CINA

본문

 The following article was published in yesterday's Guardian (UK, internet edition)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,1653453,00.html

 

 

Nowhere to run

After what has been described as the most foolish war in over 2,000 years, is there a way out of Iraq for President Bush, asks Brian Whitaker

Tuesday November 29, 2005

To describe Iraq as the most foolish war of the last 2,014 years is a sweeping statement, but the writer is well qualified to know.

 

Professor van Creveld has previously drawn parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, and pointed out that almost all countries that have tried to fight similar wars during the last 60 years or so have ended up losing. Why President Bush "nevertheless decided to go to war escapes me and will no doubt preoccupy historians to come," he told one interviewer.

 

The professor's puzzlement is understandable. More than two years after the war began, and despite the huge financial and human cost, it is difficult to see any real benefits.

The weapons of mass destruction that provided the excuse for the invasion turned out not to exist and the idea that Iraq could become a beacon of democracy for the Middle East has proved equally far-fetched.

True, there is now a multi-party electoral system, but it has institutionalised and consolidated the country's ethnic, sectarian and tribal divisions - exactly the sort of thing that should be avoided when attempting to democratise.

 

In the absence of anything more positive, Tony Blair has fallen back on the claim that at least we're better off now without Saddam Hussein. That, too, sounds increasingly hollow.

The fall of Saddam has brought the rise of Zarqawi and his ilk, levels of corruption in Iraq seem as bad as ever, and at the weekend former prime minister Iyad Allawi caused a stir by asserting that the human rights are no better protected now than under the rule of Saddam.

 

Noting that some two-thirds of Americans believe the war was a mistake, van Creveld says in his article that the US should forget about saving face and pull its troops out: "What had to come, has come. The question is no longer if American forces will be withdrawn, but how soon - and at what cost."

Welcome as a pullout might be to many Americans, it would be a hugely complex operation. Van Creveld says it would probably take several months and result in sizeable casualties. More significantly, though, it would not end the conflict.

 

"As the pullout proceeds," he warns, "Iraq almost certainly will sink into an all-out civil war from which it will take the country a long time to emerge - if, indeed, it can do so at all. All this is inevitable and will take place whether George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice like it or not."

This is one of the major differences between Iraq and the withdrawal from Vietnam. In Vietnam, it took place under a smokescreen of "Vietnamisation" in which US troops handed control to local forces in the south.

 

Of course, it was a fairly thin smokescreen; many people were aware at the time that these southern forces could not hold out and in due course the North Vietnamese overran the south, finally bringing the war to an end.

 

Officially, a similar process is under way in Iraq, with the Americans saying they will eventually hand over to the new Iraqi army - though the chances of that succeeding look even bleaker than they did in Vietnam.

"The new Iraqi army is by all accounts much weaker, less skilled, less cohesive and less loyal to its government than even the South Vietnamese army was," van Creveld writes.

Worse still, in Iraq there is no equivalent of the North Vietnamese regime poised to take power. What will happen once the Americans have gone is anyone's guess, but a sudden outbreak of peace seems the remotest of all the possibilities.

 

Not surprisingly, many who in principle would argue that the Americans had no right to invade Iraq in the first place are apprehensive about what might happen once they leave. The conference organised by the Arab League in Cairo last week was one example: it called for "the withdrawal of foreign forces according to a timetable" but didn't venture to suggest what that timetable might be.

With or without American troops, the war in Iraq has acquired a momentum of its own and threatens to spill over into other parts of the region.

 

There are four major issues: terrorism, Sunni-Shia rivalries, Kurdish aspirations, and the question of Iraq's territorial integrity - all of which pose dangers internationally.

Back in July 2003, terrorism in Iraq seemed a manageable problem and President Bush boldly challenged the militants to "bring 'em on". American forces, he said, were "plenty tough" and would deal with anyone who attacked them.

