a right to resist a foreign occupation?
I'm against terrorism. And I'm all for making our Country safer. What happened on Sept 11 was horrible and I hope we never have to see something like that happen again.

But where's Bin Laden? No one knows. Or atleast no one is telling us they know. This war was all Bush and his ass cronies. I think Bush had a personal problem with Sadaam, and it was going to help his interests in oil.

I support hunting down terroristic organizations all over the world. But not the Iraq invasion. They do have a right to oppose any force in their country. And I wish we were out of there. Special forces can deal with hunting down and infiltrating terroristic organizations. We do not need military force in Iraq.

[Lenin II]

I'm against terrorism.
Including terrorism against bourgeoisie bloodsuckers by the working class?

And I'm all for making our Country safer.
"Our" country? What about other countries?

What happened on Sept 11 was horrible and I hope we never have to see something like that happen again.
Well guess what? Because of the policies of "our" country, we have a 9/11 every few hours from starvation. Why are the 3000 that died from this one attack worth more than other deaths as a result of American imperialism? Now, there's a question for you.

But where's Bin Laden? No one knows. Or at least no one is telling us they know. This war was all Bush and his ass cronies. I think Bush had a personal problem with Sadaam, and it was going to help his interests in oil.
He did it because he is an imperialist and that is what imperialists do.

I support hunting down terroristic organizations all over the world.
:lol:

[Green Dragon]

[quote=Dean;1066576]They "lap it up"? What, are you calling them fuckign animals? You are disgusting. They are just as human as your precious little pigs on the wing. They don't celebrate the deaths of their own people, in fact Iraq has been known for a long time for its unity between sects of Islam. It has been recent encouragement from outside forces which have flared tensions.


My dear Dean, that is ALL the resistance does. They strap a bomb on some poor misguided man, and march him off to crowded market, and he detonates it. Killing how many innocents?
Lately, since such tactics are failing to blow up Iraq, they are resorting to finding female volunteers, and it looks like they are now resorting to find the devlopmentally disabled. Who cares about the retarded on this board? Certainly not the defenders of the resistance and their tactics. Lenin II actually tried to defend it.
No sir. the resistance in crumbling because Iraqis are recognising the monsters who run the resistance, what they are capbable of doing, and what they are doing. their great defenders seem to be Islamic religiosu lunatics, and folks around here who like to pretend they are compassionate and caring to all people.

[phasmid]

[quote=tsmommy;1066771]I'm against terrorism. And I'm all for making our Country safer. What happened on Sept 11 was horrible and I hope we never have to see something like that happen again.

Well you probably will.

[quote=tsmommy;1066771]I support hunting down terroristic organizations all over the world.

Would you support hunting the American government? Because they or at least the ones hiding behind the facade of government are the ones ultimately responsible.

[Dean]

[QUOTE]


My dear Dean, that is ALL the resistance does. They strap a bomb on some poor misguided man, and march him off to crowded market, and he detonates it. Killing how many innocents?
Lately, since such tactics are failing to blow up Iraq, they are resorting to finding female volunteers, and it looks like they are now resorting to find the devlopmentally disabled. Who cares about the retarded on this board? Certainly not the defenders of the resistance and their tactics. Lenin II actually tried to defend it.
No sir. the resistance in crumbling because Iraqis are recognising the monsters who run the resistance, what they are capbable of doing, and what they are doing. their great defenders seem to be Islamic religiosu lunatics, and folks around here who like to pretend they are compassionate and caring to all people.
Actually gunfire and IEDs targetting U.S. forces are more common. Suicide bombings in markets just tend to be more noteworthy, because they are so horrific. You talk abou these groups commiting these acts, but you don't know who they are. You act as if the resistance is some monolith, which is compellingly ignorant. As was pointed out earlier, there are many different factions, all with different tactics. none of them are perfect, because all involve the loss of human life - be it civilian or military. But it is clear not only that the U.S. bombing raids have been the most damaging to the civilians in Iraq, but also that the Iraqi people should control their own land, not the U.S. military. The resistance is largely agaisnt the attacks on civilians, and I support those who rule such attacks out.

[Phalanx]

Any resistance that uses its own children to stop US convoys has absolutely no moral edge in my opinion.

[Dean]

Any resistance that uses its own children to stop US convoys has absolutely no moral edge in my opinion.

