Occupying the Moral High Ground

[vimothy]

There's more:

"I don't know really know why Saddam's regime lasted for over three decades, but I am sure as an Iraqi who survived that period that there was no legal or moral justifications for it to remain. I was counting days and hours waiting to see an end to that regime, just like all those who suffered the cruelty of that brutal regime. .... Throughout these decades I lost trust in the world governments and international committees. Terms like (human rights, democracy and liberty, etc.) became hollow and meaningless and those who keep repeating these words are liars..liars..liars. I hated the U.N and the security council and Russia and France and Germany and the Arab nations and the islamic conference. I've hated George Galloway and all those marched in the millionic demonstrations against the war. It is I who was oppressed and I don't want any one to talk on behalf of me, I, who was eager to see rockets falling on Saddam's nest to set me free, .... What hurt me more and kept my wound bleeding was that they gave Saddam a tribune .. and offered him a diplomatic representation almost all-over the world to broadcast his filthy propaganda and sprinkle Iraq's wealth on his supporters. I really didn't understand those countries demands to take away our misery. Did they really think that the sanctions were the cause? We were not even human, Saddam wiped off our humanity, we were just numbers .... Believe me, we were living in the "kingdom of horror". .... Can anyone tell me why the world let Saddam remain and stood against America's will to topple him? Till when will the charts of human rights remain incompulsory, cancel them, because they remind you of your big disgrace. Keep giving time and tribunes to regimes like those in Syria, Yemen, North Korea and Libya to justify their presence. To me I don't recognize your committees and I have no time to listen to that nonsense, I've got a long way to walk building my country and helping my people forget the days of abasement. You all owe the Iraqi people an apology."

- http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2003_11_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#106908590931527369

 

[Mr. Tea]

An interesting and moving piece, and the kind of thing more people in the West ought to be listening to, but I was struck particularly by this passage:

We understand this war is all about national interests, and that America’s interests are mainly about defeating terrorism.

Exactly how many Americans had ever been hurt by 'Iraqi terrorists' before the invasion? The closest to this I can think of - in terms of 'national interests' - is Saddam's alleged* sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. If America were serious about reducing this kind of terrorism, I think it's fair to say that taking a more impartial stance with regards to Israel/Palestine would be a good start!

Isn't it the case that America's self-interest in this whole affair has been primarily economic?

*I don't mean to imply this didn't happen, but I've only heard it mentioned in passing so I don't know if it's a widely known fact or a suspected involvement.

 

[vimothy]

I think the thinking of the Neo-cons is (was?) along the lines of:

Stable, prosperous demoracies in the Middle East =

No Islamic terrorism

What do you mean when you say that America's interests in Iraq are primarily economic?

 

[vimothy]

Want to know about Saddam's links to terrorist organisations?

Go here for some stats: http://www.husseinandterror.com/

(Watch out for discussion of the "alleged" payment of suicide bombers)

Here is a discussion of his terror state: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4820

As veteran BBC correspondent John Sweeney says, "I have been to Baghdad a number of times. Being in Iraq is like creeping around inside someone else’s migraine. The fear is so omnipresent you could almost eat it. No one talks."

Frequently, confessions are extracted by torturing not only the prisoner, but his family members as well. His wife and daughters are raped, and sometimes beheaded, as he watches. His children or grandchildren – in many cases mere toddlers – are burned with cigarette butts; their eyes are gouged out; all the bones in their feet are crushed; their ears and limbs are amputated, one at a time. If no confession is forthcoming, the youngsters are slaughtered. Moreover, some of these prisons actually house the children of suspected dissidents – children younger than twelve who are packed into cells and left to rot amid pools of their own excrement, blood, and tears.

 

[vimothy]

Throughout the 13 years of UN sanctions on Iraq that were ended yesterday, Iraqi doctors told the world that the sanctions were the sole cause for the rocketing mortality rate among Iraqi children.

"It is one of the results of the embargo," Dr. Ghassam Rashid Al-Baya told Newsday on May 9, 2001, at Baghdad's Ibn Al-Baladi hospital, just after a dehydrated baby named Ali Hussein died on his treatment table. "This is a crime on Iraq."

