Chip Berlet wrote:
>
>
> I still think it is a bad idea to not explicitly point out that some of the opponenets of the US are in fact theocratic fascists.
What I have trouble seeing is how simply saying some people are bad makes a difference if our thought or action does not affect those people? How does our disapproval of "theocratic fascists" in Iraq make any difference?
I might go further. The main way we (in the u.s.) can hurt Sadr is by solidarity _with_ him. Such solidarity hastens the u.s. withdrawal from Iraq, and there is no way that non-fascists in Iraq can oppose Sadr until all u.s. power in Iraq is destroyed. Until such time other (non-traitorous) elements in Iraq must support Sadr, but once the u.s. is gone it becomes possible at least in principle to oppose him.
Surely you do not mean that because Sadr is (let us assume) worse than Bush we should therefore support Bush in his opposition to Sadr? But if you don't mean that, then what is the material content of any opinion (positive or negative) that we have on Sadr?
Carrol