Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

The Invasion of Kuwait.

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 09 May 2009, 00:56
Kupredu wrote:
Allegations of Iraqi "crimes" against the people of the illegitimate entity called "Kuwait" were fabricated by the unofficial state media in the United States and other imperialist powers in order to mobilize the population for aggression against the Iraqi people. The fact is that atrocity stories were reported even though they were exposed as fabricated propaganda. Most notable was the alleged theft of incubators from "Kuwaiti" hospitals.


Are you mentally challenged, or are you a troll? Did you even read the post directly before yours?

SovietSmitty wrote:
Having been stationed in Kuwait for a long time, I interected with many Kuwait's in shipyards, Police and other industries. They all told stories of brutalities committed by the Iraqis.


Kupredu wrote:
"Kuwait" was an illegitimate neo-colony created by the imperialist powers whereas Iraq at the time was a progressive, democratic, anti-imperialist country whose government served the people's needs and heroically resisted imperialist reaction, zionism, and racism. To slander Iraqis by equating them to Nazis is grotesque. The ones comparable to Nazis were the U.S.-led aggressors who unleashed unprecedented destruction against Iraq.


Saddam's Iraq was democratic?

Quote:
: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

Now please explain how a Sunni dictator repressing the Shia majority was democratic... nevermind that there were no legitimate or free elections in Iraq at the time.
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 68
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 31 Mar 2009, 17:56
Pioneer
Post 09 May 2009, 06:46
In the context of repressive dictators, Saddam wasn't the worst the world has offered. But he was just that: a dictator. He was not progressive, and did not lead a democratic government.

Also, I think you need to work out what a "hero" is. Men who fight for freedom, for all people, they are heroes. Men who fight to maintain their own power, or who fight for oppression are not. You seem to have a habit of supporting the latter.
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 09 May 2009, 16:39
Historically Iraq favored nazi Germany where as Iran favored the Allied powers so if you dig into history you will see a small connection to nazi germany. Can it not be argued that The Allied powers and The League of Nations imposed ridiculous Limitations on Germany and she had the right to take back Danzig, and the Sudenten land, hell even historically claims to Riga. Thats what your logic would have me assume. There are entire neighborhoods and cities in the so called bastard Emirate of Kuwait that remain uninhabitable since Saddam's armies ravaged them. As Socialist we generally allign ourselves with independence movements. You seem to be an ultra-nationalist. Nationalism doesnt really sit to well with communism and Socialism.
Soviet cogitations: 283
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Apr 2009, 02:31
Unperson
Post 09 May 2009, 21:01
Quote:
Historically Iraq favored nazi Germany

You are clearly unfamiliar with the topic you're discussing. The Kingdom of Iraq was basically a British neo-colony. There was pro-Axis coup carried out in 1941, but the British retaliated and the Rashid Ali regime was brought to an end. Iraq declared war on the Axis powers in january 1943 and cooperated completely with the British.

Quote:
Are you fragging kidding me? Saddam was supplied and somewhat installed by the US government as a counterweight to islamic fundamentalism and soviet influence vis a vis the baathists.

Actually, the Iraqi Republic led by President Hussein basically followed a policy of non-alignment concerning the Cold War while at the same time having friendly and warm relations with Russia.

Quote:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

Nor do you seem to have any understanding of democracy. Read Marx, Engels, and Lenin to understand what democracy means.

Quote:
Now please explain how a Sunni dictator repressing the Shia majority was democratic

The Iraqi Republic led by the Baathist Party implemented democratic reforms such as the nationalization of oil and anti-feudal agrarian policies.

Quote:
As Socialist we generally allign ourselves with independence movements. You seem to be an ultra-nationalist. Nationalism doesnt really sit to well with communism and Socialism.

You clearly have no understanding of Marxism-Leninism and its interpretations of nationalism and self-determination. It is also confusing what a neo-colony like "Kuwait" has anything to do with independence. A victory for independence was the liberation of the Kuwaiti neo-colony by the Iraqi people. Similarly, you have confused the anti-imperialist patriotism of peoples in dependent and neo-colonial for nationalism and chauvinism in imperialist countries. Marxism-Leninism emphasizes that the national movements of oppressed peoples are progressive.
"Mama, I've sworn to myself not to chase girls until we've knocked off the bourgeoisie in the whole world."---Pavel Korchagin
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 09 May 2009, 23:28
Democracy has nothing to do with nationalization. The two are unrelated. If a government is democratic, then nationalized assets can be considered to be public property. But in the case of Saddams Iraq it was nothing but a chance to grab control of western assets and palce it in Saddams hands.

Please provide evidence that there was a mechanism of accountability (short of revolution) of the Iraqi Baathist government to the Iraqi people.

