Anniversary

[Liza Featherstone]

Even a cursory reading of what I actually WROTE will show that I was urging
no such thing, exactly the opposite in fact. I assumed that listers would
realize that "If the U.S. were simply seeking to rid the world of AQ" refers
to a scenario very different from reality. But I overestimated some people,
as I often do. 

If making distinctions between AQ and innocent Iraqi civilians puts me on a
"slippery slope," it's a slope upon which I'm quite happy to perch. A left
that refused to recognize the U.S. right to track down and punish 911
terrorists, at least in principle, would be a (very small) band of
self-hating fools. I tend to assume that such a left is mostly a fictional
construct dreamed up by the Todd Gitlins and Bill O'Reillys of the world. I
do hope I'm right. 

Liza


> From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:49:23 -0500
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Anniversary
> 
> 
> 
> Liza Featherstone wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> Hear, hear. But does anyone seriously disagree with this? If the U.S. were
>> simply seeking to rid the world of Al Qaeda, rather than preparing to
>> overthrow whole governments with no proven ties to AQ, and to slaughter
>> thousands more innocents, I'd like to think no leftists would seriously
>> object. Am I overestimating us?
> 
> The duty of the left in the U.S. is the same as the duty of the left in
> all imperialist nations before WW 1 and of the left in Italy & Germany
> in the 1930s.
> 
> Even if Qaeda is destroyed by the U.S. that destruction would only lead
> to more terrible forces even than Al Qaeda in the middle east. You are
> urging us to support eternal war against the human species just to get
> at one very nasty bunch, though they lack the power to be 1/100 as nasty
> as the U.S.
> 
> You are on a slippery slope.
> 
> Carrol
> 
>> Liza
>