>>>>> "chris" == Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
chris> obviously futile. But as the stories mount of unnecessary chris> civilian deaths and maimings, and of deaths through "friendly chris> fire" and accidents, this propels the relevance of continued chris> protests, against an unjust and inappropriate use of force. Yes chris> even if they find some prisoners in Saddam's jails who have had chris> their tongues cut out, as they promise us, it will still be chris> relevant to campaign against the excessive and inappropriate use chris> of force! Chris, But where does that leave us (uh, "the left") when or if such stories don't emerge, either because the Pentagon's (rather brillant, IMO) 'embedding' strategy simply strangles the news before it leaks out or, as seems more likely, there *aren't* any such stories to tell? It seems possible, at this very early point, that Bush & Co. will get a relatively bloodless win against Hussein, who will be spun as a paper tiger. In other words, what if Baghdad falls, not with an 'unnecessary' number of civilian deaths, but with none at all? That seems at least possible right now, and if it happens that way, it would seem to seriously undercut what I understand you to be arguing as the basis of an antiwar position. But perhaps I've misunderstood you? (Reading further, I think I agree with your broader point about national sovereignty, but I oppose this war not on those grounds, but because it's neither necessary nor a matter of last resort. Well, and acquiescing to it seems to me to be acquiescing to the enactment of imperial power -- and that just *feels* wrong.) Kendall Clark -- Jazz is only what you are. -- Louis Armstrong
