community-based, non-corporate, participatory media

About Contact Us Policies Mailing Lists Radio Video Search

View article without comments

RW: A War by the U.S. to "Liberate the Iraqi People"?...
by Andrei Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 9:17 PM

,

A War by the U.S. to "Liberate the Iraqi People"?...
GIVE US A BREAK!
by Bob Avakian, Chairman of the RCP,USA--April 6, 2003

posted at http://rwor.org

Bush and the rest claim to be waging war "to liberate the Iraqi people." But what they are doing is not new--and it has nothing to do with liberation. It is a pattern, repeated over and over again, that the rulers of the U.S. seek to crush any force, anywhere in the world, that gets in the way of their imperial rule and their imperialist interests. And it has never mattered to these imperialists whether those they are seeking to bring down are actually a brutal and tyrannical clique or a popular force supported by the masses of people.

The Saddam Hussein regime is a brutal reactionary dictatorship--that is true--but for many years he was backed and aided by the U.S. government exactly because his brutal dictatorship and its actions served the interests of these imperialists. Now he no longer serves a useful purpose for them--now, he is in the way--so the Iraqi people must be subjected to massive bombing and invasion to "liberate" them from Saddam Hussein--and put them under the more direct rule of the U.S.

And how about leaders in other countries who came to office through elections that are at least as "democratic" as U.S. elections? For example, Allende in Chile in the early 1970s, or Lumumba in the Congo in the early 1960s, or before that Arbenz in Guatemala and Mossadegh in Iran--all of whom came to office as a result of elections but were then removed from office through bloody coups and attacks directed by the CIA.

Or what about popular revolutionary leadership which clearly has the support of the great majority of the people in their country, as with Ho Chi Minh and the "Vietcong" in Vietnam? Well, the imperialist rulers of the U.S. certainly couldn't have that, so they unleashed a war of mass destruction and slaughter, killing several million Vietnamese and devastating large parts of their country, in the vain attempt to bludgeon them into accepting the dictates of Washington and Wall St.

These are just a few examples illustrating the long, bloody history of what the U.S. imperialists have done around the world. In country after country, they have declared for themselves the right to intervene, or outright invade, to drench the land in blood and subject the people to slaughter and torture, all in the effort to ensure that there is a government subordinate to and serving the interests of the U.S. empire.

This provides some historical perspective with which to judge the pious proclamations of the present regime ruling in Washington, presiding over and seeking to further extend U.S. imperialism's position of domination over peoples and nations throughout the world. It brings some reality to their claims to be "liberating" the Iraqi people!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolutionary Worker Online
http://rwor.org
Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497

http://rwor.org - Revolutionary Worker Online

http://rwor.org/resistance -RW resource page on resisting the juggernaut of war and repression

http://2changetheworld.info - Discuss revolutionary strategy and the RCP's Draft Programme

add your comments


Not only that, but....
by Crazy old man Thursday, Apr. 03, 2003 at 8:43 AM
unkabeard@stargate.net

The US has long been known to use its muscle, both military and financial to install regimes friendly to US business interests. This has usually been done somewhat covertly until now. What is new is that added to the mix is the religious fervor of "triumphal christianity" (deliberately left uncapitalized). These zealots are so arrogant as to have the conviction that their selfish interests are "the will of god". And in keeping with their arrogance, they have decided that there is no longer any need to act covertly. So Georgie has elected to thumb his nose at the rest of the world and and say "We can do whatever we want and there is nothing you can do about it."

add your comments


So What would you do?
by Rhaize Thursday, Apr. 03, 2003 at 2:06 PM

So I ask, what would you do in this situation.

Take a guy, who does something wrong.. say he kills some people.. however instead of putting him in jail, we give him probation, with the normal understandings, don't do anything else wrong, if you don't attend your probation officer hearings you go back to jail etc.. So for a decade or so, he doesn't do any of the things he's supposed to do, unless actively forced, all the while attempting to deceive you. You warn him repeatedly and he does not care.. what do you do?

the War on Iraq is nothing more or less than enforcing the terms that the UN placed after the first gulf war. If you wish for the reason that we as Americans pursue it so fevorantly, I point you to the spot in Manhattan where the twin towers used to stand,

add your comments


again
by jwg Thursday, Apr. 03, 2003 at 2:18 PM

Iraq had nothing to do with sept. 11, and this war is about imperialism.

You're example is wrong, it's not like Saddam was on 'probation' to the US, he was actively backed and financially supported by the US government, untill he stopped being our puppet. Now we want him out and another puppet in.

add your comments


U.N.
by Phoenix Thursday, Apr. 03, 2003 at 3:31 PM

Rhaize, you said that the U.S. is enforcing the U.N.'s "probation" of Saddam, but if this is true then why is the U.N. denouncing this war. Apparently you must be wrong, or else the n at the end of the U.N. has changed to an s and I wasn't informed. Is this the case?

add your comments


U.N.
by Phoenix Thursday, Apr. 03, 2003 at 3:34 PM

Rhaize, you said that the U.S. was merely enforcing the U.N's probation on Saddam, but if this is true then why is it that the U.N. does not support this war? Apparently you are wrong, unless of course the n on the end of U.N. has been replaced by an s, is this the case? Was I not informed?

add your comments


© 2001-2009 Pittsburgh Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not endorsed by the Pittsburgh Independent Media Center.
Disclaimer | Privacy