"Just because Hitch and I are friends doesn't mean that I parrot his views or even share most of his positions. This confusion on your part has led to you and others to assume that I favor the "terror bombing of Baghdad" among other delights. Of course, there's no proof of that, since I don't. But because I *do* question the motives of the antiwar crowd, even while I share their disdain for Bush's planned aggression, many here feel that I secretly pine for the grisly deaths of Iraqi children. It's an astonishing disjunction of logic, but I suppose for some it'll do."
Out of curiosity, just what motives to you think the anti-war crowd have - other than stopping the war? Or is this some sort of pretentious and let's face it, 'very noble and dignified', Socratic stance whereby people will question themselves and then come to the conclusions they previously held, only this time they will have done it with your help? (Ah... all that Nietzsche floating around the Porto Alegre bourgeoisie is starting to affect me)
On your previous comment, which was rather short of cordial, I should tell you that it is unwise second guessing the Uruguayans, Argentinians, Palestinians, Brazilians, MST, PT, Fourth Internationalists, Anarchists and esperanto proselytisers whom I have personally spoken to and who have assured me they are not in favour of Saddam Hussein, but back his country to the hilt against, well, your country.
Indeed, in answer to your rhetorical question, bombing Iraq for ten years killing over a million people has made that country not so much a heroic symbol of resistance, but an unforgettable symbol of your hypocrisy.
Thiago
------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: www-mail.usyd.edu.au