RE:[Marxism] Saddam and Baathists vs radical Iraqi nationalism

["David Quarter" <davidquarter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From:                   "M. Junaid Alam" <junaidalam@xxxxxxxxxx>

> The man is mentally disturbed, yes.>>>>

Again,  what does that mean??? A definition.

 If you feel like riding the morality
> horse and pretending that it is the same as calling someone a "nigger",
> that is your own problem. >>>>>

   If you believe that, you obviously don't understand the meaning of the
term "mentally disturbed" and the repecussions it has
brought to the millions of people so labeled.


He is mentally disturbed in the sense that he
> is truly a megalomaniac.>>>>

 Now, it's in the sense?

 The bourgeois media said the same thing about Milosevic for
defedning Yugoslavia. This is type of rethoric you hear whenever a
former western hero turns villain. You are concentrating on the
wrong figure...

 Having your blood inscribed into calligraphy is
> fucked up, period. >>>>

 There are way MORE fu*ked up things that pass as 'normal'
behaviour. Take your pick...



The rest of the silliness about me being "bourgeois"
> and sarcastic snipes are all fun and jolly but nothing worth addressing.>>>>

 And No one is forcing you to...

>
> Bending yourself out of shape to defend Hussein on a personal level is
> bizarre.>>>>

 Or mentally disturbed?



 This is the Marxism List
 not the Today Show, a forum on which
> airing out Saddam's flaws would play directly into the hands of
> imperialism. >>>>>

 First of all, you made claims that you have no basis for making. To
characterize Hussein as a criminal is nothing at all revealing. All
the other stuff about him and the Bathisst playing no part in the
resistance is baseless crap. At least, you provide no evidence for
this, despite the fact that one of the hotbeds of the Iraqi resitance
is in the area of the country where the Bathist party receives
overwhelming support...

So if someone wants to pretend Saddam has some
> revolutionary streak or positive nationalist quality as Abu Nasr
> suggested>>>>

  Where did I say that?

 specifically for not giving into imperialism, it should be
> known for the record that Saddam is no anti-imperialist fighting hero,
> and he certainly never was. >>>>>



 Fighting, as in the battlefied? No. But, neither have most leaders throughout 
history. Hero?
No. But, anti imperialist? Did he welcome the gang rape of Iraq with open arms?
He was offered sanctuary, abroad.  It was also put on the cards by
the U.S. imperialists, and Hussein refused.

If he is defending his country against imperialist attack (which he
has been since falling out of favour with the world emperor.), it
seems logical, in my books,  to call him an anti imperialist.

Since many Palestinians (at least, in the past) looked at Arafat and
"moderates" within Fatah as a bunch of sell outs, you could
probably also characterize their leadership as having been "a total
disaster"; that they "could have done", to borrow you words again,
" a million things more intelligently
and differently if [they were] any kind of real nationalist[s]".

Obviously if the Israelis decided to carry out a full scale invasion of
Palestine (as ironic as that sounds) and arrested Arafat and others
with Fatah (as they threatened to do on many occasions), Marxists
wouldn't cheer.

DOQ




_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism