> Leftists need to discuss how all weapons in Washington's imperial
> arsenal have been and are being used, rather than simply opposing
> massive invasions (which Washington can do only infrequently anyhow).
> Leftists do not prefer invasion to subversion, but we should not
> prefer subversion to invasion either. We should simply explain that
> Washington has been more successful at subversion than invasion and
> that the former should be opposed *as vigorously as* the latter,
> especially since *the former can serve as a prelude to the latter*
> (in Iraq, Haiti, etc.).
--------------------------
What is this lecture about, and which leftists are you referring to? I've
never seen anyone on this list express a "preference" for US subversion over
invasion. I expect you'd find a pretty consistent pattern of opposition to
US efforts to subvert foreign governments, especially progressive ones, and
I doubt few or any of us would have supported past attempts to unseat the
Mossadegh, Arbenz, Sukarno, Lumumba, Castro, Allende, Bishop, Ortega or
other reformist or revolutionary governments. This opposition extends to
contemporary US attempts to overthrow the governments of Saddam Hussein, Kim
Jong-il, and the Iranian fundamentalists, which are far less politically
appealing than those of the preceding generation.
So why even raise this as an issue unless it is to imply otherwise?