The world isn't some pretty little fairy tale where the good guys never lose and the innocent always survive. The world isn't like the insulated U.S. society; most people have to struggle to live, and when that struggle becomes desperate to the point of suicide bombings, harming children takes on a different light. Yes, I think those that get totally fucked up mentally by living in abject poverty, oppression and dehumanizing conditions deserve more moral respect than some dick from the heartland who drops bombs on villages or forces Iraqi civilians to remove IEDs for them.

[RGacky3]

I think the iraqis have a right to fight against the Americans, and I support the idea, but how they are doing it, and what they are trying to establish, I am against.


Including terrorism against bourgeoisie bloodsuckers by the working class?

Revolutionary terrorism, doe'snt work. I think history has proved that.

[Lenin II]

Revolutionary terrorism, doe'snt work. I think history has proved that.
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Dean]

I think the iraqis have a right to fight against the Americans, and I support the idea, but how they are doing it,
By targetting the military? Or are you just assuming that all the factions in the region target civilian populations?


and what they are trying to establish, I am against.
Self-governance?




Revolutionary terrorism, doe'snt work. I think history has proved that.
The Weather Underground worked pretty well.

[Tungsten]

You know, the Taliban grew out of a movement of angry Pashtun men who had lost family members due to the war that the U.S. (according to Brzeznski, at least) helped instigate and the Soviet Union exacerbated.

You've ducked my main question. Anway: It was the USSR that invaded Afghanistan first, not the US. The US backed the resistance; Bin Laden was a US agent leading the fight against the Soviets. By sheer coincidence, when the Soviets ceased to be a significant threat and Bin Laden's paychecks stopped, the terrorism began.


Really? Remember Albright from the 1990s? When she heard that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were starving as a result of U.S.-U.K. sanctions, she said: "I think it is worth it". Why? To remove Saddam?
The starving Iraqis were just pawns to show how evil and oppressive the west was for putting sanctions on Iraq- Saddam was trying to play the victim and some people with short memories fell for it. They weren't starving because of the sanctions, they were starving because of Saddam, who seemed to find no shortage of money for palaces and gold-plated AK-47s.

If the U.S. was so concerned about this, then why didn't it help the Shiites and the Kurds when they rebelled after the Gulf War?
How should I know? My name isn't Bush.

And today, NATO has killed thousands of innocent Afghan civilians in bomb attacks. They don't care in the slightest.
Are you going to start whining about Dresden next?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Don't be an idiot.

George Melloan, a writer for The Wall Street Journal, wrote that "hitting Iraq’s weapon sites would be a useful warning to other states with ambitions to attain power and prestige…What happened to Saddam could happen to you, it would say."

The purpose of the sanctions and ongoing bombings were to enforce control over oil supplies through coercive means. The Clinton administration didn't care about whether they had "weapons of mass destruction" or if a "tyrant ruled the country," he just wanted preserve the unhindered access of oil conglomerates over their reserves. There were dictators in Indonesia and Saudi Arabia that did not try "to attain power and prestige" that Clinton dined with, and Israel, renowned for their gross human rights violations, was armed with nuclear warheads. The administration had friends and foreign policy thinktanks deliberating the necessity of foreign occupation far before Bush took office, on grounds that they needed to "reconstruct the dilapidated oil industry" to suit to their interests.

[Dean]

The starving Iraqis were just pawns to show how evil and oppressive the west was for putting sanctions on Iraq- Saddam was trying to play the victim and some people with short memories fell for it. They weren't starving because of the sanctions, they were starving because of Saddam, who seemed to find no shortage of money for palaces and gold-plated AK-47s.
Yeah, a palace and a gold AK cost a million people food to the point of death.

And so fuckign what if Saddam really was evil in that sense? If a criminal said "if you cut off trade I'll plug these five people" would it really be wise to do it?

[pusher robot]

If a criminal said "if you cut off trade I'll plug these five people" would it really be wise to do it?

Yes, it would. If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk.

[Dean]

Yes, it would. If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk.

Except here the concern is not who owns cookies or milk, but whether or not our foreign policy should reflect a greater concern for economic sanctions or human life. Apparently, you chooe the former.

[pusher robot]

Except here the concern is not who owns cookies or milk, but whether or not our foreign policy should reflect a greater concern for economic sanctions or human life. Apparently, you chooe the former.

Don't you understand?

If you cave in to terrorism, it only guarantees that terrorism will be used again...and again...and again...

