Of course we are entitled -- required! -- to make moral judgments about things we can't affect and aren't directly involved in. Although here we _are_ involved in the resistance to war. And we have to choose our allies. That doesn't minimize the contradictions. We may end up having to -- endorse is too strong -- accepct, acquiesce -- in things that are horrible. I don't say that suicide bombings of civilians in Iraq is such a case. Actually I think it is not. But I recall Doug asking, for example, critics of Castro's repression, What are the alternatives in the real world? And Doug is no apologist for Stalinism. But the idae that we can't have an opinion about Castro or the Iraqi resistance, well, that's just dumb. We can't not have an opinion.
My own opinion is that I am with whatever forces in Iraq promote real democracy -- against the US and its puppets, against the old-style Baathists (whom Christian Pareti says in the current Nation are important in the armed resistance in Iraq) and against the theocrats and fundamentalists and jihadis.
jks
--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> Seth Ackerman wrote:
>
> >From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
> >
> >> In any case, for U.S. citizens to talk of
> supporting or not supporting
> >> this or that Iraqui faction makes about as much
> sense as proclaiming
> >> they do or do not support the presidential
> ambitions of Franklin Pierce.
> >> This is the absolute height of armchair
> pontificating.
> >
> >Well of course I see your point.
>
> What does solidarity or internationalism mean if
> only those directly
> involved are allowed to have an opinion?
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html