"--according to Bush Noriega was certainly as evil as Milo, evil enough to merit an invasion and the murder of a thousand some odd civilians by our military. .....In any event,i'm not sure, especially since context does seem relevant. I might not like Noriega as my kind of patriot, ok, but if a group opposing the US invasion of Panama and arrest of Noriega by the US, I might be able to sign a petition that didn't require me to accept Noriega's politics-world view. I've signed petitions that I don't entirely agree with, religiously laden petitions against war, nukes, and the like, which, if *you* found them on the web could be used to prove that Steve Philion believes in Christ and is fond of biblical quotes."
Noriega stole elections and brutalized his opposition, but he was not engaged in a Greater Panama crusade, nor was he responsible for mass murder and mass graves. If you allow Bush I to define how you relate to the brutal in this world, then you might very well end up signing on to some morally dubious enterprises or concerns.
Carrol didn't sign some nebulous, neutral petition regarding Milosevic and war crimes tribunals -- he signed a pro-Milosevic statement put out by the nutty Jared Israel, himself a slave to the Serbian thug's persona and designs. I think this may differ slightly from any religious anti-war petition you might have signed.
"--you mean you are of the political line that contends that had Chomsky blubbered angrily his critique of Bush's bombing of Afghanistan and the Bush adm.'s manipulation of the 911 terror with plainly ulterior motives would have been made accessible to the American public on CNN, NYT, WP,etc.?"
In the past, when Chomsky has spoken of the massacre of thousands or millions, he oftentimes showed controlled anger or emotion -- watch "Manufacturing Consent" and witness his bristling when debating Vietnam with William F. Buckley, or the contra war with John Silber. A few thousand people get massacred in NYC, however, and Chomsky shifts his attention to the Sudan. No anger. No emotion. Victims of US violence, then, merit his emotional involvment. Victims of al-Qaeda's violence in the US seemingly do not.
"If we take the Central American solidarity movement as a paradigm, from one other vantage, the lesson of organizing consequences is the opposite of that that people like you and Todd Gitlin, Cooper, draw. During the 80's, the solidarity movements' biggest weakness was that it alligned itself too closely with 'moderate' types who wanted the movement to rely more on lobbying congress than on direct action strategies....the constant and pathetic obsession with making a message pallatable to the mainstream overlooks that actually the mainstream is much more anti-war than we give them credit for...which leads then to an idea that the only way an anti-war message can be made acceptable is to water it down...a softer pro-war position ends up being the main message of the 'anti-war' soft leftists (soft left is Max's term...)..."
I was pretty active during the Central American wars, and I remember all the ultras and lunatics back then who were more interested in striking rad poses or trying to get others to conform to their "line" (see CISPES). But the most effective part of that movement came from church based groups, especially in establishing and running, at great risk to themselves, the Sanctuary Movement and the underground railroad that helped refugees fleeing terror to get into Canada to reunite with relatives and loved ones. I saw this remarkable movement first-hand, and it has always stayed with me. And nothing, nothing the ultras did, no matter how many demos they organized, ever saved real lives like this.
I wouldn't call this "moderate" -- try moral.
DP
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20021023/fd354fff/attachment.htm>