Your policy of appeasement would result in far more death and destruction than a firm policy of never negotiating with terrorists.

[Dean]

Don't you understand?

If you cave in to terrorism, it only guarantees that terrorism will be used again...and again...and again...

Your policy of appeasement would result in far more death and destruction than a firm policy of never negotiating with terrorists.

I don't give a damn waht you call it. I call it serving the interests of human life before economic and political power.

And the U.S. was just as responsible for any of Saddam's terrorism; in fact, most of it was directly funded and supported by the U.S.. The sanctions weren't to stop this, but to maintain western power in the oil - rich region.

[flyingpants]

Don't you understand?

If you cave in to terrorism, it only guarantees that terrorism will be used again...and again...and again...

Your policy of appeasement would result in far more death and destruction than a firm policy of never negotiating with terrorists.

Wait, you realise that bombing and invading other countries is terrorism, right?

[pusher robot]

Wait, you realise that bombing and invading other countries is terrorism, right?

Only if you refuse to make a distinction between "warfare" and "terrorism."

Honestly, I'm shocked that you guys would even argue this. If, post-"revolution," a group of neo-nazis threatens to blow up buildings unless you honor Hitler's birthday, are you really going to throw up your hands and agree to do whatever they want? And if you did, what lesson would they take from that?

If you are at all interested in preventing terrorism, you do not negotiate with terrorists. Ever.

[Dean]

Only if you refuse to make a distinction between "warfare" and "terrorism."

Honestly, I'm shocked that you guys would even argue this. If, post-"revolution," a group of neo-nazis threatens to blow up buildings unless you honor Hitler's birthday, are you really going to throw up your hands and agree to do whatever they want? And if you did, what lesson would they take from that?

If you are at all interested in preventing terrorism, you do not negotiate with terrorists. Ever.

Then Saddam should have refused to negotiate with the U.S.. That would have stopped the invasion for sure :rolleyes:

[Dros]

Oh! Me! Me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me!

I support it! I support it!:drool::drool::drool::drool:

[Joby]

In all reality, I certainly do not support the insurgency.

I have a job. I pay taxes. I support the fight against them.

Not that I agree with it.

[Zurdito]

And I'd resist the thugs and the theocrats even more harshly, because, in speaking for myself, I can say I'd rather live in American dominated state than in a Taliban state.

But US imperialism does not make other country's more like America.

We are materialist: for a socity to progress socially it needs to progress materially.

Therefore anything which pushes the society back materially - ie the monopolisation of its resources by a foreign empire and further domination of is domestic arkets by foreign capital - will in the long run only make the society more backwards. This is backed up by the fact that the Middle East and Central Asia have been semi-colonies of the USA for years, and are some of the most backward states on earth.



The question I would ask is why do INTERNATIONALISTS defend resistance on NATIONALIST terms?



Because you can't have internationalism when one nation opresses another. There's a difference between nationalism which fights to opress others, and nationlism which fights to throw off opression and gaine quality between two nations. We support the latter, not the former.

[Tungsten]

Except here the concern is not who owns cookies or milk, but whether or not our foreign policy should reflect a greater concern for economic sanctions or human life. Apparently, you chooe the former.
Do you think the sanctions were put there for laughs?

If economic sanctions are preventing them from killing us, then how would we be unconcerned for human life? Don't our lives matter too? Only the idiotic or the suicidal value the human rights of those trying to kill them.


I don't give a damn waht you call it. I call it serving the interests of human life before economic and political power.
"Peace in our time", right?

[Dean]

Do you think the sanctions were put there for laughs?

If economic sanctions are preventing them from killing us, then how would we be unconcerned for human life? Don't our lives matter too? Only the idiotic or the suicidal value the human rights of those trying to kill them.
You're a fucking idiot. Iraq was not, and has never been a credible threat to the U.S. people. The only threat was it's refusal to carry the pro-U.S. line and supply oil, something that Saddam did to appease his citizens who rightfully hate a nation which routinely bombs the fuck out of civilian populations in teh region.



"Peace in our time", right?
That would be nice, but unlikely. My interest here is to care more about peopel than money, serve human interests before the interests of a lifeless entity.

[Zurdito]

Only if you refuse to make a distinction between "warfare" and "terrorism."

I make the distinction. Uninvited American tanks firing on civilian homes and powerful armies carpet-bombing third world nations is terrorism. Grass roots peasants and workers defending their coomunities fromr rape, looting and pillaging by invaders is warfare - or, as I prefer to call it resistance.

