> joand315 wrote:
>
>>He [Dean] strongly opposed the war in Iraq, but committed to not
>>leaving Iraq in a mess and involving the UN.
> In other words, he is committed to the classical role of the Democratic
> Party, the quashing of mass movements by deflecting their leadership
> into electoral politics.
>
> No possible policy that leaves a foreign army in Iraq can lead to other
> than disaster. But although "No U.N. involvement, U.S. Out" 'ought' to
> be one of the core slogans of the anti-war movement, it will be a while
> (and many 10s or 100s of thousands of deaths) before a movement can
> began to coalesce around that. I think it important for at least a few
> of us to keep saying that however.
>
> There is of course a large difference between Bush and Dean, and all in
> Dean's favor -- unfortunately they don't differ on the key issue of the
> next decade: U.S. out of the Mideast.
Should we just leave Iraq and let it degenerate into a civil war? Won't many more innocent people be killed as a result?
We turned Iraq into a failed state, there are steps we can take to
restore its functionality, but none of those include making it a
democracy. That would take another 30 or 40 years, I would think.
-joan
> Carrol
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>