portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article coverage global

imperialism & war | prisons & prisoners | resistance & tactics

Saddam Hussein, Is, Was and Always Will Be the Genuine President of Iraq

.
Saddam Hussein, Is, Was and Always Will Be the Genuine President of Iraq


---John Paul Cupp

It appears that certain sectors of the western anti-war movement, even those who espouse support for resistance, have been in whole or in part confused by all the talk of "elections" in Iraq. I feel that it is therefore important to re-affirm, alongside the Iraqi National Resistance, that Saddam Hussein, is, was and always will be the genuine President of Iraq. The world's people as part of their efforts at a global front aimed combating imperialism and Zionism, should be well advised to stand side by side President Hussein, whose years of guidance over the Ba'athist Revolution, correcting in 1968 its petty bourgeoisie tendencies demonstrates the revolutionary nature of the President and his party


The Iraqi National Resistance has noted that no elections shall be considered valid under the conditions of occupation. The only choice is the gun as vanguard, followed by the masses refusal to participate in such so-called "democracy" which grants legitimacy to occupation, their support for national democratic struggle against the Zionist/US enemies.




Who is the only Arab Leader of present to fully and unconditionally reject normalization of relations with the Zionist entity, realizing that "Israel" must be destroyed as part of the Socialist Arab Unification project? Let all true anti-Zionists stand behind the Arab Identity of Palestine, the resistance in Palestine and Iraq, and behind the detained Iraqi Resistance leadership, centering on H.E. President Saddam Hussein! Let us support Iraq the most advanced and revolutionary outpost of all the Arab states!


Oh how the US anti-war movement loves to hug the Zionists elements and proclaim this most fascist of movements a "National Liberation Struggle". Yet they cannot find it in their hearts and minds to support the Arab cause and its leadership as she is directly confronting the fascism-in-power of our era! Let them do as they will but in all of Iraq, Sunnis, Shias, and also Christians, will surely continue to resist until the invaders are gone and the real and legitimate government is re-established.


It has already been proven that Halajaba was a war crime committed by the pig devils in Tehran. How much longer will we hear this garbage that "Saddam gassed the Kurds"? Now that we see only a few hundred bodies, victims from the war with Iran, were goes these accusations of President Hussein's "mass graves" and "brutal dictatorship"? But it is the small and resisting nations, who are judged, and not the imperialists and Zionists. Their will never be a "Human Rights Tribunal" that performs a kangaroo court function in order to killed or imprison Bush the little or Sharon the butcher. Let us see behind the lies and stand behind President Saddam Hussein against the Zionist-controlled "trial"!


When all the lies that fill the minds of the west, and that the enemy works so hard to introduce also to the Arab/Islamic resisting masses, has been broken, and history has spoken, it will speak of President Saddam Hussein, the militant and the resisting, when so many other Arab leaders are cowards, traitors, and fools. History will remember Iraq for its defeat of the United States Imperialists, who dragged its tail and wondered why it ever fought a war for "Israel" and Oil in the first place. No matter what comes out of the mouths of certain "anti-war" quarters that speak with hostility to the resistance, the Iraqi people have voted not with ballots but with guns! They have voted for President Saddam Hussein, Commander al-Dhouri, and for the occupiers to leave in a body bag or carrying one.


Down with all enemies of the Arab/Islamic Resistance, which shall surely win a great victory!


Let those of us in the United States dedicated to front against fascism stand as one with the Arab and Islamic Resistance!


Let it be clear to all that His Excellency Saddam Hussein, is, was, and always will be the genuine President of Iraq!

add a comment on this article

Please tell me you are a troll 01.Feb.2005 11:42

Best be kidding

Please tell me you're not serious. Murderous tyrannical regimes are NEVER legitimate regardless of who runs them. This goes without saying.

JP is a facist 01.Feb.2005 12:14

kafkista

JP is anti semetic

 http://www.dignityvillage.org/photos/photo3.jpg

jp cupp with a flag that is EXTREMELY similar to the swastika, and noitce the nazi salute???

This guy just has visions of grandeur, he wants to be a leader so bad but just lacks the neccessary skills.

Also a big supportes of kim jong how lovely.

JP advocates revolution but he really can't stomach the route

Let the people of Iraq rule Iraq. 01.Feb.2005 12:56

President? Try dictator.

Saddam Hussein could give two shits about the people of Iraq. He grew rich off their labor and surrounded himself with the luxuries that all capitalists in the US desire. His palace was decorated with gold statues while his people starved. Anyone showing him allegiance is a fool.

