Re: Iraqi TV
>So far no sign of an English-language news broadcast,
>so you may not be missing much with your old computer.
>I suppose Arnett will be staying in Baghdad. That
>seems to be his "claim to fame."
>But it seems that the imperialist media generate a lot
>of Hemingways but no John Reeds.
>I've been checking the independent too for Robert
>Fisk seems obsessed with expressing doubt about Iraqi
>claims to have destroyed this, or downed that. One
>should take such kill counts with a grain of salt, but
>then, the US and Britain have blacked out reporting
>altogether. Fisk kind of acknowledges that, but never
>sides with Iraq.
>This is a big problem. People don't see (or don't
>care) what's at stake. Losing Iraq in the region
>would be like losing the USSR in the world. The
>Palestinian groups backed by Iraq, Iran, Syria would
>probably lose the Iranian and Syrian backing since
>they'd be cowed into silence. If the US can unseat
>the Iraqi regime, the US will dominate the world's
>oil, it will redraw the map and Arafat and Abu Mazen
>will eagerly lick up any crumb that falls their way as
>they sign away Palestinian rights.
>Not that this will end the revolution -- the
>disappearance of the USSR didn't end the revolution
>for all time, but it was a huge setback. The US
>became the world's superpower.
>If Iraq's regime is gone, "Israel" will be the
>regional "superpower," backed up by the US.
>So, yes, I support Saddam Husayn.
>If you don't support Saddam Husayn, you support Jay
>Garner for president of Iraq. That't the choice
John Reeds would be the ideal, though Hemingways
have their uses. You have made excellent points
here about the need of all progressive people
to rally around President Hussein and the Ba'ath
Party. In Iraq many of those with honest differences
with the government understand this. In the USA
very few so-called progressives do. I think if I
hear one more chicken-shit liberal say, "Saddam's
a tyrant, and there needs to be a regime change,
but...", I'll go ballistic :-) In a perfect world,
where the USA, "Israel", and other powers had no
interest in what went on in Iraq, one would certainly
support the broadest possible debate among the
Iraqi people as to how they should govern
themselves. The reality is, in this world of
predatory imperialism, any "regime change" means
the imposition of the chains of Jewish slavery
upon the Arab world.
Fortunately we need not rely too heavilly upon
the so-called progressive forces in the USA. The
steadfast resistance of the Iraqi people will decide
this. The Pentagon psychops people are trying to
demoralize them by spreading the rumor that President
Hussein has fled the country or been killed. Even
if this rumor were true, even if President Hussein
is killed or captured, this struggle will go on,
because it is about more than just one person. It
is about the liberty of the entire country of Iraq.
If President Hussein is killed, the people of Iraq
will accept the leadership of someone very like him.
I don't think the people of Iraq will ever accept a
leader who obeys the dictates of Bush and Sharon,
no matter how "democratic" the election of such a
leader is made to appear.
There may be a very long occupation of Iraq by
American and British troops and very hard partisan
fighting, but I am confident they will eventually
leave in defeat. They will discover what the French
discovered in Algeria, that the only way they can
possibly win is to massacre the entire population.