The REAL Truth in Iraq

[Galol]

AA

"America didn't want to hold elections in Iraq, they were practically dragged into holding it kicking and screaming. It was due to the insistence of grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and after many demonstrations that the US finally caved in and called for election."

This goes down well in a local meeting of the Socilaist Workers' contributing comrades but it really is conspiracy theories for the kindergarten population for the wider world. The idea of Ayatollah Sistanii, a medieval theocrat with mediveal view of the world; a Beleiver in Be'ya'h rather than democracy lecturing Americans on the merits of one man one vote issue is just truly comical.

And sad too. Your conspiracy theories are so way out they attract the usual crowd: The most radical of Islamists; the most chauvinist nationalist of Arab groups; the most fascist rightwing of white supremacists and black supremacists and other assorted extremists ALL agree with the views of the so-called Socialists in europe. You want real socialists and real socialism? go to the third world. Visit Latin America or Sudan or Iraq or Morocco.

[avowedly-agnostic]

Galol

Screaming Red conspiracy whenever you're picked up on an issue is really unbecoming for someone like you. I don't deal in conspiracy theories, I like to stick with facts, and can often substantiate my claims if you only ask for evidence (See Sistani insisting on elections articles below).

Ali Sistani is an influential figure who commands the allegiance of a great many of Iraq's Shia- that is is undisputable. So if Americans held elections in the early days of the occupation, and given the powerful influence of Sistani , who do you suspect Iraqi shias would vote for? None other than Sistani and his political party. Now why would that be a problem for the US?

For the simple reason that a shia dominated government would naturally want closer ties with its neighbour and co-religionist, Iran, thus rendering any attack or pressure, economic or otherwise impossible lest they want to incur the wrath of the Iraqi government.

But that was just one of my arguments. You've failed to answer why if the US is indeed seeking democracy building, it has overthrown numerous democratically elected Latin American governments from Jacobo Arbenz in 1954 to Hugo Chavez in 1998 (the latter case being unsuccessful).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer

http://www.juancole.com/2004/09/sistani ... zaman.html

[avowedly-agnostic]

What does it feel like to be exposed for the socialist turned neo-con SOB you've become Galol eh?

Would you say it's more, or less excruciating than getting a good Marxist kick in the family jewels?

Please next time, let's get off the ad hominem and stick with the merits of the argument. And don't ever call into question my Socialist ideals old man, the SWP is at THE vanguard of the proletariat revolution.

[Galol]

AA

As a Socialist even as a trot I would expect minimum standards and sadly I dont see them now.

A socialist sidling up with a reactionary medieval theocrat like Sistanii is patronising from your white comrades to whom patronage comes naturally but totally insulting from you.

But I forget you are only a spotty piece of 80s born little life whose only exposure to politics comes from little student digs inhabited by would-be chartered white accountants having a bit of intellectual fun before they open their practises in The City and become contributing members of society.

[avowedly-agnostic]

"As a Socialist even as a trot I would expect minimum standards and sadly I dont see them now."

Huh? A minimum standards in what?

"A socialist sidling up with a reactionary medieval theocrat like Sistanii..."

Old man what is your false teeth rattling on about? I've never expressed support for Sistani, he's an Islamic Fundamentalist and I've nothing in common with the fellow.

But what relevance is any of that to the debate? You said that Sistani never called for elections, and I set you straight, he did indeed call for elections to select the drafters of a new constitution, because he was confident of his Islamic party taking most of the seats. Rather than conceding you were mistaken when confronted with evidence, you instead launch into a tirade about my spotty face and what not.

Why can't you adress the subject matter: why the US has constantly undermined democracy by overthrowing democratic governments in order to secure its economic interests? Is this not ample proof that the US is more interested in empire building than it is concerned with democracy?

[avowedly-agnostic]

...

[avowedly-agnostic]

...

[avowedly-agnostic]

Galol why won't you answer my question kind sir?

I'm sorry if I upset you by threatening you with a Marxist kick in your saggy, shriveld up increasingly neo-con balls. I really am apologetic.

Now won't you answer my question?

[michael_ital]

Wow. A truly exciting debate. But you guys have truly transcended the limits of my ability to contribute. Keep it going, please.

[Galol]

AA

I grew up and one day you will too. Marxism/Trotism looks fun on paper but in reality it doesnt work: it stifles enterprise and ingenuity because it goes asgainst the grain of human nature. Man is naturally greedy and selfish and competitive that is why he is on top of the food chain not because he is a commune-loving, caring sharing beast who works for the common good. And Proletariat dictatorship is an inherently evil concept why should these peasants run anything. there is a reason why they are peasants it is lack of intelligence, guts, enterprise or breeding.


But I aint no new con either so you better retract that insult.

What is at stake here is who you sided with; and by you I mean the Euro leftie movement. The reality is in their petty, infantile hatred of america they ended up siding by default with the nastiest of reactionaries; chauvinisits, nationalists, theocrats and other third world dictators.

I was almost physically sickened by the sight of Galloway; Benn and others singing Saddam's praises. Did i once long long ago share views with these racist SOBs? I say racist because if Sadadm was in Europe they would hve picked an armalite and fought him like their intellectual forebeaerers did with Franco who was far less Chauvinist and far milder fascist than Saddam was.

The idea that America diodnt want democracy but was foisted upon it by Sistanii is still making me chuckle.