 

There were others in the US who talked of the "flypaper theory" - an idea that terrorists from around the world could be attracted to Iraq and then eliminated. Well, the first part of the flypaper theory seems to work, but not the second.

 

As with the Afghan war in the 1980s that spawned al-Qaida, there is every reason to suppose that the Iraq war will create a new generation of terrorists with expertise that can be used to plague other parts of the world for decades to come. The recent hotel bombings in Jordan are one indication of the way it's heading.

 

Contrary to American intentions, the war has also greatly increased the influence of Iran - a founder-member of Bush's "Axis of Evil" - and opened up long-suppressed rivalries between Sunni and Shia Muslims.

 

The impact of this cannot be confined to Iraq and will eventually be felt in the oil-rich Sunni Gulf states (including Saudi Arabia) that have sizeable but marginalised Shia communities.

Kurdish aspirations have been awakened too - which has implications for Turkey, Syria and Iran, especially if Iraq is eventually dismembered.

 

With a fragile central government in Baghdad constantly undermined by the activities of militants and weakened by the conflicting demands of Sunnis, Shias and Kurds, the demise of Iraq as a nation-state sometime during the next few years has become a distinct possibility.

 

The effect of that on the regional power balance is difficult to predict, but at the very least it would bring a period of increased instability.

No one can claim that any of this was unexpected. The dangers had been foreseen by numerous analysts and commentators long before the war started but they were ignored in Washington, mainly for ideological reasons.

 

There were, of course, some in the neoconservative lobby who foresaw it too and thought it would be a good thing - shaking up the entire Middle East in a wave of "creative destruction".

The result is that even if the US tries to leave Iraq now, in purely practical terms it is unlikely to be able to do so.

 

Professor van Creveld's plan for withdrawal of ground troops is not so much a disengagement as a strategic readjustment.

An American military presence will still be needed in the region, he says.

"Tehran is certain to emerge as the biggest winner from the war ... Now that Iraq is gone, it is hard to see how anybody except the United States can keep the Gulf states, and their oil, out of the mullahs' clutches.

"A divided, chaotic, government-less Iraq is very likely to become a hornets' nest. From it, a hundred mini-Zarqawis will spread all over the Middle East, conducting acts of sabotage and seeking to overthrow governments in Allah's name.

 

"The Gulf States apart, the most vulnerable country is Jordan, as evidenced by the recent attacks in Amman. However, Turkey, Egypt and, to a lesser extent, Israel are also likely to feel the impact. Some of these countries, Jordan in particular, are going to require American assistance."

As described in the article, van Creveld's plan seems to imply that the US should abandon Iraq to its fate and concentrate instead on protecting American allies in the region from adverse consequences.

A slightly different idea - pulling out ground troops from Iraq but continuing to use air power there - is already being considered in Washington, according to Seymour Hersh in the latest issue of the New Yorker magazine.

 

The military are reportedly unhappy about this, fearing it could make them dependent on untrustworthy Iraqi forces for pinpointing targets.

One military planner quoted by the magazine asked: "Will the Iraqis call in air strikes in order to snuff rivals, or other warlords, or to snuff members of your own sect and blame it on someone else?"

Focusing on air power has obvious political attractions for the Bush administration, since it is the safety of US ground troops that American voters are most concerned about.

But, again, that would not amount to a real disengagement and would do little or nothing to improve America's image in the region - especially if reliance on air strikes increased the number of civilian casualties.

 

The inescapable fact is that the processes Mr Bush unleashed on March 20 2003 (and imagined he had ended with his "mission accomplished" speech six weeks later) will take a decade or more to run their course and there is little that anyone, even the US, can do now to halt them.

 

In his eagerness for regime change in Iraq, Mr Bush blundered into a trap from which in the short term there is no way out: the Americans will be damned if they stay and damned if they leave.

