andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> This is arrant none sense, pernicious claptrap, and
> politically idiotic. One of the few places it matters
> what we sat about Cuba, etc., is in live
> antinterventionist movements. There the audience is
> not the Cubans, etc,. but potential participants here
> in the movements. Needless to say, if you refuse to
> say, Milosovic (Saddam, etc.) is a tyrant, BUT, you
> will paint yourself into the self-isolated ghetto
First of all, I don't think the last sentence here is empirically accurate. The _main_ negative response one gets from "potential participants" is always, in one formulation or another, What Good Will It Do? The mass of people simply don't hassle about this in the way leftists worrying about the mass of people do. And it is among the organizers that this hassle about Saddam etc does its damage: it is a barrier to discussing the things that need to be discussed. Chuck's lunatic response to you (quoted below) shows my point. You don't get that sort of looniness (or Mpug's sort) outside the narrowly defined left (and of course among dogmatic followers of Rush, etc). In mass work refusal to be sidetracked into "criticism" of Saddam or Milosevic or X simply doesn't bother anyone. But it certainly eats up meeting time among leftists and drives people away who are there for the first time and can't stand or don't have time for the wrangling.
Carrol
Chuck wrote:
>
> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> > I ask you the same question I asked Chuck: do you want
> > the Miami Cubans back in power and Cuba as whole
> > flushed the way the Nicaragurans were?
>
> What a fucking stupid question!
>
> Come on, you can do better than that!
>
> You know, it is possible to oppose Castro, the Miami Cubans, the U.S.
> government and support other more positive alternatives.