Oh no! I've been dragged into an increasingly bizzare argument!
>That explains my characterization of the AWL's position as "left in form,
>right in essence." Chuck Munson comes along and expresses support for this
>position,
>
Support for what position? I never said anything about supporting any of
AWL's positions. I happen to support *my* positions.
>and thinks it is a fine thing "to see somebody calling other
>leftists on their support for Saddam
>Hussein." As if this were a new phenomenon.
>
It's an old phenomenon, but it seems that the leftists who have decided
to lead the pace movement (sic) have forgotten the lessons that we
learned during the first Gulf War. It doesn't suprise me that the major
protests have been muted in their criticism of Hussein. This is logical
when Lou's group, the WWP is setting the tone for some of the major
protests. As we've argued about in the past, the WWP subscribes to the
school of shallow anti-imperialism in which the "enemy of my enemy is my
friend." Or the corrollary: "I will not speak badly of the enemy of my
enemy."
> People have been "calling us"
>on this in the editorial pages of the major capitalist papers throughout the
>war crisis. (Sample caption: "Give Saddam a chance" doesn't have the same
>ring as "Give peace a chance.") That, if you will, is "RIGHT in form, right
>in essence." (It's also damnable hypocrisy, since during the Viet Nam War
>the slogan "give peace a chance" was excoriated by those same papers as an
>apology for evil totalitarian communism, etc.)
>
>
We all know that the Left has been critical and opposed to Saddam
Hussein, for many years, but why hasn't this been more obvious in our
messaging?
The only example of this being made clear at an anti-war demo was at one in South America, where anarchists burned effigies of BOTH George Bush and Saddam Hussein.
>Munson goes on to declare, "It seems now that the anti-war movement should
>have been a
>little louder in our opposition to his regime." I am especially intrigued
>by the phrase "It seems now." And by the little word "NOW". Why does it
>seem that way -now-? What new information about the evils of Saddam
>Hussein's rule has come to light "NOW"? Nothing. What OTHER new
>information is he referring to? The only possible sense that I can make of
>this is a completely opportunist sense: "It looks as if Iraq is losing the
>war; there are US tanks at the Baghdad airport; therefore in retrospect we
>shouldn't have been backing a losing horse, and should have disassociated
>ourselves from Iraq early on." If anyone can think of another reasonable
>explanation for what he is saying which would acquit Chuck from the charge
>of rank opportunism, please tell me!
>
>
By "now" I'm referring to the fact that the pro-war folks, at least the
shrill ones on the right wing and the ones organizing the anti-war
rallies, are slamming us hard with these charges that we support Hussein.
>I would say just the opposite. No new information has come our way in the
>last two weeks about how bad Saddam Hussein's rule has been.
>
On the contrary, the mainstream news is filled with new reports about
how bad his regime has been. We don't know yet if any of these charges
are true and which of them are simple propaganda. But we shouldn't be
surprised if new information comes to light about this dictator. He was
a bad guy after all.
> The new
>information that has come our way is about the heroism of the Iraqi
>resistance fighters and the fierce fight against near-impossible odds that
>has been put up by people whom various leftists were dismissing as
>"Ba'athist thugs" not so long ago. Iraq has not collapsed.
>
The US is driving around the streets of Baghdad. The fat Iraqi dictator
hasn't started singing yet (or any of his thousands of look-a-likes),
but the handwriting is on the wall.
> Despite the
>ability of Abrams tanks to drive around through the streets, nobody knows
>when it will collapse. So far the invaders do not control much more of the
>country than those areas of unpopulated desert which can be effectively
>surveilled from the air, and those roads and acres of land which currently
>have tanks sitting on them.
>
Most of this doesn't matter. The US will win the war when the US decides
it has won the war. Don't you remember how the US "won" the first Gulf War?
>There is no puppet government.
>
That will be installed next week if news reports are to be believed.
>There is no
>major chunk of occupied populated Iraqi territory which a puppet government
>could administer. It is impossible to calculate how long it will take the
>invaders to achieve their war aims, or what obstacles may be raised to delay
>or prevent their achievement. There may be a period of weeks, or months, or
>longer, during which "leftists" will be faced with the question, 'WHICH SIDE
>ARE YOU ON.'
>
>
That kind of sounds like: "Either you are with us or you are with the
terrorists."
I know I'm not on the side of the right wing idiots who send me e-mail telling me to leave the country.
Chuck0