Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [GreenLeft_discussion] Beazley calls for troops out of Iraq. Labor atrocity!

Expand Messages
  • Nick Fredman
    ... Yes it is is positive for the anti-war movement that Beazley has clarified the ALP policy to one of withdrawal, (policy on this like various other
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 10, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Ed Lewis:

      >Beazley, the monster, has called for troops out of Iraq.
      >
      >http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/time-to-cut-and-run-beazley/2006/01/09/1136771500676.html

      Yes it is is positive for the anti-war movement that Beazley has
      clarified the ALP policy to one of withdrawal, (policy on this like
      various other questions like AWAs is made up by him personally,
      whatever inconvenient things like conferences decide, i.e. he's been
      opposed to withdrawal for months), though not it seems "out now". Yes
      this is a basis for all principled ant-war activists, including those
      in the ALP, to push the ALP further, invite them on platforms etc.
      All this is kindergarten ABC stuff for Marxists, including for the
      DSP, which studies its own experience in the anti-Vietnam War
      campaign and that of e.g. the US Socialist Workers Party, detailed in
      Fred Halstead's /Out Now!/, which fought against ultra-left current
      to include liberal bourgeois figures (of which Beazley is a
      self-declared example) in the movement.

      Should we also stop pointing out the pro-imperialist nature of ALP
      foreign policy as a whole, or the fact that Beazley's stance is
      becoming adopted by the more far-sighted US bourgeois politicians
      (and "foreign policy analysts" as mentioned in this article), or
      viscous attacks by ALP state governments on the working class and
      oppressed? No of course not. If you're trying to build a political
      alternative to something (which Ed supposedly is too), you really
      have to have some differences with it.


      --
    • glparramatta
      ... The position of the ALP is to redeploy Australian troops from Iraq (but with no specific timetable) to Afghanistan and South-East Asia, where it will
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 10, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In GreenLeft_discussion@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Lewis" <ozleft@o...>
        wrote:
        >
        > >>Always ready to prettify the pro-imperialist Labor hacks, aren't we?>>
        >
        > How is posting an article about Beazley calling for withdrawal of
        > troops from Iraq prettifying anything, Norm? Are you saying the Sydney
        > Morning Herald is supporting Beazley against Downer and Howard, who
        > want to keep the troops in Iraq?
        >

        The position of the ALP is to redeploy Australian troops from Iraq
        (but with no specific timetable) to Afghanistan and South-East Asia,
        where it will continue the bogus ``war on terror''. Pro-imperialist
        Labor leaders want to renegotiate Australia's role in this ``war'' not
        repudiate it. That is why, dear Comrade Ed, your attempts to present
        Beazley's call for a ``withdrawal'' from Iraq without noting the clear
        political basis for it is an attempt to ``prettify'' the
        pro-imperialist ALP hacks. I expect a more rounded analysis from a
        self-proclaimed socialist Green.

        Norm.

        *********************************

        `Labor defence spokesman Robert McClelland welcomed the troop
        deployment to Afghanistan. "Reports of insurgents stepping up their
        campaign means obviously the more back-up you can give our existing
        troops there, the safer they are likely to be in a dangerous
        situation," he said.' --
        http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17785700-2,00.html

        ``Labor yesterday welcomed the new move, despite Opposition Leader Kim
        Beazley this week saying allied troops in Iraq were undermining the
        possibility of peace and suggesting they be withdrawn. Opposition
        defence spokesman Robert McClelland said Iraq and Afghanistan were
        "quantitatively different" because order had never been reinstated in
        Afghanistan and there were still attempts to restore the Taliban.
        ``The bad bastards are still there in Afghanistan, they haven't been
        removed, they are still part of the ongoing internal war," Mr
        McClelland said. "We see Iraq as being a substantial diversion of
        resources from where we can be most effective in the fight against
        terrorism." He said Afghanistan had direct relevance to Australia's
        regional security because it was a training ground for terrorists in
        South-East Asia. It was also the source of the opium trade that paid
        for much of the terrorist activities in the region. "It's the place
        where the Taliban and al-Qaeda are still in existence and probably
        where Osama bin Laden is," Mr McClelland said.'' --
        http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/troop-boost-for-afghan-terror-fight/2006/01/10/1136863239088.html
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.