On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:47:42 -0400 Dennis Perrin <dperrin at comcast.net> wrote:
<snipping carl and yoshie>
> Two fine examples of the Soft-on-al-Qaeda left
> which, by lumping Afghanistan
> and a possible assault on Iraq together,
> mirrors the movements and rhetoric
> of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. They are two
> completely different things; but,
> alas, this left takes its cues from power and
> dances accordingly.
>
> DP
your position sounds to me rather like a "soft-on-saddam" left position . . . are you arguing that iraq and the world would not be better off w/o saddam hussein? are you miminizing the crimes saddam has in fact committed (e.g., gassing kurds or contributing consciously, voluntarily, and non-trivially to the starvation of his own people while he and his officers live in the lap of luxury)?
true, saddam hussein did not massacre several thousand in new york and washington, dc, but if *that* is the determinative difference between saddam and al-qa'ida, then that alters the substance of your argument about afghanistan, as far as i can tell. indeed, it shows that afghanistan really WAS what we think it was: US vengeance, with the side-effect of the liberation of a downtrodden people from a thoroughly repressive regime. wouldn't bush fils finishing the vendetta of bush pere be the same thing--US vindictiveness (and/or worse) that ultimately makes things better for iraqis?
but perhaps i misunderstand now and always have the subtleties of the hitchites on this set of questions.
jeff