So your view that if someone says that some other country has a wicked government that puts the question of intervention squarely on the table? On whose assumptions? Not mine. If I said, as I often did, that the Soviet Union was a cynical and repressive dictatorship that systematically practiced torture, political abuse of psychiatry, censorship, antisemitism, and aggression against its neighbors, I was playing into the hands of the right and, barring the fact that the Russians had a lot of nuclear weapons, calling for an attack on the USSR? We have to play nice and pretend that countries we don't want the US to attack are all as wonderful as Yoshie's Persian Paradise, which people like Satrapi flee if they can?
Can I ask you an honest but not very nice question, Michael?. I assume that you're an intelligent person, there's been evidence to that effect in your contributions. Why are you saying such dumb things? Yoshie's become an ideological fanatic, reconciled herself to an ugly reality in the same sort of way as do people who say that we have No Alternative except to support the Democrats -- and then start fooling themselves about how good the Democrats are. What's your excuse?
--- Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> wrote:> it.
>
> And if so, unfortunately, I think she has a point.
> No doubt
> Andie is, as he says, a committed
> anti-interventionist. But
> whether fired by indignation and rhetorical zeal, or
> just
> because aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus, he has let
> slip
> an expression which certainly appears to put the
> question
> of intervention very much on the table -- and frame
> the
> question, moreover, in a way rather more favorable
> to it
> than not.
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com