My thoughts on the Iraq Election

Natural Family Blog ^ | December 16, 2005 | Jenny Hatch

[Jenny Hatch]

I've just spent a couple hours surfing the net trying to get a sense of America's response to the Iraq Vote.

As I have read various articles, blog posts, and the most excellent coverage at Pajamas Media I really get a sense that the great divide in our country comes down to a misunderstanding of the history of the middle east, and how controlled they have been by Marxist thought, money, and influence. I was listening to Air Amerika yesterday as I drove my kids to school. I am always more curious to hear the liberal take on events than what the conservatives are saying.

As the local Boulder host was going on and on about American Imperialsim, I just turned it off and explained to the children a little of the history. I thought I would take the time to do that here on my blog as well.

I think the ultimate test in the whole debate is, Will Iraq become a state of America, or a colony??

It is a good question to ask. Because if Bush was simply shoving American Imperialism on Iraq and Afghanistan, it would seem to me that he would also be forcing them to join us as the newest addition to the US.

But no, shortly after the war started Bush handed the Iraqi people their sovereignty, they elected the founders who wrote the constitution, and now they have elected a parliament. To say, Michael Moore like, that this could have happened by the common people “rising up” and overthrowing Sadaam and setting up a Democracy WITHOUT American help is simply denying the reality of how Iraq was being run.

Iraq was being run as a typical Communist state. And why shouldn't it be? The soviets were the funders and political parents to Sadaams society.

I found this interview on Frontpage to be most enlightening Ion Mihai Pacepa Interview

It truly does address so many of the issues that the left seems to be unable to understand. I would challenge anyone to read it, and really ponder the reality of the things that Ion Pacepa says. If you can accept even half of what he claims, I think we can begin to agree on some basic points.

And really the bottom line is this....Is America safer now than we were with Sadaam in power???

Another great place to do some serious reading and pondering is Jayna Davis’s web site. Her information yet again, changes the whole picture and context of the war.

In time these sorts of things will be more fully exposed. Those who willfully put heads in the sand and are determined to believe that so called American Imperialism is the cause of all that is wrong in the world will never be convinced, and that is fine, it is a free country.

I choose to believe that in fifty years, history books will mark this week as a huge turning point in Freedoms march around the world. And I am so pleased to be the sister of a soldier who served in Iraq for a year. The sacrifice of his wife and three sons, and the worry of my parents while he served, all of it has been worth what just happened yesterday.

If liberals who are against the war and question Americas roll in spreading democracy would simply take some time to study the history of the middle east and the relationships that were forged during the height of the cold war, I think they would have an easier time understanding that the war on terror is just another front of the cold war. Really the war on terror is the final legacy and residue, a sticky, nasty, black residue, from the war between Freedom and Tyranny that was waged during most of the 20th century.

I really feel for Liberals. They have been so brainwashed by university studies, (and it has been my experience that the more schooling someone has had the stronger the marxist ideologies are embedded in their psyches) that it is an act of God for them to break out of that knee jerk emotional reaction that comes up when the sacred cows are slaughtered and served on toast. "what? America actually did something noble and good? Impossible." "you mean, this war really was all about freedom and democracy?? No...."

Liberals are like the NOBLES in Braveheart.

They sit on both sides of the fence and watch the way the wind blows, and when it is in their best interests they go one way or another, never taking a stance, but waiting to see how things will simply affect them personally.

What I predict is that we will see all kinds of spinning, spinning, spinning of words, positions, etc.. in the coming weeks, as politicians especially recognize it will be surivival emotionally to be “for the war after we voted against the war with our words....etc…

And what the heck is up with Joe Biden. Here we have this American Senator who in all the pieces I read about him today was talking about the Iraq constitution as if it does not exist. Is he not aware that the whole point of the first election was to pick the founders who would write the constitution. Which they did, and the whole point of the second election was to accept or reject that constitution??? Which they in fact did accept.

He is talking like the constitution has not even been written yet. Anyone else notice this?? Why is he so dumb?

God bless the iraqi people. I was simply praying for the past 24 hours that no one would die while voting. I have not heard the final numbers, but it seems like very few people were killed. (talk about voter disenfranchisement and disempowerment). Update: Just read that three people were killed during the election.

Jenny Hatch

[Jenny Hatch]

Just wanted to share with Freepers my take on the Iraq election.

Let Freedom Ring!

Jenny Hatch

[Dark Skies]

Iraq was being run as a typical Communist state.

That would be news to Saddam! Is a Tyrannosaurus Rex a communist?