I love how you completely ignore what was said in regards to Iraqi crimes in Kuwait, or the attitudes of people in Kuwait about Iraq. You definetly smell like a troll.
banistansig1
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 10 May 2009, 05:27
Do not worry I now my history. You said it yourself Iraq was a British colony, its people favored the axis cause and the British put down the popular front. So maybe that should tell you something.
Democracy has zero to do with nationalization. Im sorry but all of Saddam's palaces benefit the people of Iraq how? THe gassing of the Kurds was clearly an internal security matter right. How else do you put down counter-revolutionaries or was that completely made up by Western powers. Saddams agricultural policies they benefited the people to right. The Baath party was nothing more than a mad man in charge of a nation. If Kuwait was a renegade province why didn't Saddam invade it before the Iran-Iraq conflict?
Kuwait didnt want anything to do with Iraq, they are thier own country. Clear an independent soverign Emirate. WHen they where occupied by imperialist Iraq it was the duty of all socialist to damn this occupation, and support a free Kuwait by any means necessary. I know Marx/Engels/Lenin maybe you should reread some of these works my friend, I think you Got mien Kampf confused with The communist manifesto, or maybe you have been reading a revolution betrayed.
Soviet cogitations: 283
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Apr 2009, 02:31
Unperson
Post 22 May 2009, 01:40
Quote:
I love how you completely ignore what was said in regards to Iraqi crimes in Kuwait, or the attitudes of people in Kuwait about Iraq

There have been allegations of Iraqi "crimes" against Kuwait, but they've never been proven. In fact, some of these allegations such as the story of destroyed Kuwaiti incubators have been discredited.

Quote:
Democracy has nothing to do with nationalization.

To the contrary. Public ownership of the means of production ensures genuine rule by the people.

Quote:
If Kuwait was a renegade province why didn't Saddam invade it before the Iran-Iraq conflict?

The Iraqi assertion that Kuwait was an illegitimate neo-colony traces back to the days of President Qasim.
Quote:
WHen they where occupied by imperialist Iraq . I know Marx/Engels/Lenin maybe

When you call Iraq an imperialist country, you demonstrate that you know NOTHING about Marx or Lenin.
"Mama, I've sworn to myself not to chase girls until we've knocked off the bourgeoisie in the whole world."---Pavel Korchagin
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 22 May 2009, 01:48
Quote:
To the contrary. Public ownership of the means of production ensures genuine rule by the people.


State ownership does not necessarily equal public ownership.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 22 May 2009, 02:53
Look plain in simple, Iraq was acting in accordance with classical imperalist ideals. Invading neighboring countries for economic gain. Iran-Iraq conflict, Kuwait what was Iran a province of Iraq to. Your right the thousands of Kuwaiti citizens who where raped and exploited by the imperalist Republican Guard or Army never proved their prospective cases in Iraqi courts. Theres no evidence whar are you a fragging idiot. Theres a whole border town destroyed since THe Imperalist war of Agression on the Peace loving people of Kuwait. Theres police stations, fire stations that where never rebuilt, how about this, go to Kuwait, go to Iraq, goto Saudi Arabia, then we can have a logical discussion about Iraq.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1942
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jul 2005, 01:11
Party Member
Post 22 May 2009, 03:00
If you want to go the nationalist road go with Kupredu, if you want to go the Ba'athist road (which Saddam was) then you would have to consider that Kuwait in a Ba'athist point of view had enourmous resources which were being dictated by the great satan via (il)legitimate oil contracts and that the Uniter of Islam and father of all Arab peoples *cough*Saddam*cough* required Kuwait to further unite *cough*conquer*cough* arab nations to have a super arab state be a serious world player... thats all it was really about. Saddam viewed that Kuwaits resources were not being as Arab as they should be and figured it would be a great staging ground to gain momentum after the Iran fiasco to create the United States of Islam.
Soviet cogitations: 283
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Apr 2009, 02:31
Unperson
Post 22 May 2009, 17:43
Quote:
Look plain in simple, Iraq was acting in accordance with classical imperalist ideals.

I suggest you read Lenin to learn about what imperialism is, because you obviously have no understanding of the concept. Iraq's actions in Kuwait were not even remotely imperialist. In fact, the only imperialist actors in the region have been the United States and Britain.

Quote:
Your right the thousands of Kuwaiti citizens who where raped and exploited by the imperalist Republican Guard or Army never proved their prospective cases in Iraqi courts.

