Yet this started when folks like Doug and Carroll said they should have no opinion on which regime was in power in Iraq or have an alternative plan on how to support those seeking to overthrow Hussein.
> t the idea that we should have no opinion and do no organizing to support
>those who resist oppression is repugnant to my idea of global solidarity.
-No one advocates this.
But my point is that the lack of organizing of that global solidarity and plan on how to help those resisting Hussein is exactly what strengthened the warhawks in arguing that their method was the only way to "liberate Iraq." In practice and in message, there was little or no message by the antiwar movement on how they were acting in solidarity with the oppressed folks within Iraq.
And that was the fatal flaw of antiwar organizing.
> at kind of national sovereignty argument is just Bull Connor/Pat Buchanan
>states rights rhetoric taken to the global level as its logical end point.
-No, you confuse support for popular indigeneous resistance with imperilaist
attack.
No I don't. I said specifically that the left should advocate a non-violent alternative to imperialist attack as the better way to support that resistance. But it failed to do so.
And that was one of the main reasons why it failed to win over popular support ultimately.
-- Nathan Newman