It was a scene repeated in hundreds of newspaper articles by reporters required to be escorted by minders from Saddam Hussein's Ministry of Information.

Now free to speak, the doctors at two Baghdad hospitals, including Ibn Al-Baladi, tell a very different story. Along with parents of dead children, they said in interviews this week that Hussein turned the children's deaths into propaganda, notably by forcing hospitals to save babies' corpses to have them publicly paraded.

- http://www.command-post.org/oped/archives/007210.html

 

[vimothy]

This is from July 2006 but still worth a look:

Saddam Hussein became president of Iraq on July 16, 1979 and was deposed in April of 2003. Over that twenty-four year period, Saddam Hussein killed between 600,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians, was responsible for the deaths of between 250,000 and 550,000 Iraqi military personnel and over 700,000 Iranians and Kuwaitis (here and here). Utilizing only the Iraqi civilian numbers, this is an average of between 25,260 and 42,108 people a year, or between 2105 and 3509 Iraqi citizens a month. The United States toppled Saddam Hussein forty months ago now. If Saddam had remained in power for those 40 months, between 84,200 and 140,360 Iraqis would have died – children starved in prisons, dissidents fed through industrial shredders, women strangled after visits to rape rooms all to be eventually reunited in remote mass graves. Using the maximum credible figures available:

The protestors above are indicted by their selective regard for death in our world and Iraq in particular. Those wielding signs did not stir themselves as Saddam harvested the boldest and brightest of Iraq for 24 years. The plight of the Sudanese or those in East Timor is met with general disinterest. Apparently one Iraqi child inadvertently killed by American soldiers risking life and limb to bring liberty to an oppressed people is more horrifying that hundreds of Sudanese children liquidated in Darfur.

- http://www.logictimes.com/antiwar.htm

 

[crackerjack]

Vim, any idea where they got 39 thousand figure? I won't go all Lancet on you, but I suspect that's a gross underestimate.

 

[vimothy]

I think they are Iraq Body Count (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) figures, but I don't know for sure. I'm not necessarily saying that these are accurate figures, and indeed, the figure of Iraqi civilian deaths does seem low (though it roughly matches IBC figures). However, it does hopefully give some idea of the scale of state sponsored murder under Saddam.

 

[john eden]

Yes very clever. I clearly don't support the actions of anyone who empowers fascist dictatorships, as I've spent a lot of time explaining.

I think there is just an issue with generalisations here. Vimothy continues to chuck about phrases like "the left" without qualification, but then gets perturbed when other people use phrases like "the right".

It is good to see him acknowledging left opposition to totalitarianism later on. But bad to see him trying to equate "communism" with nazism. Again.

 

[vimothy]

I think there is just an issue with generalisations here. Vimothy continues to chuck about phrases like "the left" without qualification, but then gets perturbed when other people use phrases like "the right".

It is good to see him acknowledging left opposition to totalitarianism later on. But bad to see him trying to equate "communism" with nazism. Again.

I didn't get perturbed. And I'm not annoyed by anyone accusing the "right" (or even the right) of whatever crimes. Where I agree I am perfectly happy to condem them. What does strike me is the innability of some to see the inherent dangers of utopian politics and their pretty much total failure.

For instance, what are the major differences between Nazism and Soviet Communism? Perhaps the USSR was more collectivist, but that is a question of degree. Perhaps Nazi Germany was more nationalistic, but again (remember the "Great Patriotic War"; or Lenin's "Left-Wing" Communism: an Infantile Disorder) it's a question of degree. As a revolutionary movement, the Nazis were a middle class vanguard trying to unleash the violence of the mob in suppport of their political aims, just like the Communists and just like the Islamists today.

There was left opposition to Stalin and Communism (and totalitarianism more generally), however, there is also a left tendency to gloss over hideous truths in the name of anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism or whatever else was/is flavour of the month.