BTW can I recommend a book or ratgher an author? Check out the stuff wrote by Arthur Koestler: Darkness at Noon, Invisible Writing etc. Interesting stuff.

[avowedly-agnostic]

" Marxism/Trotism looks fun on paper but in reality it doesnt work: it stifles enterprise and ingenuity because it goes asgainst the grain of human nature. "

That socialism doesn't work is your opinion- and you're entitled to it, but that it stifles enterprise and ingenuity is false and a misunderstanding of what socialism is about. Ingenuity is encouraged in a socialist society, but not so individuals like Bill Gates can get massively rich- but so it may be used for the good of the wider community.

" Proletariat dictatorship is an inherently evil concept why should these peasants run anything. "

That's not the case. Proletariat dictatorship means workers not just peasants through a federation of comittees run the state, that's called direct democracy.

" What is at stake here is who you sided with; and by you I mean the Euro leftie movement. The reality is in their petty, infantile hatred of america they ended up siding by default with the nastiest of reactionaries "

Our opposition to the US administration is not based on petty squabble- the invasion of a country for the purpose of plundering its resources and the chaos that followed leaving tens of thousands dead isn't petty- it's war crimes, and pretty much everyone in the UK and the world can see that apart from your increasingly right wing self.

And I've said it once before, I don't support Islamists- they're grotesque, but I do think that Iraqi nationalists have a right to defend their land.

"I was almost physically sickened by the sight of Galloway; Benn and others singing Saddam's praises. "

I don't necessarily agree with everything Galloway says. And I don't remember Tony benn lauding Saddam with praise.

" The idea that America diodnt want democracy but was foisted upon it by Sistanii is still making me chuckle. "

It's not me that's saying the US was forced to hold elections, it's the Washingtion Post- one of the most reputable US newspapers. I gave you the link, what more evidence do you want? Whilst I back up my claims with reputable newspaper articles, you seem to base your position on every incoherent air which comes out of Bush's teeth.

Who's dealing in conspiracy theories now?

After all that rambling about socialism and Galloway (which the discussion was never about), you conveniently skipped my question, presumably becuase you can't answer it. I'll try once more: Why has the US if it's truly concerned with democracy overthrown (or attempted to) numerous democratically elected Latin American governments ?

Is that not proof that the US is more interested in securing its geopolitical and economic interests?

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"Why has the US if it's truly concerned with democracy overthrown (or attempted to) numerous democratically elected Latin American governments ? "

I can answer that. Self interest. We toppled governments that were aligning themelves with the Soviets in the cold war or governments that were threatening US interests. Completely legitimate.

[avowedly-agnostic]

" I can answer that. Self interest. We toppled governments that were aligning themelves with the Soviets in the cold war or governments that were threatening US interests. Completely legitimate. "

You're right about one point, US intervention is almost always driven by self-serving interests and nothing to do with democracy. But there's nothing legitimate about overthrowing democratically elected governments, it's the US that threatens other countries' national interests by demanding they privatise their resources and be open to exploitation by multinational companies.

Countries have a right to do with their economy as they please, if they want to nationalise, then so be it. It'd be laughable if Venezuela dictated to America how it should run its economy. in the same way, America has no right to dictate to others that they mustn't nationalise their resources.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"You're right about one point, US intervention is almost always driven by self-serving interests and nothing to do with democracy. But there's nothing legitimate about overthrowing democratically elected governments, it's the US that threatens other countries' national interests by demanding they privatise their resources and be open to exploitation by multinational companies.

Countries have a right to do with their economy as they please, if they want to nationalise, then so be it. It'd be laughable if Venezuela dictated to America how it should run its economy. in the same way, America has no right to dictate to others that they mustn't nationalise their resources"

The US doesn't "Dictate" to other countries how to run their economies. The US is certainly within its rights to try and influence other states policies within the limits of our means, just as those states try and influence our policies.

If a State nationalizes private property, they are essentially stealing it. How about if the US nationalizes all the property investments within the country made by Japan, Germany, China, etc.? If everyone did that, and it was allowed to stand, soon no company would ever invest overseas and places like Somalia would not see a dime in foreign investment.

As for resources, if a state cuts off a critical resource, like oil, then of course we are going to use military force to restore access to that resource. Principals are out the window when your own citizens don't have oil to heat their homes, or trucks can't deliver food to your cities. Just a fact of life.

Governments are first and foremost entrusted to look out for their own citiens interests.

[avowedly-agnostic]

"The US doesn't "Dictate" to other countries how to run their economies."

You're right, they just overthrow them as in the numerous coups in Latin America.

"If a State nationalizes private property, they are essentially stealing it."

Stealing it from whom? The natural resources of a country belong to the inhabitants of its citizens to do with as they please.

"As for resources, if a state cuts off a critical resource, like oil, then of course we are going to use military force to restore access to that resource. "

First and foremost nationalisation doesn't equate with withholding resources, and in none of the cases where the US intervened in Latin America from Guatemala, Nicaragua and Venezuela did they cut off resources from the United States, their crime was to nationalise energy resources to be used for the benefit of their impoverished populace.

"Governments are first and foremost entrusted to look out for their own citiens interests."

I concur, and as such the obligation of Latin America is to its own people, to ensure they reap the benefits of their own resources, and not to be exploited. America's interventions in Latin America are simply and unequivocally illegitimate not to mention an affront to democracy and the will of the people to take charge of their economy.