Defending the Iraqi state (was Recognition of gov)

["Tahir Wood" <twood@xxxxxxxxx>]

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 03:57:42 -0500
From: "LouPaulsen" <LouPaulsen@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Recognition of governments (was:: A Russian view of the
war (April6)
when the US prepares to dump an "area weapon" out of a C-47
onto a division of Republican Guard and incinerate them, you try to
stop it
and do not stare into space in an attitude of blissful unconcern.  If
you
try to stop it, you are 'defending the Iraqi state'.  I rather think
that,
despite all the verbiage, just about everyone on this list would
'defend the
Iraqi state' in such practical terms, which of course is absolutely
obligatory for any Marxist or indeed anti-imperialist of any form.


The logic in the above is faulty, and anyone who is not a dyed in the
wool statist can pick it up immediately. It is that old binary logic: if
two states are at war one of the states must be the progressive one. No,
I don't believe that any of the Iraqi citizens, whether soldiers or not
soldiers, should be incinerated by the US. This makes me a defender of
the Iraqi people, not of the state. Do I hope that the US forces get a
whipping in Iraq? You bet, because they are the aggressor. But that does
not make me 'for' Saddam or his regime. The idea of this support for the
state being obligatory (fine choice of words that) for Marxists is
nonsense. Marxists stand with the people not with the instrument of
their class oppression.

Tahir