On Jun 26, 2007, at 4:54 AM, Lenin's Tomb wrote:
> But as Bricmont points out in his latest, 'Humanitarian Imperialism',
> support is usually a sentimental category, an alignment as passive as
> 'support' for one's football team.
I have no problem with this, though much of what the far left says is barely more relevant than that even when it comes to domestic politics. I don't the point of actively demonizing the government of Iran, or endlessly circulating reports of how terrible it is. (I haven't posted anything to this list that was critical of Iran that wasn't a response to YF in more than a month.) But I don't see the point of doing the reverse, either - of circulating apologetics for the regime, for saying that Khomeinism is a lot like LatAm populism (yeah, if you overlook the religious police), or referring to "my beloved Islamic Republic of Iran." Not only is that political nonsense, it partakes of that same sentimentalism of rhetorical support in the Bricmont quote.
oug