 

[john eden]

I just think it's ridiculous to suggest that ideologies are virtually the same because they used similar methods at one point in their evolution.

It's like saying that the RSPCA are the same as NAMBLA because they both publish a newsletter and use initials.

Similarly you would quite rightly slate me for suggesting that Nazi germany was the high point of the right wing, but you keep coming back to the USSR when not one person on here has ever (to my knowledge) defended it as being something to aspire to.

 

[john eden]

Lenin's "Left-Wing" Communism: an Infantile Disorder

I'm not sure if you have seen Herman Gorter's response:

http://libcom.org/library/open-letter-to-comrade-lenin-gorter

but you may find it interesting.

 

[vimothy]

I just think it's ridiculous to suggest that ideologies are virtually the same because they used similar methods at one point in their evolution.

It's like saying that the RSPCA are the same as NAMBLA because they both publish a newsletter and use initials.

Similarly you would quite rightly slate me for suggesting that Nazi germany was the high point of the right wing, but you keep coming back to the USSR when not one person on here has ever (to my knowledge) defended it as being something to aspire to.

I keep coming back to the USSR because I believe it to be an instructive case, not because anyone on here has ever defended it (to my knowledge no one has). There was a lot of support for the Communist revolution amongst intellectuals and the western left, with many people turning a blind eye to or trying to ignore Stalin's crimes because of their ideological commitments (as in my example of the Guardian sacking and vilifying Muggeridge because of his honest reporting of the Ukrainian famine). There is the famous Orwell quote (something like): "some ideas are so ridiculous only an intellectual could believe them."

As for the Nazis, they not only represented one of Lenin's movements "of a new type", but were explicitly socialist in their politics. To the right of the Communists, yes, populists and opportunists, yes, but still socialists. At least, if they are on the right, they have many tendencies that are definitely leftist, IMO. And I'm not just talking about methods (though they are important).

Maybe you should explain why they are a right wing movement, even though they are self described as a National Socialist Party.

 

[matt b]

As for the Nazis, they not only represented one of Lenin's movements "of a new type", but were explicitly socialist in their politics. To the right of the Communists, yes, populists and opportunists, yes, but still socialists. At least, if they are on the right, they have many tendencies that are definitely leftist, IMO. And I'm not just talking about methods (though they are important).

Maybe you should explain why they are a right wing movement, even though they are self described as a National Socialist Party.

why do you assume they are a left wing movement simply because they say they are?
you take hitler at face value, but not other leaders?
stalin claimed to be a socialist, but wasn't.
tony blair claimed to lead the labour party...

are you aware of bukunin's quote about 'socialism shall be free or it shall not be at all?' (i paraphrase).

the nazi's had no interest in freedom.


to understand differences between left and right, i'd recommend refering to weber'ssocial action frame of reference.

 

[vimothy]

why do you assume they are a left wing movement simply because they say they are?
you take hitler at face value, but not other leaders?
stalin claimed to be a socialist, but wasn't.
tony blair claimed to lead the labour party...

I'm sorry but that sounds like you don't like them, so you don't want them to be socialist. (Incidentally, I wouldn't argue with any of your examples).

are you aware of bukunin's quote about 'socialism shall be free or it shall not be at all?' (i paraphrase).

So there have been no successful socialist revolutions then? Why is that?

the nazi's had no interest in freedom.

Neither did the commies.

to understand differences between left and right, i'd recommend refering to weber'ssocial action frame of reference.

Make the case for the case for the Nazis as belonging to the right.

 

[matt b]

I'm sorry but that sounds like you don't like them, so you don't want them to be socialist. (Incidentally, I wouldn't argue with any of your examples).

no, i'm saying just because people say they're socialist, doesn't mean they are

So there have been no successful socialist revolutions then? Why is that?

these questions are terribly loaded- you assume all socialists believe in revolution? they don't.

the spanish civil war is a good case of a socialist/anarchist movement working on a mass scale. i suggest reading up on it to understand why it ended

Neither did the commies

i agree. what's your point?