[Jenny Hatch]

I can only assume you were being sarcastic, but if not, read this interview with Ion Pacepa...Here is a quote from it. Sadaam set up his police state modeled after the Soviety KGB. Why? They were his political allies and mentors.

Jenny


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=12387

FP: It is undeniable, therefore, that Saddam had WMDs, right?



Pacepa: In the early 1970s, the Kremlin established a “socialist division of labor” for persuading the governments of Iraq and Libya to join the terrorist war against the US. KGB chairman Yury Andropov (who would later become the leader of the Soviet Union), told me that either of those two countries could inflict more damage on the Americans than could the Red Brigades, the Baader-Meinhof group and all other terrorist organizations taken together. The governments of those Arab countries, Andropov explained, not only had inexhaustible financial resources (read: oil), but they also had huge intelligence services that were being run by “our razvedka advisers” and could extend their tentacles to every corner of the earth. There was one major danger, though: by raising terrorism to the state level we risked American reprisal. Washington would never dispatch its airplanes and rockets to exterminate the Baader-Meinhof, but it might well deploy them to destroy a terrorist state. We therefore were also tasked to provide those countries secretly with weapons of mass destruction, because Andropov concluded that the Yankees would never attack a country that could retaliate with such deadly weapons.



Libya was Romania’s main client in that socialist division of labor, because of Ceausescu’s close association with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Moscow kept Iraq. Andropov told me that, if our Iraq and Libyan experiment proved successful, the same strategy would be extended to Syria. Recently, Libya’s Gaddafi admitted to having WMD, and the CIA inspectors found them. Why should we believe that the almighty Soviet Union, which had proliferated WMD all over the world, was not able to do the same thing in Iraq? Every piece of armament Iraq had came from the former Soviet Union—from the Katyusha launchers to the T72 tanks, BMP-1 fighting vehicles and MiG fighter planes. In the spring of 2002, just a couple of weeks after Russia took its place at the NATO table, President Putin and his ex-KGB officers who are now running Russia concluded another $40 billion trade deal with Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical regime in Iraq. That was not for grain or beans—Russia has to import them from elsewhere.

[Dark Skies]

There is no doubt that Saddam was a Soviet client and he may have modeled his intelligence systems after the Soviet and East German or even Romanian systems, but Iraq was never considered by anyone that I know of to be a communist state.

Saddam was always a purely tyrannical dictator without any pretentions of collectivism.

[Jenny Hatch]

"Saddam was always a purely tyrannical dictator without any pretentions of collectivism."


One of the reasons Sadaam was embraced by the US was because he came out Castro like as an ardent Anti-Communist in the beginning.

But I believe if you put Sadaam up to the duck test..."if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...." he was a collectivist and ardent marxist through and through.

Wether he even bothered to put on the false front of collectivism or not to me is irrelevant. He lived the high live of the extreme communist. And like his brothers in crime; Mao, Arafat, Castro, Stalin, and all the other petty marxist tyrants, he collected and the people mourned.

Remembering and talking about the links between the soviets and Sadaam and Arafat helps keep things clear. Have you read Wild Swans by Jung Chang? It is a damning expose of Mao's ties to Mother Russia. I have not read her Mao Biography yet, but I hear it is causing a stir in academia.

I think it is important for the people of America to understand that Terrorism was the brain child of the soviets and the muslim tyrants were simply tools used by the communists to spread anti-american sentiment.

Jenny

[Dark Skies]

Jenny:

You are the first person that I know of to place Saddam in the Marxist mold. And as to terrorism, I have always thought of that as at least an islamic technique if not older.

I hope you don't mind but I want to ask the opinion of some friends on this matter..."what do you guys make of the ideas presented in this thread."

[USF]

I can understand why some would compare elements of Sodamn Insane rule to the Marxists, but the argument that he walks and quacks more like a fascist can be a more convincing one, IMHO.

For starters... the Iraqi Commie party and 1950's/60's Iraqi prime minister abdul Qassim, were aligned against the Baathists, and the nazi influence on the early Baathists (pan arab nationalism) also needs to be considered.

On an ideological level, the parallels to Fascism are clearer when you consider the Baathist (Pan Arab Nationalists) was based on Arab racial and religious superiority, unlike communist atheism, and universal workers paradise.

[Dark Skies]

Thx for you input USF. And same to you, Jenny.

I have also thought of Saddam's rule as purely "secular totalitarian" without a hint of right or leftist political philosophy.

