...imperialism is doomed to fail...

A peaceful demonstration is one thing. No problem. The vomit-ins, the human chains, the "gumming up" of downtown cities, is disruptive civil disobedience and should be met with fire hoses, rubber bullets and a night stick or two upside the head.

Since when do vomit-ins, human chains and "gumming up" of downtown cities represent acts of violence or non-peaceful demonstration ? Do people taking part in "disruptive civil disobedience" actually deserve "fire hoses, rubber bullets and a night stick or two upside the head" ?

The tone of most posts here is amazingly violent. Many "arguments" exposed here are so plainly emotional and biased, that they could have been the products of their natural counterparts, the islamic fundamentalists. One must conclude that many seem to have been in irrational moods at the time of writing. Even Augusto Pinochet would hardly have dared to use such terms in his assignments to DINA torturers about how to deal with "disruptive civil disobedience"... while the "gruesome tyrant"'s (Saddam Hussein's) propaganda surely portrayed the Kurdish and Shia uprisings of 1991 as "disruptive civil disobedience" as well, in order to justify the bloody massacres of civilians who dared to stand up against the Ba'athist regime.

Today, we see the same tragic events of 1991 paradoxically being instrumentalized as an argument against Saddam by the imperialist warmongers in their laughable if not amateurish propaganda. Let's not forget, the US government promised assistance to the Kurds and Shia of Iraq shortly after the so-called second Gulf war, but then watched most passively as their deceived allies fell prey to the regime's slaughtering Republican Guards units. The military core of Saddam's regime was left intact probably on purpose by the attacking imperialist forces in Operation Desert Storm and during the previous bombing campaign, so to prevent regional disorder... as a result, many people inside Iraq are suspicious about the US governments true aims and priorities : is this war fought to liberate Iraq from Saddam's regime and replace it with a democratic government, or, as in past imperialist conflicts, because of a mixture of economic, financial and corporatist interests, as well as the megalomaniac ideology of a proto-fascistoid governing clique ?

Even more than the regime of Bush sr., the current US administration seems unable to base its actions on a functional analysis of the complexity of political and social issues at stake in the region, and of the undeniable threats they pose to international security. Yet Iraqi opposition groups have not forgotten this act of "betrayal", so their current alliance with the US can at best be interpreted as purely tactical and set to fit short-term interests (destruction of Saddam's regime). This is also why "coalition" troops are not exactly being acclaimed as liberators, contrary to what many analysts were expecting. Added to the devastating experience of a decade of economic embargo and hundreds of thousands of dead and deformed children due to plutonium infested ammunition used by the US army or lack of food due to the embargo, it becomes evident that the reserve of the brave and enduring Iraqi masses in the course of the current imperialist offensive is a logical consequence of past US policies, despite massive distribution of propaganda leaflets (or because of them, as they were also distributed in 1991...)

Finally, statements like the above significantly strengthen the idea outside of the USA and particularly in Europe, that the US is no longer a state governed by the rule of law, therefore it fails to meet one of the most basic requirements of a democracy. Let alone that such a behaviour stands in sharp contradiction to the basic values of democracy and Western modern political culture, which extremists within the US government pretend to defend against "terrorism" or "fundamentalism".

To an unprecedented extent, laborious masses around the globe are now realizing that the current US policies are substantially similar to the other side's policies, and that their only justification lies in the non-ethical and unlawful argument following which today's international system should be governed according to the exclusive will of the most powerful. If the haters maintain that their stance is based on morality, which would be characteristic of the growing Christian fundamentalism in US politics, then the morality upon which it is founded is nothing short of a dangerous racist doctrine that would grant Americans (preferably White, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant ?) superior rights to others, because of their essence as "the good guys", the rest of the world being "the bad ones".

No moral consideration can justify this dirty war, so it is pointless trying to argue along ethical lines ! I do not favor violence, so any outcries of hate, supporting a butchery that is being performed at this very moment, although far from our internet-terminal equipped safe havens in the Western hemisphere, is objectionable in my view. But still, I would like to give all haters the possibly useful advice that their arguments are and will always be counterproductive : they only serve those who actively spread extremist interpretations of Islam, just as they perfectly feed the anti-American ressentment in the public opinions of the Middle East and all developing countries subject to imperialist assaults of various forms (including Mexico and Venezuela). The result will be the inevitable decline of catipatlist imperialism, as predicted by Marx and Engels. According to official military propaganda, 70 % of the American people support the unjust war on Iraq. If these supposed 70 % at the same time shared such hateful thoughts about a particular group of people defined only through their religion (believers or not), then your country would probably be much more dangerous to world stability and peace than Saddam Hussein's. If the above hypothesis was accurate, then the US would rather be comparable to Nazi Germany, when a similar percentage of Germans probably favored the genocidal NSDAP policies towards the Jewish people ("round them up" etc.).

