> Bullhockey-- from human rights challenges to Belgium's mass murder in the Congo at the end of the 19th century (led by among others Mark Twain) to denunciations of the fascist regimes in Europe in the 1930s to attacks on colonialism in the 1950s to denunciations of death squads in El Salvador and Apartheid in South Africa, the left has always called for challenges to bad regimes. Um, the usual call is for self-determination by the oppressioned, not intervention by your friendly neighborhood imperialist. You will not anyone on the left who woulfd not haverejoined had the Iraqi people gotten rid of SH. > 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. > 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. I workedw ith European Nuclear Disarmament to help the Moscow Trust Group and the like work for disarmament and democratization in the FSU. But I opposed Reagan's Cold War, the new arms race, and star wars. _You_ can't consistently make that distinction. > There is absolutely nothing wrong with humanitarian interventionism in principle-- the left has believed in it for centuries. ?? Hail the Red Army in Afghanistn? What are you thinking of? > What is opposed is its use on behalf of corporate interests in a violent form, when non-violent solidarity is both more likely to lead to a just result and imposes less costs on the population. That is, what is opposed is the only form humanitarian imperialism ever takes! jks ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk <hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!? <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/finance/mailsig/*http://tax.yahoo.com">Yahoo! Tax Center</a> - File online, calculators, forms, and more