Re: AUT: RE: antiwar movement

["\\\"Ryan H. B. Graham\\\"" <ryan.graham@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoting Thiago Oppermann <thiago_oppermann@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

> On 23/3/2004 12:26 PM, "Thomas Seay" <entheogens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> > --- Thiago Oppermann <thiago_oppermann@xxxxxxxxxxx> w
> >> You can keep your soul squeaky clean and wait for
> >> ever for the right
> >> conditions, I suppose, but there are some very nasty
> >> choices to be made
> >> right now.
> >
> > Point taken, but whom do you support in that case?
> >
> > Thomas
>
> It's a stinker, but unless the US is thrown out of Iraq, we can look
> forward
> to many more Iraqs. The only force likely to accomplish that is the
> despicable 'resistance'. Would I tell Iraqis to go kill themselves so that
> we're spared a rampant US? No, I wouldn't do that. But the reality isn't
> altered by my cold feet in that regard.

Am I correct to say that you see "more Iraqis" (i.e. US invasion and occupation
of) as the greater evil than another Saddam or some neo-Ba'athist or Islamist
regime - or perhaps the Taliban in Afghanistan?

I don't think it's fair to characterize someone who doesn't want to take sides
as simply wanting a "squeaky clean soul".  It seems that you beleive that
workers' revolution and class struggle are a pipe dream so we should throw in
the towel and settle for some old school third world nationalism.

> I essentially agree with Pilger: To wash my conscience of this repulsive
> fact, my rationalization is that the blame for the current situation lays
> squarely with the US. If they did not want Saddam, they could have not
> supported him. If they didn't want to strengthen the hand of the Islamists,
> they could have forced Israel into a compromise. If they didn't want a
> vicious guerilla, they could have not waged war. The present situation was
> foreseen by god knows how many people before the war, including the CIA, so
> there can be no question of naivette. If you think it is repulsive to
> tolerate Ba'athists in the hope that they defeat the US, I'd say that it is
> more repulsive to wage a war on whatever pretext, knowing fully well what
> the Ba'athists would do, in fact expecting far worse.

Ok sure, you can place the blame on the US - nothing ground breaking there. What
exactly is it about that fact that now makes nationalists, islamists or whatever
other brand of wannabe capitalist rulers now worthy of support?

> Having said that, there is one big problem with any choosing of sides, and
> that is the Iraqi Information Nebula. It seems very difficult to get any
> sort of sense of what is going on in that country.

Would it be better if there was some Maoist-type guerilla movement that you
could lend your "critical support" to?

I don't mean to sound like a jerk here but I think the question of Iraqi
resistance is an important one that goes well beyond simply expelling a foreign
invader or putting a dent in the aspirations of an imperialist power 'by any
means necessary.'

Ryan
--


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---