> I don't like Geras' position on the war, but I thought he made a decent
> point in criticizing Pilger for urging support for the resistance.
>
> --i dunno, no resistance, no pressure for real elections, no barriers
> to privatization...The US has an easy time wiping out any resistance
> and sets up its puppet government...
That's probably true, but it doesn't mean anybody should support a bunch of reactionary thugs. So far they have been just as opposed to elections as the Bush administration.
> Why should we support people who are trying to take over Iraq by
> blowing up civilians?
>
> --I don't know who I should support in Iraq, at this point its occupied
> and it matters little who we support really. In fact, the only thing
> that matters as far as whether the US population will be up in arms
> over this mess is whether or not Americans die in large numbers in
> Iraq, I wish it were otherwise, but nothing else seems to really matter.
All you seem to care about are the needs of the antiwar movement. Obviously it's important to restrain Bush, but aren't you forgetting that the future of 22 million Iraqis is at stake too? They seem horrified at the thought that these people setting off bombs in marketplaces might take power. (And they probably don't want the Americans to win either.) Geras might be wrong about a lot of things. But unless you at least acknowledge that he's right about that one thing, it makes it seem like you don't care what happens to Iraq as long as the antiwar movement 'wins'. That appearance hurts the antiwar movement more than a month of quiet days in Iraq.
Seth