본문

Allawi Says Rights Abuses Abound in Iraq

Sunday November 27, 2005 9:46 AM

LONDON (AP) - Human rights abuses in Iraq are as bad now as they were under Saddam Hussein and could become even worse, the country's former interim prime minister said in an interview published Sunday.

``People are doing the same as Saddam's time and worse,'' Ayad Allawi told The Observer newspaper. ``It is an appropriate comparison.''

Allawi accused fellow Shiites in the government of being responsible for death squads and secret torture centers and said the brutality of elements in the new security forces rivals that of Saddam's secret police.

 

The entire article in "The Observer" (UK) you can read here:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1651789,00.html

본문

Long time ago, after an anti-war rally on Yeouido, I had a discussion with my Korean friend about the Iraq war. She, I think more her organization, were she is member, reckoned that the Iraq war will be a new Vietnam for the US Imperialism. I contradicted, because the are many differences between the Iraqi so-called resistance and the liberation struggle of the Vietnamese people. First of all, in my opinion, the Vietnamese people were fighting for a progressive future (finally, unfortunately...), but the Iraqi “resistance” are fighting for a reactionary “future”. More about the differences you can read in the following article, published Nov. 12 in the HK based Asia Times. Why the Iraqi quagmire is no Vietnam By Aaron Glantz HANOI - Is Iraq another Vietnam? Tran Dac Loi should know. The secretary general of the Vietnam Peace and Development Foundation grew up in Hanoi dodging bombs dropped by the United States Air Force, while his father fought in the successful guerrilla war in the country's Central Highlands. Three decades later, Tran, now an important figure in the ideological wing of Vietnam's communist government, has some thoughts on the Iraqi resistance. "Our struggle was well organized," Tran said in an IPS interview. "We had an address and official contacts, but with Iraq you never know who the resistance is and what their objectives are." Pointing to what he sees as a serious flaw in the Iraqi resistance, he added, "Sure, the fighters all want the Americans out, but there's no unifying political program." In Iraq, the insurgency's appeal flows primarily from the pain of the occupation. Much of its support comes from regular Iraqis who have relatives who have been killed or imprisoned by US forces and they want to get even. "This kind of resistance leads nowhere," Tran said. "Resistance has to have a clear objective. Ours was independence and socialism; not reaction but revolution." Some of the occupation's opponents in Iraq do have developed organizations, complete with spokespersons and ideological programs. But, Tran predicts, because the insurgency is built on ethnic and religious lines, they'll never succeed in their objectives. The movement of Muqtada al-Sadr, for example, appeals primarily to poor people in the country's numerous Shi'ite slums. It provides services in poor Shi'ite neighborhoods, while advocating an Islamic state. Such a plan of action has helped Muqtada amass millions of supporters, but prevents him from attracting a following outside his core base. According to Tran, the same can be said of Sunni fundamentalists. The hardline Association of Muslim Scholars may have spokespersons who appear regularly on the Arab satellite channels, but their appeal is limited even within the country. Tran thinks that the lack of a pan-ethnic political program can cause minority groups to ally with the occupier in order to ensure that their cultural rights are protected. In Iraq, this has caused the Kurds, and their more than 100,000 guerrillas, to side with the US. "The absence of a clear political program is in the interest of the US," Tran said. "Then, they [the US] can go above you and pretend like they're solving the problems between you, when really they're lording over you." While the occupying forces took care to ban the secularist Ba'ath Party - which continues to function through independent cells within Iraq and through exiles in Syria and Jordan - the party has not been able to earn the trust of minority groups. It is a classic case of divide and rule. Indeed, from the start of the occupation, the US government actively encouraged the Iraqi people to organize themselves along sectarian lines. The US administration even hired a company, Research Triangle Institute (RTI), and charged it with selecting local governments based solely on the ethnic make-up in each of Iraq's regions. In March 2003, RTI was awarded a contract worth US$466 million to create 180 local and provincial governments in Iraq and obtain wide public participation in a new political process, but government auditors pointed out irregularities. Tran suggested that what would work in Iraq would be a program similar to Vietnam's revolution, which was based on a single political party, aimed at throwing out the aggressor and defending the unity of the country as well as its economic and political sovereignty. The particular ideology, he said, is not the key. More important is something everyone can believe in, regardless of religion or ethnic background. Iraq, he said, needs a unifying political figure such as Ho Chi Minh. "You need a political figure who can introduce a long-term objective that's in the basic interest of the majority of the people." Tran doesn't think any of Iraq's current crop of political leaders fits this mold. Moreover, he said the fighters' regular killing of civilians is sickening and counterproductive. "They behave more like random rebelling groups," he said. "When we fought, we only fought against the ones who fought us. Civilians were never our targets." Given the Iraqi resistance's bloody tactics and lack of a unified political program, Tran doubts it will be successful in forcing the Americans out - at least in the short term. He compares the Iraqi resistance to the many aborted attempts to end French colonization of Vietnam before World War II, which were led by small groups of the educated elite. "They were all patriots but they were all suppressed because they could not appeal to the masses."