[USF]

I was trying to google for an article I read a while back but can't seem to find it, and have to run for now. However, I came across this interesting read:

The ideology behind the thuggery by David Brooks

(excerpts from page 2)

That style of prose, with its abstract categories, oracular tone, and twisted logic, can be found in party documents from Stalin's Soviet Union to Mao's China. Nonetheless, Tariq Aziz is right. The Baath party is not quite like the Communist parties. It bears stronger resemblance to the Nazi party because it is based ultimately on a burning faith in racial superiority. The revolution, in Saddam's terms, is not just a political event, as the Russian or French revolution was a political event; it is a mystical, never-ending process of struggle, ascent, and salvation.

As you read through Saddam's speeches and declarations, it is impossible to miss the Aflaqian tones and messages. Saddam gets fevered whenever he discusses the subject of the Arab volk. For example, in a speech to the Iraqi people last year, Saddam declared, in a characteristic outburst, "You are the fountain of will power and the wellspring of life, the essence of earth, the sabers of demise, the pupil of the eye, the twitch of the eyelid. A people like you cannot but be, with God's help. So be as you are, and as we are determined to be. Let all cowards, piggish people, traitors, and betrayers be debased."

He has extremist expectations for the Arab nation because he believes it has been assigned by God an eschatological mission. "We can state without hesitation that our nation has a message," he told an interviewer. "That is why it can never be an average nation: Throughout our history our nation has either soared to the heights, or fallen into the abyss."

In this mystical form, Saddam's pan-Arab zeal has managed to survive the death of pan-Arabism as a practical political project. Saddam's historical frame of reference is much wider. He leaps back to ancient glories and imagines future supremacy 500 or 1,000 years away. He fills his speeches with references to Nebuchadnezzar and Saladin, and one always gets the sense that he doesn't see them as distant figures, but as living presences, revived in him for the purpose of carrying forward the Arab spirit.

The inferiority of other peoples is also a frequent refrain. In one interview Saddam said that Arabs should never be Communists because there is nothing they could profitably absorb from a European idea, though it is perfectly acceptable for Africans or other inferior races to adopt communism as their creed:

"What does an African in Rhodesia have to lose when he adopts Marxism, since he does not have the historical depth or the intellectual heritage of the Arab nation, a heritage which offers all the theories necessary for a life of change and progress. The Arab nation is the source of all prophets and the cradle of civilization."

Nice dose of an islamofascist sense of superiority, but there's plenty more to digest there...

[Jenny Hatch]

"Jenny:
You are the first person that I know of to place Saddam in the Marxist mold. And as to terrorism, I have always thought of that as at least an islamic technique if not older."


I've read Skousens The Naked Communist four times.

Did you read the Pacepa interview that I linked to? Here are some more quotes...

"In the early 1970s, the Kremlin established a “socialist division of labor” for persuading the governments of Iraq and Libya to join the terrorist war against the US. KGB chairman Yury Andropov (who would later become the leader of the Soviet Union), told me that either of those two countries could inflict more damage on the Americans than could the Red Brigades, the Baader-Meinhof group and all other terrorist organizations taken together."

"they also had huge intelligence services that were being run by “our razvedka advisers” and could extend their tentacles to every corner of the earth."

If Sadaams intelligence was being run by the russians, who was puppeting whom? The left in America likes to say that early on Sadaam was a puppet of America, But I think it was more that they were impressed by his "public" anti-commie comments. Just google Sadaam and communist and you'll get some good links.

"Libya was Romania’s main client in that socialist division of labor, because of Ceausescu’s close association with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Moscow kept Iraq. Andropov told me that, if our Iraq and Libyan experiment proved successful, the same strategy would be extended to Syria."

MOSCOW KEPT IRAQ!!!

"In the spring of 2002, just a couple of weeks after Russia took its place at the NATO table, President Putin and his ex-KGB officers who are now running Russia concluded another $40 billion trade deal with Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical regime in Iraq."


"Soon after that, the KGB tasked Arafat to declare war on American “imperial-Zionism” during the first summit of the Black International, an organization that was also financed by the KGB. Arafat claimed to have coined the word “imperial-Zionism,” but in fact Moscow had invented this battle cry many years earlier, combining the traditionally Russian anti-Semitism with the new Marxist anti-Americanism."


"For all his life, Andropov indoctrinated his subordinates to believe that American Imperialism was the main enemy of their country. Now these subordinates are running Russia. It may take another generation until the visceral hatred for the US cultivated by Andropov disappears."

It may take that long in America as well until the hatred of the left for "american imperialism" dies down, heck it may be a couple generations.


"In other words, the heart of the joint plan was to convert the historical Arab and Islamic hatred of the Jews into a new hatred of the United States. We threw many millions of dollars at this gigantic task, which involved whole armies of intelligence officers.