[Tungsten]

You're a fucking idiot. Iraq was not, and has never been a credible threat to the U.S. people.
The sanctions were placed there by the UN following the first gulf war in order to contain Iraqi aggression, in case it attacked Kuwait or Israel, not the US.

You don't know what you're talking about.

That would be nice, but unlikely. My interest here is to care more about peopel than money, serve human interests before the interests of a lifeless entity.
Sorry, Neville, hiding behind that won't do any good, because I think we all know full well that anyone who raises a fist against the US (which supposedly embodies capitalism) will be given your complete and unquestioning support, regardless of their history. Innocent people who aren't bothered, you couldn't care less about. It's all very sanctimonious. And people vs money is a false dichotomy anyway.

[Labor Shall Rule]

What Iraqi “aggression” after the Gulf War?

General Tom Kelly admitted that "the Iraqi army will probably never recover from the war." The Gulf War was so destructive to the state of the Iraqi militarythat any future 'risk' would simply be a joke.

The Iraqis had over 4,300 tanks mobilized, but by the end of the war, there were only 300 armored vehicles remaining, they had over 800 aircraft, and they left with 560, and they had over 2,870 armored personal carriers, and lost over 1,856 of them. Over 100,000 Iraqi infantrymen perished—their entire force was in shambles.

Moreover, there was no 'threat' whatsoever.

[Dean]

The sanctions were placed there by the UN following the first gulf war in order to contain Iraqi aggression, in case it attacked Kuwait or Israel, not the US.

You don't know what you're talking about.
Sure, in word. But even if that is true, explain to me again how that threatens the U.S. people?


Sorry, Neville, hiding behind that won't do any good, because I think we all know full well that anyone who raises a fist against the US (which supposedly embodies capitalism) will be given your complete and unquestioning support, regardless of their history. Innocent people who aren't bothered, you couldn't care less about. It's all very sanctimonious. And people vs money is a false dichotomy anyway.
You know nothing about my interests, or my work. I despise entities like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, China, the Taliban, and the Russian Federation. And yet they are riddled with anti-american, anti-capitalist rhetoric. I know full well of their history where it pertains to my opinion of them.

What it comes down to is that Saddam was not a good person, but putting sanctions on his regime, targetting him and his policies regardless of the loss of life it would cause, is disgusting. Not dissimilar to dropping a bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the Japanese gov't wouldn't surrender, or the bombing of Dresden.

[pusher robot]

What it comes down to is that Saddam was not a good person, but putting sanctions on his regime, targetting him and his policies regardless of the loss of life it would cause, is disgusting. Not dissimilar to dropping a bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the Japanese gov't wouldn't surrender, or the bombing of Dresden.

Do you deny that sometimes a lesser evil is necessary to prevent a greater evil?

[Dean]

Do you deny that sometimes a lesser evil is necessary to prevent a greater evil?

No, but the key word is "sometimes," plus I'm willing to bet that we have a different value system to measure this.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Do you deny that sometimes a lesser evil is necessary to prevent a greater evil?

What was the 'greater evil' of not exterminating tens of thousands of innocent civilians?

The Japanese government did discuss the possibility of suing for peace -- a Joint Intelligence Committee report to the Joint Chiefs of Staff on April 29, 1945 reported that if a guarantee was made that the emperor was not threatened, then the Japanese would be open to discussing terms of surrender. When they drafted the offer, the Potsdam Proclamation, they intentionally did not permit the Soviet Union from signing it (which concerned the Japanese, who lost territory in Japan and Korea to them), and it gave no details about the fate of the emperor.

It wasn't just an 'accident' that they refused to offer negotiable terms. The British and Americans were acting in their own interests by not offering reasonable terms, and by not allowing the Soviets from signing it. A day after the bombing at Nagasaki, Truman "showed off the Soviets," and declared that Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary were ‘not to be spheres of influence of any one power’ on August 9th. It was therefore, a strategy to curtail Soviet influence in East Asia and Eastern Europe, not a "lesser of the evil" decision.

[RNK]

I support the sections of the insurgency which fight for progress in defense of the Iraqi people. I do not support sections of the insurgency which fight against progress by harming the Iraqi people.

A chant shouted by 200,000 protesting Iraqis in, what was it, 2004? seems adequate:

"Bush and Saddam: Two sides of the same coin"