The occupation does need to be ended, but it is time for the strong people of Iraq to determine their fate and leave this deposed tyrant in the dust. Saddam should be freed as a prisoner of an unjust, murderous war, but he should spend the rest of his days in shame at all he took from the people he once imposed his will upon.

Wasn't Iraq Invaded? 01.Feb.2005 13:56

Rolf Kleppner

The illegitimate Bush junta illegally overthrew the legitimate government of iraq on false pretenses and the clueless, servile citizenry nod their heads in approval. "Murderous tyrannical regimes," "Try dictator" - indeed!! "Tell me what to think, mein Furher Bush!"

I fixed your typo 01.Feb.2005 14:28

clamydia

"The illegitimate Bush junta illegally overthrew the illegitimate government of iraq on false pretenses..."

A Test for Iraqi Shias 01.Feb.2005 15:09

dsfgeq

For some sane commentary on the election.

A Test for the Iraqi Shias
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/309543.shtml

STD 01.Feb.2005 15:26

Rolf

You ought to see a doctor for that, Clamydia.

Rolf- 01.Feb.2005 15:56

Dude w/ puter

We are not supporting the invasion, but we are not supporting the notion that Saddam was a legitimate ruler either. If you are against what Bush is doing right now in the US, you should be against what Saddam did in Iraq as well. I don't see how you can think Saddam is somehow more legitimate.

Rolf- 01.Feb.2005 15:57

Dude w/ puter

We are not supporting the invasion, but we are not supporting the notion that Saddam was a legitimate ruler either. If you are against what Bush is doing right now in the US, you should be against what Saddam did in Iraq as well. I don't see how you can think Saddam is somehow more legitimate.

Uh 01.Feb.2005 16:00

puppet show

Saddam was installed by the US also.

It's really more simple than that 01.Feb.2005 16:13

adf

Saddam = CIA = MKO = Trotsky = Hitler = Jp

Any Questions?

=Saddam=MKO=Ros-Lehtinen=CANF=CIA cell Group=JP 01.Feb.2005 16:24

ssdf

Ros-Lehtinen Cabal behind MKO-Washington Love Fest
 http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/01/1669156.php

MKO Brainchild Secretly Working for CIA :::Read All About IT:::
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/279424.shtml

Mujahedin Khalq [MKO] Reconfigured by CIA as anti-Islamic Proxy Militia
 http://indybay.org/news/2004/01/1668839.php

DPRK Appoints New Ambassador to Iran
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/284061.shtml

Tehran Times Tribute to Kim Jong Il's 40th Year as Statesman
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/291436.shtml

The Tehran-Pyongyang axis
 http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20030807-081836-8599r.htm

Austria Calls Iran "Axis of Peace"
 http://indybay.org/news/2004/01/1668965.php

::::HEY JP CHECK OUT THE NEW STUFF ON YOUR TROT FRIENDS!!!!:::::

>>How Trotsky Murdered Maxim Gorky and Many Others<<
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/303392.shtml

To All Saddam Haters 01.Feb.2005 16:34

Rolf

Who told you everything that made Saddam a mad, bloodthirsty, murdering, tyrannical dictator in your minds? GWB? Dr. Strangelove Cheney? Rummy? Wolfie? Dan R., Peter J. and Tom B.? The New York Times("All the News that Fits")? Your neighbor who read it in some other Daily Rag? Some "All News All The Time" radio station? CNN? FOX? Your Pastor? Or, did it just come to you like some kind of self-evident revelation?

To Rolf 01.Feb.2005 16:43

anti-authoritarian

Multiple news sources, books, accounts, etc. How can you justify the Saddam initiated Iran-Iraq war, which killed tens of thousands. How about the extravagent palaces built while his people were starving? The political purges and executions? The draining of the southern swamps to stifle dissent? He was clearly hated by many of the Iraqi population for good reasons. These are all very well documented from many different sources. Break out of your ideological mind frame, you would not like to live under Saddam.

Multiple News Sources?? 01.Feb.2005 16:54

Rolf

Oh, I forgot BBC, Books(Published by the NeoCon Press), Chalabi, etc. So, in the final analysis, my jingoistic interlocutors, the war in Iraq was/is a good thing because it rid the world of Saddam and set the Iraqi people free. Excuse me while I go and laugh my head off.

Rolf 01.Feb.2005 17:26

Dude

I never said the invasion was a good thing because it got rid of Saddam, in fact I explicity said that even though Saddam was a murderous tyrant that does not mean I support what the US is doing. Learn some nuance.