본문

AP (news agency) wrote y'day (11.2): S. Korea May Extend Iraq Troop Deployment South Korea's defense minister said Wednesday that his ministry would ask parliament to extend the deployment of South Korean troops in Iraq for another year. ``We plan to submit the bill to the National Assembly within this month,'' Yoon Kwang-ung told reporters, according to his ministry. South Korea has deployed 3,200 troops in northern Iraq to help U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country, making Seoul the largest U.S. coalition partner in Iraq after Britain. The troop deployment is unpopular among South Koreans due mainly to security concerns. In June 2004, Islamic insurgents in Iraq beheaded a South Korean civilian working in Iraq after South Korea rejected demands to withdraw its troops. The South Korean government believes the deployment will help strengthen the Seoul-Washington alliance, also helping resolve the dispute over North Korea's nuclear arms program. In December 2004, the South Korean parliament approved a government request to extend the troop deployment in Iraq for another year. The term of the current deployment is set to expire at the end of 2005.

본문

 

피켓에는 이렇게 적혀 있네요.

이라크 전쟁 반대 거칠게 번역하자면

" 대가를 치르는 건 누구지?

죽는 것은 누구지?

이익을 보는 건 누구지?"

 

1. The "ordinary" tax payers..

2. The collaborators of the system..

3. ??? Perhaps the capitalist, the ruling class???

 

I found this on my friend's, comrade's, or whatever... blog

본문

Well, now it is four days ago that in Seoul the last anti-war event was celebrated. First of all it was very nice to see this pictures, one comrade sent me much more pics, because many people on this pictures I know from our daily, common struggle. And of course it was a kind of emotional for me to this pictures... But... just thats it!

On the other hand it was very sad for me to see this pics, but it was not surprising...

I joined nearly all the rallies, demonstrations and other events of the very young anti-war movement in S. Korea. And from one of the first anti-war rally, demonstration in autumn 2002 until I was arrested, nearly 2 month ago, I reported and commented it. I still remember very well one of the first anti-war demos in autumn 2002, started in Insa Dong, with about 400 protestors.

Than on the next demo from Yeongdeungpo to Yeouido, just a short time later, the numbers of the participants was increasing to 800 or so activists. Later in the end of 2002 the anti-war movement was uniting with the anti-USFK citizen and netizen movement. At that time I already worried that the anti-war movement, mainly based on few political groups, will try to get a kind of leadership of the entire movement, or at least will try to use it for their own so called political, power games.

In the New Years eve to 2003 we were 150.000 protestors on Gwanghwamun... and when I came back to S.K. on Feb. 2003, there was the first international action day against the at that time planned war against Iraq, only 5.000 activists were left on this rally, demonstration. Perhaps you know by your self, what was happen in the time between the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003.