Make the case for the case for the Nazis as belonging to the right.

you made the claim that nazi's were socialists, counter to the overwhelming majority of historical discourse, but and have failed to make the the case- keep trying if you wish.




you keep coming back to this idea of 'the left' being a homogenous grouping- essentially, communist/ supporters of the USSR/ against freedom etc etc, which as i have mentioned before, shows you have very little knowledge of the differences between (for example) liberalism, the labour party, communism, leninism, trotskyism, stalinism, socialism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarchism etc etc

 

[vimothy]

no, i'm saying just because people say they're socialist, doesn't mean they are

And I'm saying that's simply an excuse enabling you to distance yourself from whatever particular group or variant you don't like. "There's no way that the Nazis could be socialist because they didn't believe in freedom." "Just because the Communist Party said it was Communist, doesn't mean it was." Of course, no one now denies the crimes of Stalin's regime, but they were "state capitalist", not communist crimes.

these questions are terribly loaded- you assume all socialists believe in revolution? they don't.

Nope, not at all. You didn't read the question. I asked why there hasn't ever been any successful socialist revolutions. I never said that all socialists believe in revolution, anywhere.

the spanish civil war is a good case of a socialist/anarchist movement working on a mass scale. i suggest reading up on it to understand why it ended

Erm... Hardly a successful example of a socialist revolution though. See also atrocities commited by the Republicans against their "class enemies", and the activities of the NKVD against even their own side.

i agree. what's your point?

You: the Nazis were not socialists because they had no interest in freedom

Me: neither did the communists

you made the claim that nazi's were socialists, counter to the overwhelming majority of historical discourse, but and have failed to make the the case- keep trying if you wish.

I obviously haven't made it well enough but at least I have explained my reasoning. You haven't bothered, except to repeatedly tell me that I understand nothing of the left and that the Nazis were not socialists because they are liars and freedom-haters.

you keep coming back to this idea of 'the left' being a homogenous grouping- essentially, communist/ supporters of the USSR/ against freedom etc etc, which as i have mentioned before, shows you have very little knowledge of the differences between (for example) liberalism, the labour party, communism, leninism, trotskyism, stalinism, socialism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarchism etc etc.

Ok, I will cease to discuss the left at all because it is clearly a collection of discrete and unrelated tendencies, arbitrarily grouped together because of their coincidental similarities.

 

[matt b]

And I'm saying that's simply an excuse enabling you to distance yourself from whatever particular group or variant you don't like.

no, i'm saying there are lots of distinct groupings of all colours. therefore we need to be clear about what grouping we're talking about rather than using terminology interchangeably.

you distance yourself from actions by 'the right' and even by bush that you don't like all the time- why's it alright for you to do so?

"There's no way that the Nazis could be socialist because they didn't believe in freedom." "Just because the Communist Party said it was Communist, doesn't mean it was." Of course, no one now denies the crimes of Stalin's regime, but they were "state capitalist", not communist crimes.

the communist party was communist, but it wasn't socialist- there is a distinction.

you're right, stalin wasn't a capitalist he was a totalitarian communist.

again, you make assumptions about what i'm saying/believe in

Erm... Hardly a successful example of a socialist revolution though. See also atrocities commited by the Republicans against their "class enemies", and the activities of the NKVD against even their own side.

i agree- much of the reason was due to stalin's underhand dealings. the NKVD, hated the socialist/anarchist groupings in the civil war.
btw have you read 'homage to catalonia'?

You: the Nazis were not socialists because they had no interest in freedom

Me: neither did the communists.

again, i agree. but that having that in common doesn't make the nazis (or the USSR) socialists

Ok, I will cease to discuss the left at all because it is clearly a collection of discrete and unrelated tendencies, arbitrarily grouped together because of their coincidental similarities.

cool- you've grouped them together, not me

 

[matt b]

to save ourselves going round in circles, maybe we should make a distinction between socialism and state-socialism?

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/soc-anar.htm

 

[borderpolice]

Of course, no one now denies the crimes of Stalin's regime

You don't spend much time round socialists and marxists, it seems.