Try This Syllogism, Dude 02.Feb.2005 03:33

Rolf

Iraq War = Deposed Saddam
Deposed Saddam = A Good Thing
Ergo,
Iraq War = A Good Thing

This is where your nuanced thinking leads, despite your protestations to the contrary. I suggest you get more in touch with how you truly feel about things.

Dude 02.Feb.2005 05:36

Dude

I never said that Deposed Saddam = A Good Thing and have been against this war from the start. I don't have to defend or justify myself to your self-proclaimed knowledge of my inner self. Drop the condescension.

Exactly What Are You Saying, Dude? 02.Feb.2005 09:27

Rolf

You are in a seemingly very comfortable position, one that resembles having one's cake and eating it. You're against the war, but won't miss Saddam either, as if that result was an accident of the invasion, when, in fact, it was the main objective.

And, if the US should depose the Tehran Mullahs - again, based on lies and deceit - will you sing the same song, "I'm against the war with Iran, but good riddance to those oppressive theocrats."?

Then, on to all of those other oppressive regimes, toppling each murderous ruler in turn, deploring each invasion, but breathing a reluctant sigh of relief that at least the bastards are now gone.

Scratch a liberal and he'll always bleed red, white and blue blood.

Let's try to get a real democracy going here before we export it to the rest of the world.

"Always will be..."? 02.Feb.2005 10:18

LOL

world without end?

Rolf 02.Feb.2005 10:31

Dude

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. You're a cool guy Rolf... just keep telling yourself that.

Rolf 02.Feb.2005 10:36

Dude2

You use tactics similar to those of the neocons... Either someone is entirely with you or against you... to you and Dubya, there's no room for any position in between.

False dichotomy, for starters 02.Feb.2005 22:07

Me

The first thing that must be laid to rest is the apparent mindset that if "A" is bad, and "B" opposes him, then "A" must be good. Saddam was - like Osama bin Laden and countless others - a creation of our own CIA and the mostly unelected power broker/puppet master types that decide pretty much everything important. Saddam Hussein was our "fair-haired boy" in the undeclared war against Iran despite his murderous proclivities - that is, until he became too uppity. The Pentagon's only reaction to the Halabja massacre was to note that it could be an embarrassment, but that one form of mass killing (i.e. chemical weapons) was after all the same as any other.

Let's put it another way. Let's say "Gangster B", who controls the rackets in the Southwest and was originally set up in business by "Gangster A", who controls EVERYTHING, decides to suddenly call off the cooperative arrangement in which he paid a 25% cut of his operation to "Gangster A". To make matters worse, "Gangster B" lets it be known he's no longer satisfied with the Southwest, but wants to expand his control up the west coast into areas controlled by another "Gangster A" surrogate, "Gangster C". "Gangster "B" is a crude thug with a well-deserved reputation as a cold blooded killer, and doesn't hesitate to use the cruelest tactics of terror to maintain his position. "Gangster A", on the other hand, is a third-generation mob boss - by all appearances a cultured, soft-spoken businessman who never (personally) gets his hands dirty. "Gangster A" decides that "Gangster B" has got to go, and sends a hit team to liquidate him, but the word gets back and the hit team is instead ambushed and killed. Open gang warfare now erupts, with bombings and killings by both sides.

So, applying the usual reasoning, which side is "Evil" and which side is "Good" (bearing in mind that "A" is a soft-spoken gentleman while "B" is a crude street thug)? More importantly, whose side would YOU root for, and whose "troops" would you support?

No choice is never good 03.Feb.2005 06:25

populist

Saddam's rule brought to the commoner in Iraq: fuel for pennies, free dental to all, no cost college education. These are facts. If you were an enemy of Saddam he ruled with an iron fist. Are the Iraqi commoners better off under the policies and edicts from Rockefellar's protege, Viceroy Paul Bremmer? They were again given no choice but at least Saddam was an Iraqi sharing a common heritage with the people he ruled.

"Laid to Rest"? 03.Feb.2005 07:31

Karen

"Me,"

Your first illustration rests on a circular argument. You assume that A is bad and then draw the opposite conclusion that because B opposes A, A must be good.

Quite frankly, I don't know what to make of the point your mob turf-war analogy was attempting to convey. The first sentence of your last paragraph is a fragment and is, therefore, incompehensible. And, does your second sentence imply that there's a choice to be made between the gentleman thug and the street thug?

