On Nov 5, 2006, at 8:29 AM, Mark Lause wrote:
> Leigh Meyers wrote, "Because the US is going to invade them, which > would > undoubtably make certain elements on this list happy because the > stonings > would stop." > > I have read absolutely nothing from anyone on this list indicating > support > for the US invasion. Do you have anything particularly in mind or > do you > see sweeping accusations of scabbing for imperialism as > conversation piece?
I hadn't seen this, because I've got LM on autotrash, after essentially booting him from lbo-talk. Meyers, that's bullshit. US demonization of Iran has strengthened the regime, and an invasion would be a horrible crime. Yuck.
Invasion is not in the cards yet. Why not sanction Iran, however? -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>
- Re: Why Not Sanction Iran? (was campus feminism), (continued)
- Re: Why Not Sanction Iran? (was campus feminism), Michael Perelman Sun 05 Nov 2006, 16:09 GMT
- Why Iran Keeps Coming Up, Leigh Meyers Sun 05 Nov 2006, 07:08 GMT
- Re: Why Iran Keeps Coming Up, Mark Lause Sun 05 Nov 2006, 13:29 GMT
- Re: Why Iran Keeps Coming Up, Doug Henwood Sun 05 Nov 2006, 15:25 GMT
- Re: Why Iran Keeps Coming Up, Yoshie Furuhashi Sun 05 Nov 2006, 15:28 GMT
- Re: Why Iran Keeps Coming Up, Doug Henwood Sun 05 Nov 2006, 16:04 GMT
- Re: Why Iran Keeps Coming Up, Yoshie Furuhashi Sun 05 Nov 2006, 16:28 GMT
- Re: Why Iran Keeps Coming Up, Doug Henwood Sun 05 Nov 2006, 16:45 GMT
- Re: Why Iran Keeps Coming Up, Louis Proyect Sun 05 Nov 2006, 15:44 GMT