Hostile propaganda against Iraq was disseminated in order to justify the war of aggression against Iraq. Specifically, the story that Iraq dumped babies out of their incubators on to the cold floors of Kuwaiti hospitals and left them to die there was a complete fabrication.
"Mama, I've sworn to myself not to chase girls until we've knocked off the bourgeoisie in the whole world."---Pavel Korchagin
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 24 May 2009, 15:50
I am not talking about Kuwaiti babies, im talking about what real Kuwaitis told me, and the lasting destruction I saw. Your right lets look at Iraqs track record. Iran-Iraq, Kuwait, putting down a Shii peoples movement for liberation from the Imperalist Sunni regime, the use of Chemical weapons on the Kurds. The quest to build the worlds biggest artillery piece so they can attack Isreal. If Saddams Iraq wasnt Imperalist what was it.
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 24 May 2009, 21:03
You could make an argument for a religious nationalist. Whatever he was, he wasn't progressive, or democratic. That's the bottom line.
banistansig1
Soviet cogitations: 2
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Jun 2009, 17:51
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 05 Jun 2009, 14:08
HI
the mother of all battles was taking place under the eyes of the soviet union, and he did nothing to face the brutality of the UN resolution.
we know that was the final days of the communist governorship but it could help the hero saddam hussien in order to face the 32 country which was pounding them for 45 days from the sky!
but the soviet made equipments were so adequate to that engagement!
iraqis crew tanks were the best at that time! they knew exactly what to do in case where they met an Ma1 but really we have witnessed the superiority of the russian made air defences.
Long life for our arab nation
long life to the T-72 and all the T tank family.
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 07 Jun 2009, 05:30
The M1a1 and depleted Uranuim destroyed the T-72, most Iraqi tanks where lesser variants T-55, T-64. Having been in an M1a1 and T-54, T-64 The M1a1 is like a Ferrari to a Zil. Granted the 72 is far more advanced than the 64, but the M1a1 is awesome. Me personally I like the T-80, but inexperince with the gas turbine and production cost led to the 72 being the victor of that story. Iraqi tank crews where good they had a lot of experince against Iran. However german tank crews where good to, if you cant control the airspace you damn sure cant control the battlespace.
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 07 Jun 2009, 07:18
Shilka are you an idiot or a troll? I'm asking this sincerely. In case you're an idiot let me inform you. You're full of shit. In case you're being sarcastic (i.e. trolling) let me inform you that it's against the rules.


SovietSmitty during the First Gulf War most T-72 losses were due to airstrikes. Very few actually engaged in tank on tank combat. The Iraqis did not have the advanced T-64 tank. They had the T-62 which was ancient junk along with the T-55. The T-72 was more or less capable to standing up to the M1A1s of the day. The problem was doctrine, training, maintenance, tactics, etc. etc. etc. I.e. all those annoying elements of war that most people prefer to ignore, instead being content with counting numbers of tanks and airplanes. The problem was that Iraq was both outnumbered and outmatched. It had no chance.
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 92
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Jun 2009, 04:00
Pioneer
Post 08 Jun 2009, 06:30
A very good article about this question:

The war against Iraq and the need for a new Communist Party in the United States by Arthur Henson

This article deals mostly with the current Iraq War (it was written in 2003) but Arthur Henson also wrote a book called The War Against Iraq: A Handbook for Anti-Imperialists (Unity & Struggle, Newark: 1992) which deals with the 1991 Iraq War from a Marxist-Leninist point of view.
Study Marxism through the concrete analysis of past and contemporary national liberation struggles and class struggles: http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 08 Jun 2009, 11:08
Hmm. I don't like it very much. It reads like a liberal attempt to patronize communists into a pan-anti-war agenda. I see little to no class analysis of the US internally. I see no evidence of the US capitalist system being in a crisis (in the article). Instead I see calls for anti-imperialism, some dialectic historical analysis of Iraq and the Middle East, and a call for putting internal pressure on the US to end the war.

Quote:
At that point it was roughly on a par with Israel in conventional military force.


Also lazers. Pew pew.

Quote:
It is the policy of the imperialists to maintain Israel at a level of military force greater than all Arab countries combined.


Really? Because right now the Saudis and Egypt together could mop the floors with Israel. The Saudis alone could probably do it, but it wouldn't be pretty.

Quote:
The Bush administration and the ruling Sabah family of Kuwait colluded to instigate the crisis as a pretext to attack Iraq.


Clearly Saddams interest in annexing Kuwait was capitalist propaganda, and his occupation was a benign attempt to liberate the people there from imperialist oppression. Darn those imperialists are tricky. Never know what they're up to. One day you see an honest national bourgeouse dictator trying to capture some extra territory, and the next day it's an evil imperialist (zionist of course, can't forget that) plot to take over the Middle East by provoking him into an attack.


Quote:
Imperialism can never hope to prevail.


Except... it already did.

Quote:
Only the communists can bring about this consciousness. In the thirteenth year and the fourth stage of the war proper (aggression, sanctions/stalemate, invasion, occupation) it is long overdue. The different communist organizations must put forth their lines on this question. They must struggle to determine what is correct.

Who can reconstitute the Communist Party in the United States? As Marx said, the reality of ideas is a practical question. The war against Iraq is one of the crucial issues in the process.


Oh look at the time. It's 2009. The war's almost over. The insurgency is practically dead. The withdrawal date has been named. And still no communist party. Oh darn. Guess it wasn't one of the key issues after all.


Well actually more like
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 92
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Jun 2009, 04:00
Pioneer
Post 08 Jun 2009, 14:21
So you folks don't really go for principled, comradely discussions here, eh?
Study Marxism through the concrete analysis of past and contemporary national liberation struggles and class struggles: http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 08 Jun 2009, 18:41
Heh. Touche. I'll be honest I have a strong dislike for people who are liberals, and people who don't know what they're talking about. In this article I see symptoms of both in the author. Don't take offense.
banistansig1
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.