I often do not find the time to read the posts on this list and most times I do not agree with somethng I do not choose to particpate but the comment that You haven't shown how direct US military action would be bad. is a shocker for me, given the faxct that this is a progressive list and given the US's atrocious record in the Middle East , not to mention the globe makes it a no brainer to oppose the US getting involved again. If it was not for US meddling in Afganistan, Iraq, Iran and the list can continue, we we would not have nearly the level of problems of Islamic extremists that we do today..
Just a note to Carroll. I think everyone has a right to an opinion about the Middle East or elsewhere, independent of one's nationality, but one should be able to justify it and that it is another matter, as many United Statesians (Americans) have a serious problem of world geography and history. Though this problem is not limited to people from the US, though the horrible Us interventions across the globe make that ignorance less acceptable. in solidarity and in the vein of constructive criticism, la lucha sigue, Paul Cooney Mercosur Em 17/06/2014 13:56, raghu escreveu: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Carrol Cox <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I am baffled by this exchange. For nearly 70 years every single 'exercise' >> (economic, military, political) of u.s. power beyond its own borders, >> _regardless_ particular conditions, has been a terrible disaster for the >> people affected by the intervention. >> >> No u.s. leftists has a right to have any opinion whatever on the Middle East >> (or the Ukraine or Syria or Libya) except the conviction that u.s. interfeen >> ce there must be opposed. > > I mostly agree with Carrol's sentiments here. First, US military > interventions have a rather sordid track record historically and should be > opposed on that basis alone - irrespective of any theoretical arguments about > how they may potentially do some good in a given situation. Second, US > leftists advocating for this or that political group in a remote part of the > world where they do not have any personal connection is silly wankery at best. > > Carrol's last comment though is puzzling: it is one thing to oppose US > *military* interventions. But what does it mean to oppose "US interference" > generally speaking? > > The US government is a extremely powerful entity and its influence is > inevitably felt everywhere in the world. That's just a fact whether you like > it or not and I don't see how it is possible (or desirable) to magically > "remove" this influence from some part of the world. The best you can do is > to form informed opinions about the nature of that influence and incorporate > that into your politics. > -raghu. > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l [1] Links: ------ [1] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
