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