Between 2003 and now we had many bloody fights against the bill of sending S.K. troops to Iraq... Just remember the battles in beginning of April 2003 on Yeouido... And now... On 9.24 just 600 people, according to Minjung-ui Sori, were on the street against the war.

What we did wrong...

First of all, as I said before, some political organizations were trying to use the movement just for to strengthen their own position. Because many others understood this well, so a real unified front was not possible.

Next... Especially from spring 2003 the anti-war movement was totally fixed on dates organized originally in the Western world or the USA. But the most strongest fights of resistance we had when we were reacting against the policy of the S. K. government, when we were acting autonomous.

Next... KCTUs resistance was just symbolic, actually they, the new KCTU leadership, were cheating all the activists. And the activists had not the power, or they were afraid, to force the KCTU leadership to act really. And so on... It will be continued soon

PS I saw one picture on Minjung-ui sori, but actually I dont saw there 600 people, perhaps maximum 400. One comrade of mine wrote me from about 1.000 people. Perhaps she should not drink to much of soju during demonstrations... haha...

sources of the pics... cga.korea+da hamkke, the last two pics

본문

My dongji, or chingu, or whatever... wrote that:

점령을 끝내기 위한

한국, 미국, 영국 3대 파병국의

반전 공동행동이 9월 24일

서울역 광장에서 있습니다.

이라크에서 삶을 빼앗기고 있는 사람들을 위해

그리고 영국에서 부시의 전쟁의 무고한 희생자가 된

폭탄테러희생자들을 위해

뉴올리언즈의 흑인들을 위해

캐나다로 간 미국의 전쟁거부자들을 위해

신디 시핸을 위해

이라크에 간 한국의 젊은이들이

죽거나 죽이는 것에 반대하기 위해

서울역 광장 앞에서

전쟁에 반대하실래요?

Sat., 9.24, 3 pm, Seoul Station

Lets fight together for a world without wars, exploitation and oppression!

Please dont misunderstand me. Its not an attack, actually these are just some thoughts. 1. The Baath party, the S. Hussein regime deprived them the complete freedom, hundred thousands of them, first the communists, who were helping the Baath party to get the power, and then trade unionists, democrats, religious persons, Kurds, and so on. Now the Iraqis have the freedom, if you want to call this like that, but there is no active mass front, movement against the occupation, but also not against the daily islamic fascist terror. Please remember that in the last days more than 250 ordinary Iraqis, irregular workers, women and children, were murdered by the islamic fascist terror! No one really gets up against this! Everyone is just waiting... for a miracle, the so-called victory of the occupation forces, or what ever.... In the South, in the british zone, but also in the middle of Baghdad, daily women, who want to have just the human right to live as a human in equality... were, are killed by this religious fundamentalists. Trade unionists were, are killed every day... and so on.... 2. The Islamic fascist terror against innocent people started long time ago in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the Soviet Army a daily Islamic terror campaign against the entire population started. No matter if it was, or is in N.Y., Indonesia, Madrid, Tel Aviv or London... mostly the victims are innocent, mainly the ordinary people. For the Islamic fascist terror, some call it in Iraq THE RESISTANCE, everyone who dont believe the same shit like them is a legitimate, lawful aim. And many times representatives of this groups said in the public. Everyone in the world, who was listen, was able to understand this message!!! 3. Please not just for the Blacks in N. Orleans. There are also many poor Latinos, Koreans, and, and... And of course there are also black bourgeois! 4. The S. Korean soldiers are not staying in Iraq, thy are staying in Kurdistan. Kurdistan, since the first Iraq War, is a protected area which had nothing to do anymore with mainland Iraq. It was, is a kind of free area and you can compare it a bit with any other so-called independent countries. Just because of that the S.K. troops got not involved in battles, because there are no battles, no combat operations. 5. But on the other side, when other countries will withdraw their troops from Iraq, perhaps the S.K. troops will be forced to replace them, and than everything is possible... At least because of this, we must fight to get them back home!! But anyway, the best help for the exploited, oppressed people in Iraq and other countries under the direct or indirect occupation of the Imperialism, is to smash the capitalism in our home countries! Even its not our real home country..., THE PROLETARIATE HAS NO FATHERLAND!, K. Marx THE ENEMY STAYS IN THE, our, OWN COUNTRY!, K. Liebknecht. PS 1: Some days ago C. Sheehan was nearly arrested in N.Y.C., but perhaps you already know this... PS 2: Today I was in a exhibition about the Cheonggyechen project, organized by the Lee Myeong-bak dictatorship, a.k.a. Seoul Metropolitan Govt. Beside it was really strange and sad to see pictures of areas where I was walking everyday around or fighting with the cops or ggangpae... But I got some material, what we can use for our fight against the construction mafia and the Lee dictatorship. Of course finally I got in fight with the Korean staff about the project and the bad effects for thousands of the poor who are living there and will lose their basis of existence if the project will be successful, if we are not able to resist... Perhaps tomorrow I will write more about it. PS 3: Today some independent anti-war groups are organizing for 2 pm in front of Seoul yeok. If you dont want to make just party propaganda... join them! ONLY UNITED WE ARE STRONG!!!