In the late 1960s, a new element was added to the Soviet/PLO war against Israel and American imperial-Zionism: international terrorism."


Modern terrorism could be tied to historical patterns of behavior that goes back to Father Abraham - but the communists used that hatred, channeled it, and wuddayaknow? We have modern anti-americansim being waged by terrorists, which played nicely into the soviets master plan for the takeover of the free world. Have you read The Naked Communist? Here is a link to Cleon Skousens points - it is all still so relevant. http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

Until they fully disclose their involvement in creating anti-American terrorism and condemn Arafat’s terrorism, there is no reason to believe they have changed.


I also in that blog post included Jayna Davis web site
http://www.jaynadavis.com/

because some of us believe that Sadaam was responsible for the Oklahoma city bombing.

I am certain all of this will eventually come out, especially when the soviet ties to sadaam are fully exposed. But Sadaam was a marxist through and through, no question and his baathist party was a socialist party. Socialism was simply the first steps towards communism and ideologically they are the same.

I believe the main reason all of the communists have been organizing the anti-war demonstrations, and we had a socialist like Michael Moore make F9-11 is simply because they were all so angry that yet another socialist paradise was going to kick the bucket.

As I said before, it is easier for me to keep it all straight in my head by simply looking at the whole scene from the Communist/Capitalist war perspective. Wether the individual players, writers, speaker, and activists in this current situation understand the true parameters of the situation or not is irrelevant.

As I said before the air amerika talk show host was screaming about american imperialism on the radio yesterday. He is simply parroting the Kremlin, wether he knows it or not.

I need to make supper, but thanks for your interest in my views.

Jenny

[Dark Skies]

Did you read the Pacepa interview that I linked to?

Yep. And will read your last post later...have a great weekend!

[Dark Skies]

Excellent David Brooks summation of Saddam! Excellent!

[Fred Nerks]

well, my FReeper FRiends, y'all put that story nicely to bed. I do recall reading somewhere that Saddam had a part of one of his palaces dedicated to a shrine for Stalin...but then, he also had himself depicted in a bust as Saladin, and when he 'rebuilt' Babylon ( to the horror of archeologists everywhere) Saddam had the bricks stamped with his name, harking back to Nebuchadnezzar who did the same.

Nebuchadnezzar's throne once stood here.

[Fred Nerks]

http://gnosticalturpitude.org/archives/000092.html

Saddam was obsessed with Stalin, and Ba'athism was an Arabist pastiche of Bolshevism. When a Kurdish leader was invited into Saddam's personal apartments to negotiate, he was amazed to find, in addition to bottles of Johnny Walker whisky, virtually everything written about Stalin translated into Arabic. The comparisons were legion--and not lost on Saddam: Tikrit and Gori are just a few hundred miles apart. Both men were brought up by strong mothers, rejected by weak fathers, protected and inspired by stepfather figures. Both rose through terrorist exploits. Saddam, born in 1937 the year of the Soviet Great Terror, seemed to directly ape Stalin's Central Committee Plenums of that year when he took power and held his famous meeting when his leadership rivals were arrested

[bray]

Well done. The Stone Age Press will never give the Iraqis their due, let alone our Troops. They are stuck in Nam.

Pray for W and Our Freedom Givers

[Fred Nerks]

Does Saddam Think He's a Modern-Day Saladin?
By Eric H. Cline

http://hnn.us/articles/1305.html

[Fred Nerks]

[Jenny Hatch]

Wow, thanks Fred, I really appreciate that link.

Jenny

[Jenny Hatch]

I've been praying...hard...for months...and freeping, of course.

Jenny

[Jenny Hatch]

Yuri Yarim-Agaev: I assume Stalin is a good example for Hussein. Yet, again I want to stress that systems are more important than individuals. During the Cold War Iraq had been on the side of the Soviet Union, not the U.S. The Soviet Communist system helped to shape Iraqi socialist system. They are akin. As long as Russia is ruled by the KGB, it will be friendly and supportive to Iraq, and North Korea as well. We should have no illusions that Russia is our ally. We shouldn’t be surprised when we find it supporting our enemy, like now in Iraq. All this talk about how the equipment and advisors come from some independent Russian military companies is ridiculous. As far as I know, there are no such independent companies there. The government controls the production and sales of military equipment in Russia. All issues related to Iraq are decided at the top level, which includes Putin himself. And Russia’s support comes not because Putin admires Hussein, but because of the affinity of these two systems. To me it is not as important whether those who are in charge of those systems have moustaches, or love jazz, or what I would see if I look in their eyes. They will perform their functions, as do Saddam and Putin.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=7229

Jenny