However, this hideous hypothesis is far from true : to our knowledge, the American masses are luckily also starting to decrypt the dialectics of the situation, beyond official propaganda and superstructural interests, and soon people favoring the imperialist war will be a small minority. Further, as soon as economic dissent appears between the Texas-based oil industry, which backs the government's radicals and their simplistic plans for global hegemony, and the rest of the US capitalist economy, "the game will be over" for Mr. Bush and his extremist team, as they will be invited to pursue their wargames on a Nintendo console in a peaceful mansion for retireds.

Wouldn't it be a wise and popular decision to first send UN peacekeeping troops to the US, in order to stop a dangerous racist ideology from spilling over to the political institutions, and offer free psychotherapy for all those who wish to extinguish innocent lives while enjoying the fallacious comfort of their consumerist environment ? Thousands of innocent prisoners in the USA, victims of the capitalist society, many of whom await execution in inhumane death rows partly because of the color of their skin (in the sense that a Black American has a much higher probability to be sentenced to capital punishment than a White for a similar crime - all statistics speak for themselves), deserve legal assistance from the international community. An international court should be created in order to judge possible and alleged war crimes and other violations of international and federal US laws by the armed forces and intelligence agencies of the United States, during all relevant conflicts and crises since World War II. The involvement of Iraqi humanitarian organizations in the distribution of much needed material help to the American subproletariat massed in the countless slums and ghettos of virtually every American city, would also be a fair and balanced global governance initiative.

Civil disobedience is an interesting tool. It works very well but has no business being used in certain places.

For example: Me and my friends are annoyed with gas prices, so we decide to take action and 500 of us gather and sit down on the floor blocking 6th Ave and 34th street. Have you ever been to New York? This sort of civil disobedience will end up with Herald Square becoming Carmageddon. Rubber bullets, hoses, blah blah. That's not the thing...
What else, the nude women who laid down in the snow in central park? I dunno, but some people didn't want to see that, and the same way people have the right to free speech, other people would say they have the right to jog through the park and not see a group of naked hippies. See the point? The right to assemble and protest is important but not when it infringes on the rights of others to lead normal lives. Enjoy protesting, and make your voice heard, but please don't ruin my commute home

Just my take on civil disobedience. Don't beat em up, but they should know better and be more considerate.

Excellent post by FrenchCommunist, covers all aspects of the situation !

Welcome back Karl! *waves*

Thanks

But im not Frenchcommunist

Yet it may be i met him during the antifascist demonstrations in Paris

Sorry you read that wrong...I meant it to apply to you Rudra...

I read your posts, and then examined the date, and made the inference... The sentiment still stands...we need those on both sides of the fence to keep things interesting...

[Edited on 24-3-2003 by Gazrok]

FrenchCommunist, and if you was writing a post about all the horrors commited by all the communist regime in the world, from the past to nowadays ?

It would be so interesting and, also, it would increase your * credibility *

FrenchCommunist, and if you was writing a post about all the horrors commited by all the communist regime in the world, from the past to nowadays ?

Not to mention it would exceed ATS bandwidth....

Originally posted by nyeff

Not to mention it would exceed ATS bandwidth....

He he he...Nyeff,I like your humour.

Did you know that communist don't have any sens of humour ?

Excepted Echelon, but I don't think that he's a real communist. All the commies that I met were really a bunch of sad clowns, all of them. So, like Echelon has a good humour, I can't think that he's really a commie.

Probably that he's a CIA agent working undercover.

FC, i welcome you to ats. good luck on your journey. good first post. it was articulate and now everyone knows where you stand...i gotta agree with you; that's right i'm doing it in public.

U.P,

FrenchCommunist, and if you was writing a post about all the horrors commited by all the communist regime in the world, from the past to nowadays ?

Yes, that would be Interesting. If we lived in a world where Communists held rule over the Earth.

He's talking about the here and now and these are the people who are running the World at the moment, not the Communists.

