--i'm not sure about that, i'd guess there are differences on that question within the resistance, no? and conditions under which they would accept elections? ----------------------------------------- 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?
- i see the two as rather closely related actually. ----------------------------------- 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.)
--agreed. -------------------------------------------- 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'.
--oh gosh, no, i don't have to agree with geras on anything really. his suppositions, presuppositions, etc. are entirely wrongheaded, leading to faulty conclusions. i care about whether or not the antiwar movement 'wins' to the extent that it slows up the war machine and creates some space for discussion of alternatives in the US to war, empire, even capitalism. something i think that is really underestimated by us is the extent to which the resistance in Iraq, ugly as it indeed sometimes gets {though hardly able to come close to the occupation forces accomplishments in that area) is that it has almost singlehandedly stopped up the momentum to drive on to Syria and god knows where else...
steve