Clarifications

[Dennis Perrin]

> Here is
> the post that he presumably found objectionable. It speaks for itself:
>
>  >>The rising desire of Iraqis to defend their country, among other
> processes in the masses, has proved incompatible with the maintenance of
> a front of "totalitarian" unity by the military-police regime.
>
> Among other things the defense of Iraq will probably require a
> considerable degree of decentralized initiative and organization, given
> the weapons the imperialists have for disrupting communications
> networks.  (The Cuban territorial troops militias are organized to meet
> this threat, as well as others, but of course Cuba makes no pretense to
> totalitarian-syle centralziation.)
>
> Imperialism's main target in Iraq is not Saddam Hussein but the
> independence and sovereignty won over decades of struggle by the people
> of  Iraq.  In the situation today, a defense of  Saddam's regime against
> imperialist "regime change" pretty much comes with the package of
> defending the country.
>
> But it is becoming more important to have in mind that Saddam's
> government and the independence and sovereignty of the people of Iraq
> are not the same thing.

Oh, yeah -- the Rev. Lou omitted this part:

"This important article confirms, among other things, that the release of
prisoners was truly nationwide -- probably one of the biggest human rights
victories worldwide in recent years.

"Despite Burns' attempts to suggest otherwise, protests of the families of
the disappeared demanding information and acknowledgment are no more
inherently proimperialist in Iraq than they are in Mexico or Argentina.

"The rising desire of Iraqis to defend their country, among other processes
in the masses, has proved incompatible with the maintenance of a front of
'totalitarian' unity by the military-police regime."

Saddam scored one of "the biggest human rights victories worldwide in
years"? Yep, speaks for itself.

DP