And these are the people who are pissing off the entire planet.

good statement, frenchie


greetings from Hawaii

You don't understand how such civil stupidity warrants water hoses?
Well, let's think about. I know you think such people are to enlightened to carry disease, but these people who think its cute to puke on the city are bio-hazards, a danger to the good citizens of the city and to themselves, and the best way to clean up the clear and evident bio-hazard is with nature's best cleaning agent - water.

These people who are "gumming up" the city are in violation of other citizens' right to travel. You want to put your garbage on a stick and parade around, fine. Don't however, do it in a manner which restricts or hinders other peoples' right to move about. That is worthy of a nightstick to the common peronial.

You are correct, Bush '41 di not back up his claim he made to the Shi'ites and Kurds to aide in their revolt against Hussein. He proved to be weak and allowed international pressure back him down from this, allowing, as you pointed out, many people fighting for their freedom to die. His son did not inherit this weakness. As far as the core of Saddam's military, the Republican Guard, being left intact and the job of rendering Hussein defenseless, if not ousted, you can thank the limp-wristed "leaders" of the rest of the world that frowned upon going beyond what was outlined in the resolution, which called only for the removal of the Iraqi forces from Kuwait. U.N. rules, not ours. Place blame where it belongs.

Whether or not you like it, this nation is a nation of law, and contrary to your diatribe, our government is one of elected officials, not "regimes" and your misuse of words in your rhetoric only saways the easily led, not the knowledgeable. This administration has violated no international law or any of the Laws of Nations, and is gongruent with apllicable U.N. resolutions. Our president was voted to lead the nation and to uphold and protect the constitution for the united states of America and the citizenry thereof, not to forsake our security so as not to rock the financial boats of Germany and France or not to interfere with any loans owed to Russia by Hussein's government. Your allegation that we are not a nation of law is baseless, therefore your assertion that the nation that has defended and protected democracy throughout the world when others were not strong enough to keep their own no longer meets "basic requirements" is unfounded and fraudulant on face value. This makes the rest of the baseless allegations not relevant, as well as the rest of your unrealistic advertisement for a severely flawed economic system that has been the breeding ground for more brutal dictatorship than any other in current history.

You sir, may sway those who flow with the breeze, but those of us whose positions are based on facts and law instead of opinion, assumption and fantasies of a system long since proven to be brutally flawed aren't quite so misguided by your Lenin-like rhetoric.

defended and protected democracy; sure....for the right price we'll defend and protect anything. Ask Turkey and Saddam. while some of the things in his essay are hard to hear. they are true.

as for brutially spraying and beating american citizens for joining in a mass protest; you are entitled to your opinion but it is just that an opinion. it would be nice if someone actually pulled a link to the law that said spraying folk with highpowered firehoses because they puke on the street is lawful. all the little kids at the next county fair better watch out.

I'm afraid you aren't aware of the real face of brutality.

Your allegation that the U.S. has historically defended democracy "for a price" is not worthy of debate as it is more an insult than objective notation.

Speaking of brutality, go meet Saddam. aybe he'll let you play with the plastic shredder. Maybe you can watch prisoners of war be shot between the eyes, while our guys get shot for attempting to take inti custady enemy soldiers trying to "surrender" only to shoot those who are trying to be humane.

You'd better take another good look around, missy, and you'd better look deeper for the real reasons our former "friends" have turned against us.

From what is apparent at present it is communism which has failed. There are a multitude of very good reasons for that which Iraq�s governments seems to personify as valid. Communism has failed in the one thing it claimed, this the capacity to be the best way to treat the masses humanely.

Saddam was given 12 years to disarm, several years ago he through UN inspectors out of Iraq. The inspectors were then stating they had found WMD.

The fall of the Soviet Union presented a problem specific to a US effort to deal with the issue of Iraq. The communist leaders of that time had ordered the military to start killing Russian citizens. The military refused and the resultant effect is what is called today the Russian Republic. It was possible that given the rhetoric and disinformation that we are all (for instance exposed to at this site). That an American incursion into Iraq for the purposes of disarming her (and as well getting rid of Saddam Hussein). Would have been viewed negatively in respect to the masses (of Russia) which were not necessarily privy to what exactly had happened with respect to the Soviet leadership.

Such an action at the time as invading Iraq could have had serious consequences, so the decision was made to wait until Russia was stable. Serious indication existed that if the US did not follow this path. It would be possible that a full-scale nuclear war could occur as a result of concern of the US (an enemy of the Soviet Union since after WWII) is taking control of territory so close to the former Soviet Union.

