I thought imperialism was in part one nation exerting its control over another usually against that nation's and not in self defence. Certainly the US attacked Iraq against its will without asking "people on the ground". The PNAC website makes it clear that the aim is to project US might into the Middle East and no doubt help protect Israel and also secure vital energy resources. That is the imperialism that is at issue. THe issue is the status of those who side with imperialist occupiers when there are obvious resistant forces at work.
Groups that side with the occupiers are prima facie quislings. Even if it is merely a tactical move it is exceedingly dangerous and liable to result in loss of any credibility. Cheers, Ken Hanly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grant Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 10:10 AM Subject: Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib > Michael said: > > > I cannot understand what kind of communist party would join with the US, > or why we > > should take such a party seriously. > > I don't think that's the real issue. No-one knows whether the insurgents are > more popular than the US-backed council; it will take an election to > establish that. And what is "imperialism", if not the presumption that one > knows better than people on the ground? Why should we take _our_ views --- > few of us being experts on Iraqi history or politics --- more seriously than > the views of Iraqis who live in Iraq at the moment, and have also lived > there throughout Saddam's regime? > > regards, > > Grant.