If there is a point to this second analogy, were you making the point that when one gangster gets rid of another gangster some good obtains? If so, have you considered the fact - in the case of the Iraq War - that in getting rid of one gangster (the good) the other gangster has also gotten rid of a whole lot of innocent people (the bad). Or, would you argue, as Sartre once erroneously did, that there are no innocent victims in war?

Karen 03.Feb.2005 08:51

Me

You obviously have misunderstood the "good versus evil" illustration and the gangster analogy that followed. My purpose was not to argue that because "A" is bad, "B" must be good, but rather to illustrate the absurdity of that sort of binary mindset - so skillfully exploited by the propaganda masters in Washington to rally Americans to support the invasion of Iraq.

I'm sorry if you missed the irony in my gangster analogy - I don't think I could have been much clearer. The whole point was to emphasize that the Bush mob ("Gangster A") is no better than the Hussein mob ("Gangster B"). The common denominator of all nationalistic thought is the ability to maintain different standards of morality - one for our "enemy" and one for ourselves. Saddam's torture chambers have been held up as an exemplar of that regime's wickedness, yet we are strangely sanguine about our own excesses, which run the gamut from the Abu Ghraib abuses to "rendering" detainees to countries where the most horrific forms of torture are commonplace (e.g. boiling in water or oil, pulling out fingernails, etc.). No great distinction that I can see, yet an astonishing number of "Americans" still rationalize that we're the good guys.

As for the first sentence of the last paragraph being an "incomprehensible fragment", it is neither. Rather, it is simply a rhetorical question (So, which side is "Evil" and which side is "Good"?), with an ironic qualifier (applying the usual [binary] reasoning), and a parenthetical premise (bearing in mind that "A" is a soft-spoken gentleman while "B" is a crude street thug).

Hope that clarifies things.

One More Thing 03.Feb.2005 11:27

Karen

"Me,"

Thanks for the clarification. One point you mentioned with which I take issue has to do with Saddam being "a creation of our own CIA," like OBL, etc. I disagree. Saddam rose through the ranks of Arab nationalist politics via the Baath Party and was, ceteris paribus, the legitimate ruler of the sovereign nation of Iraq, a member of the UN etc., etc. Osama is something else entirely, and may, in fact, be a total creation of CI. You might agree that one just doesn't know for sure. but Saddam was a well known commodity, origins and all.

But, perhaps you are stating that the Central intelligence Agency was responsible for the formation of the Baathist movement in the Middle East(Syria and Iraq)? If so, please give me the references to support this claim.

On the other hand, there is no question that Saddam eventually became our "fair-haired boy" as a proxy combatant in the war with Iran. Needless to say, Iraqi and US interests were both served by that arrangement.

The bottom line here goes back to the article claiming that Saddam is the "genuine president of Iraq." Indeed, given the last two presidential elections here, there may be a stronger argument for his legitimacy than for the man who deposed him.

The back and forth about "good and bad" is irrelevant, really. George W. Bush and his neocon cronies lied and connived to precipitate a war with Saddam that led to the latter's demise. That was THE goal of the invasion. To be glad that Saddam is gone, while at the same time deploring the war simply misses the point the author of the article was making.

And another thing 03.Feb.2005 21:51

Not interested

Arguing that Saddam was the legitimate ruler of Iraq is a little like arguing that the U.S. legitimately invaded Iraq.

Recall that the last election in Iraq saw Saddam getting 99.9% of the electorate's votes. Either he was really really popular (about 17 million people 'voted') or the election was a sham.

I suspect the latter. Not because the BBC told me so, but because the classic voting pattern in dictatorships is a 99.9% victory.

This doesn't mean that this week's election was anything other than a sham either.

Geez, opposing the U.S. doesn't mean that we have to support every asshole dictator everywhere, does it? That's J.P.Cupp logic, to coin a phrase.

If Enver Hoxha (former 'Communist' leader of Albania who denounced both the USSR and China) were still alive, it would be a tough time picking between him, Saddam and Kim for most anti-American in rhetoric and most delusional and dangerous to his own people. What will J.P. do when Kim is quietly removed in the next year by the North Korean military?

Saddam 11.Feb.2005 16:42

D. Jepson doctorj300@aol.com

Saddam was nothing more than a brutal killer. The desert around Bagdad is full of mass graves where he killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. How can you possibly support that type of tyranny thinly veiled as a government? If you think he was so wonderful, do you think he would stand for your anti-government drivel? No! you would be out in the dunes becoming compost.

add a comment on this article