본문

My dongji, or chingu, or whatever... wrote that:

점령을 끝내기 위한

한국, 미국, 영국 3대 파병국의

반전 공동행동이 9월 24일

서울역 광장에서 있습니다.

이라크에서 삶을 빼앗기고 있는 사람들을 위해

그리고 영국에서 부시의 전쟁의 무고한 희생자가 된

폭탄테러희생자들을 위해

뉴올리언즈의 흑인들을 위해

캐나다로 간 미국의 전쟁거부자들을 위해

신디 시핸을 위해

이라크에 간 한국의 젊은이들이

죽거나 죽이는 것에 반대하기 위해

서울역 광장 앞에서

전쟁에 반대하실래요?

Sat., 9.24, 3 pm, Seoul Station

Lets fight together for a world without wars, exploitation and oppression!

Please dont misunderstand me. Its not an attack, actually these are just some thoughts. 1. The Baath party, the S. Hussein regime deprived them the complete freedom, hundred thousands of them, first the communists, who were helping the Baath party to get the power, and then trade unionists, democrats, religious persons, Kurds, and so on. Now the Iraqis have the freedom, if you want to call this like that, but there is no active mass front, movement against the occupation, but also not against the daily islamic fascist terror. Please remember that in the last days more than 250 ordinary Iraqis, irregular workers, women and children, were murdered by the islamic fascist terror! No one really gets up against this! Everyone is just waiting... for a miracle, the so-called victory of the occupation forces, or what ever.... In the South, in the british zone, but also in the middle of Baghdad, daily women, who want to have just the human right to live as a human in equality... were, are killed by this religious fundamentalists. Trade unionists were, are killed every day... and so on.... 2. The Islamic fascist terror against innocent people started long time ago in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the Soviet Army a daily Islamic terror campaign against the entire population started. No matter if it was, or is in N.Y., Indonesia, Madrid, Tel Aviv or London... mostly the victims are innocent, mainly the ordinary people. For the Islamic fascist terror, some call it in Iraq THE RESISTANCE, everyone who dont believe the same shit like them is a legitimate, lawful aim. And many times representatives of this groups said in the public. Everyone in the world, who was listen, was able to understand this message!!! 3. Please not just for the Blacks in N. Orleans. There are also many poor Latinos, Koreans, and, and... And of course there are also black bourgeois! 4. The S. Korean soldiers are not staying in Iraq, thy are staying in Kurdistan. Kurdistan, since the first Iraq War, is a protected area which had nothing to do anymore with mainland Iraq. It was, is a kind of free area and you can compare it a bit with any other so-called independent countries. Just because of that the S.K. troops got not involved in battles, because there are no battles, no combat operations. 5. But on the other side, when other countries will withdraw their troops from Iraq, perhaps the S.K. troops will be forced to replace them, and than everything is possible... At least because of this, we must fight to get them back home!! But anyway, the best help for the exploited, oppressed people in Iraq and other countries under the direct or indirect occupation of the Imperialism, is to smash the capitalism in our home countries! Even its not our real home country..., THE PROLETARIATE HAS NO FATHERLAND!, K. Marx THE ENEMY STAYS IN THE, our, OWN COUNTRY!, K. Liebknecht. PS 1: Some days ago C. Sheehan was nearly arrested in N.Y.C., but perhaps you already know this... PS 2:

