Re: AUT: RE: antiwar movement

[Thiago Oppermann <thiago_oppermann@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 23/3/2004 4:53 PM, "\"Ryan H. B. Graham\"" <ryan.graham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Quoting Thiago Oppermann <thiago_oppermann@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> On 23/3/2004 12:26 PM, "Thomas Seay" <entheogens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> --- Thiago Oppermann <thiago_oppermann@xxxxxxxxxxx> w
>>>> You can keep your soul squeaky clean and wait for
>>>> ever for the right
>>>> conditions, I suppose, but there are some very nasty
>>>> choices to be made
>>>> right now.
>>>
>>> Point taken, but whom do you support in that case?
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>
>> It's a stinker, but unless the US is thrown out of Iraq, we can look
>> forward
>> to many more Iraqs. The only force likely to accomplish that is the
>> despicable 'resistance'. Would I tell Iraqis to go kill themselves so that
>> we're spared a rampant US? No, I wouldn't do that. But the reality isn't
>> altered by my cold feet in that regard.
>
> Am I correct to say that you see "more Iraqis" (i.e. US invasion and
> occupation
> of) as the greater evil than another Saddam or some neo-Ba'athist or Islamist
> regime - or perhaps the Taliban in Afghanistan?
>
> I don't think it's fair to characterize someone who doesn't want to take sides
> as simply wanting a "squeaky clean soul".  It seems that you beleive that
> workers' revolution and class struggle are a pipe dream so we should throw in
> the towel and settle for some old school third world nationalism.

Sure, if you don't want to take a position, fine. That's ok. But don't take
a position. What you are doing is not that: you are taking a position, in
fact one based on a very doubtful distinction. More Iraq's - more US
military interventions - are highly likely to bring about more nefarious
regimes. History is pretty insistent on this point. The Islamists in Iran
climbed to power on the back of fury at the American-installed and sponsored
Shah. The Taliban was supported by US allies and their immediate
predecessors were directly supported by the US. The Ba'athist party was
supported by the US, and similar parties are currently supported by the US.
Destroying societies leaves them open for the worst to take over - need this
lesson be learned again, after Cambodia?

Any opposition to these vile regimes must be an opposition to the militarism
of our own ruling class. That's a major reason why these regimes come about.

I really want to believe that there is a worker's revolution that could come
to power in Iraq: that is why I bother going to forums organized by
pathological sects like Worker's Liberty, on the off chance that I will find
some ember that might light the fire. But look - there doesn't seem to be
one.  I fully support any effort to incite a revolution in Iraq, and we are
taking active steps to contact like minded people over there. But that's
where the Iraq Information Nebula problem comes in...

>
>> Having said that, there is one big problem with any choosing of sides, and
>> that is the Iraqi Information Nebula. It seems very difficult to get any
>> sort of sense of what is going on in that country.
>
> Would it be better if there was some Maoist-type guerilla movement that you
> could lend your "critical support" to?
>
> I don't mean to sound like a jerk here but I think the question of Iraqi
> resistance is an important one that goes well beyond simply expelling a
> foreign
> invader or putting a dent in the aspirations of an imperialist power 'by any
> means necessary.'

That's where we disagree. If we don't dent the aspirations of Bush and
company, Iraq will be peanuts. Imagine if these loonies decide to take over
Iran...

You are right that the question goes beyond expelling the invader. After
they expel invader, there will be lot to be done, and it will be all the
harder because the only seemingly able to defeat the Americans are these
inhuman fuckers.

Thiago



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---