Re: uncomradely debate

["Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The following is a comment from a reader on my article which has been 
reprented on iraqwar.ru

http://www2.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=1791&;comments_threshold=0&comments_offset=10&comments_sort_mode=points_desc&comments_maxComments=10&lang=ru


 Has any of you every been to the middle-east or indeed outside of your 
country. Repression is the hallmark of most US client arab states in the 
middle east.
What US media might not want to tell you is:
1. In 1971, Saddam wanted Iraq to have a more favourable share of it's 
oil revenues and threw out contracts signed by previous corrupt US 
installed regimes.
2. Iraq had the best education and University system in the middle-east, 
with the exception of possibly Israel, before the 1991 embargo
3. Iraq is one of the few countries in the middle-east where women are 
accorded status equal to men - working, driving, not wearing a chador.
4. And no, they do not stone or chop people's hands out there as 
punishment - unlike some friendly US regimes in the middle east.


Jose G. Perez wrote:
> > > Yet Henry Liu thinks we ought just to accept Saddam's butchery<<
>
> I think what Henry is upset about is the tendency towards social
> imperialism, I mean some socialists in imperialists countries, to
> "differentiate" themselves from someone who is, at most, a piker compared to
> their own rulers in terms of "butchery." The real butcher of Baghdad is
> Bush, not Saddam.
>
> This constant harping about Saddam and his (alleged) crimes is entirely
> unhealthy, unhelpful and totally besides the point. The battle has been
> joined. The question is, quite simply, which side are you on: you are either
> with the Anglo-American imperialist pirates or with the Arabs, the iraqis,
> with Saddam. There is no third camp.
>
> José