본문

Today (at home, I mean, 09.1) 64 years ago, fascist Germany started the WW II, with the attack against Poland. The Japanese Imperialists actually started the war several years before against China... Usually the progressive people all over the world reminded this day and demonstrated against war and 밒mperialist terror? Coming Saturday here in Berlin the fascists - the 밊reien Kameradschaften?(free brotherhoods) and the NPD (national 밺emocratic?party of Germany), the most radical groups in this scene (they뭨e still strong supporters of the A. Hitler, they killed in the last 15 years mote than hundred foreigners, disabled people or just people, such as punx, anti-fascists, or just anyone they didn뭪 like (well, this is the reality in the middle of Europe, in Germany) ?want to demonstrate against the US-Imperialism, neo-liberalism and the 밓ewish domination?(and of course for the liberation of Palestine).

 

Of course we뭠l try to fight them back!

 

But they뭨e in Europe some of the most strong supporters of the Iraqi 뱑esistance? Even in the beginning of the attack against the Baath regime they supported very strongly the S. Hussein regime (the same they did with the S. Milosevic regime in the 90th). And by the way, they also support N. Korea, because there is the 뱋nly real national socialism, there it is clean and order... and no foreigners, so one of the leaders of the NPD after a visit in P.Y., several years ago.

 

Well, it뭩 just a beginning.... of my thoughts... It will be continued...

 

Ok, weiter im Text...

 

The (old) Anti-imperialism... Many people, like some of my friends/comrades (or whatever) are saying, that the Iraq will be the new Vietnam (VN) for the U.S. Imperialism. But the anti-imperialist struggle - no matter if it was in VN or in the metropolises of the West (was there a struggle against that in S. Korea?) ?had the aim of a free, progressive future (uhoo, finally....). The goal of the struggle of the so-called Iraqi 뱑esistance?is a free , reactionary future, nothing else (Please remember one of the latest attacks, where they killed by two simultaneous attacks dozens of Iraqis and a short while later they bombed the nearest hospital in this area...). If this is progressive, if this a kind of 뱑esistance? we have to support, then...

 

The Vietnamese people just wanted to have their freedom, and peace and the possibility to construct a progressive (lately...???) society. The Iraqi 뱑esistance?want the freedom to eliminate any kind of freedom completely!! Of course the war against the Iraq was to criticize, but finally it was the result of the struggle of two disliked, reactionary, criminal systems. And to support this ?definitely ?it should be not our business!!

 

A friend/comrade (or whatever she is) posted this:

 

 

Of course this system is f.. shit!! But never we뭠l change something if we just look what뭩 going on somewhere else. There are many, many reasons to struggle against the daily terror here! What is happen in 밼ront of our own door?[for example the daily struggle of cheol-go-min (except they뭨e struggling for their basis of existence, they are fighting for the existence of Seoul) or the street vendors (who don뭪 like to buy there?? hae...??) against the daily discrimination, eviction, and terror against them?? Since long time I wondered, why the most of this so-called 뱖orld liberation?groups, who want a 뱇iberated society? don뭪 support their struggle

 

If we can뭪 change our own society, how we can change the world (밶nother world is...???

본문