portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary oregon & cascadia

actions & protests | imperialism & war | political theory

Question for Anti-Imperialists in "little beirut" Oregon?

On Pro-Iraq Solidarity
Are their any groupings all be they communist, trotskiest, maoist, anarchists, muslim, student, whatever, that have formalized a declaration of support for the Anti-Occupation Resistance in Iraq? And if so is their any interest within geniune anti-imperialist ranks, for more on the ground co-ordination of pro-iraq/ pro-intifadah forces, particularly within Oregon and washington?
I know the AISC is not the only one in "Little Beirut" desirous of militant Pro-Iraq demos and campaigns, etc. If their was a United Front of pro-Resistance forces, in the US, their would be no need to be subserviant to the usual band of oppertunists that control anti-war activities in the US. I know that I am not the only one that

1. Supports Iraq's rights to resist by any means, unconditionally as a soveriegn people with a right to self-determination

2. In favor of the defeat of Imperialism and Zionism

3. Opposed to the National Chauvenism of "progressive" forces in the US.

4 Opposed to Social-democracy, pacifism, and general defeatist pro-imperialist positions of the general progressive paradigm, particularly the tactic of supporting one or the other side of the imperialist axis ( republicans and democrats, and yes even greens).
Silly silly violent types... 23.Nov.2003 19:34

man 'o man

When will you ever learn that your violent thoughts and methods will earn you a thump on the head and NOTHING ELSE by the over-powerful government/hegemony you are resisting. Fight a different fight, and you will win.

All piss and vinegar 23.Nov.2003 23:35

James

"When will you ever learn that your violent thoughts and methods will earn you a thump on the head and NOTHING ELSE by the over-powerful government/hegemony you are resisting. Fight a different fight, and you will win."

Okay, fair enough. I can follow your logic, and see the historical examples. But tell me then, do you agree with the following statement, which you'll see quite a bit around here:

"Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity."

If you agree with the statement, I'd be interested in how you can reconcile the two notions. (That violence against the state to correct a wrong is good, but violence by the state against another state to correct a wrong is bad).

Certainly in fighting the state through violence, innocent lives will be lost. (Just as they would be through bombing). You may or may not be able to make the argument that the ends justify the means. But I don't see how it would differ from a particular state bombing another state, to end some violence, or correct some other wrong there.

If you don't agree with the statement, does that mean you would support, or could support, for example, the bombing of Belgrade to stop violence in Pristina? (Or any other hypothetical situation -- I'm not particularly interested in whether you supported the bombing of Serbia).

Certainly intellectual honesty, not to mention modesty, requires that you accept the possibility that your views may be wrong. To believe otherwise would require a certain amount of hubris. The idea that everyone supporting a view in opposition to your own has alterior motives, or is a tool, or simpleton, strikes me as an outright impossibility. A significant number must genuinely believe such things, probably as strongly as you yourself believe and support your own opinions and ideals. So in supporting violence, you also must accept the possibility that you will do violence to someone for no good reason at all.

From a philosophical position, it seems to me that non-violence with an exception for self-defense is the easiest to morally justify, even if in the final tally you end up behind. (Though depending on the scale of the end result, it's certainly possible to form an argument either way. The trouble then is predicting that final result).

If you can't morally justify your violence, then you have to ask yourself whether you would be fighting for what is right, or simply to be right.

Uh, Yeah, um 24.Nov.2003 09:26

James

I totally misunderstood your sentiment last night. Please disregard. (Or apply to parent poster).

Um. yeah.