You conclusion is that the US is today akin to developing into a fascist state. Because it has become intolerant
to the point of engaging in war with Iraq. I would site if that were a reasonable argument, then why has no one else supported Iraq in a war against the US?

The United States is dealing with the conclusion made by UN inspectors several years ago. This specifically stating that they had found evidence of WMD in that country. The only country in the world which has stated
in fact that the conclusion drawn then is incorrect, is the country if Iraq.

No one wants war but when it gets to the point one is obviously engaged in appeasement there you have a problem. 12 years have passed the UN representative in charge of objectively disclosing information.

Regarding Iraq�s capacity to apply and be in possession of WMD did not openly disclose such information despite it was his responsibility to do so (clearly an example of appeasement).

You seem of be of the opinion that people who live in the US actually want to be at war today that is incorrect. The US does not want to start a full-scale nuclear war either. By far an issue exsit here in respect to words such as accountability and responsibility for securing freedom and the right to protest. Something you would not have in Iraq or under the Soviet Block.

Those in fact are realities as are these as well, the reasons why the soviet block no longer exists.

The region is question is more can best defined as dysfunctional this evidenced by the fact the Arab League of Nations invests it support of people they acknowledge as there own kind with weapons. Countries despite the common frame of reference (with regard to other cultures) use WMD. Not only against each other but against population in there own countries.

The only other time in history that WMD were used was during WWI and WWII. After WWII the UN was created as a means of insuring that this would never happen again. Fact of the matter is that this did happen and that nothing has been done about it. And that is a very important point, the idea that simply put the issue, of a leaders use of these weapons aside. And pretend that everything is ok is immoral. Furthermore, that we introduced into the Arab world the country of Israel because of the fact WMD were used against them. And then turn around and allow a leader to use WMD against Arab�s and get away with it. Is hypocrisy beyond any hypocrisy presented to date.


I can understand waiting for the reasons stated above we are responsible to the survival of the Human race.

But the human race is no longer at risk.

Those people in Iran and in Iraq who died because of the use of WMD deserve better defense than what does the UN engaged in. This is a mockery of not only its fundamental mandate, but as well of the Arab world in general.

I think that not supporting a war with Iraq is the wrong decision

What are your thoughts?

everything has a price tag TC, you know that. and conflicts are waged accordingly.

spraying american citizens for protesting is brutal...just because you compare it to something gruesome doesn't diminish that. and of course i'm going to say we shouldn't be over there anyway. that war is murder people die in the most inhumane ways. it should be illegal to kill then we wouldn't have this problem.

i don't like being called "missy". still, i'll endure it. find me that law and you can call me whatever you like.

[Edited on 25-3-2003 by Saphronia]

I'm sorry, Saph, I won't call you that again.

Forgive me?

By the way, you know what might be more brutal than the cops doing their job. Other citizens who take offense to that crap. If some morons were throwing up on the sidewalk as my family and I were walking down it I'd kick some teeth in for creating a filthy biohazard by which to make people sick.
And if some moggoty protestors got in the street in my town to protest, I wouldn't change course with my car. And if the protestor put a dent in my car when he bounced off it, I'd stop the car and break the creep's leg with a bat. You see, all that kind of inconsideration falls into my "How $%^&*ing" dare you catagory, which is a thought that runs through my mind right before I get into a fight.

Originally posted by kegs
U.P,

Yes, that would be Interesting. If we lived in a world where Communists held rule over the Earth.

He's talking about the here and now and these are the people who are running the World at the moment, not the Communists.

World population : + 6.3 billions.

China : 1.3 billion ( 20% of the worldwide population )

And I don't count the others communist country, like Cuba, North-Korea, Viet-Nam, Laos.....

Can we say that almost 33% of the world is living directly under a communist regime ?

And who is still running the media, everywhere in the world ? 90% are communist or socialist.

And for you, we are not living in a almost leftist world ?

TC: you are forgiven, no question i wasn't even a tad offended.

still, if you bloddy a protester then you are the aggressor and the police should deal with you with handcuffs and a ride to the local facility.

and where do you get this vomiting crap from anyways. has there been reports of mass vomiting at these protest?

at any rate i think you disagree because of the reason they are protesting more than the inconvience...be real, you don't like the protest because of what they are protesting, it's not because they are clogging up the streets. if they were protesting the protest i don't think it would upset you so much.

protesters protesting the protest.....what is this world coming too?

[Edited on 26-3-2003 by Saphronia]