[Marxism] Re: Cagan's support for el-Maliki
critical.montages at gmail.com
Mon Aug 14 17:52:51 MDT 2006
On 8/14/06, Lou Paulsen <loupaulsen at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Fred Feldman wrote:
> I give no support to the el-Maliki government in Iraq, but I think the
> Mike Friedman position is sectarian, and I think that UFPJ is not wrong
> to reach out to the current Iranian government which is in what seems to
> be growing disagreement with Washington despite its dependence on US
> military support.
> I can't remember when I've disagreed with Fred more than with this.
> Reach out - for the purpose of accomplishing WHAT, exactly?
> The al-Maliki government needs military aid to stay in power. Are you proposing that
> UFPJ send troops, arms, and funds to Iraq to replace US troops, arms, and funds?
> No, that's ridiculous. Are you proposing that the UFPJ open talks with al-Maliki for the
> purpose of betraying the "Out Now" position and agreeing that after all the invasion has
> done good for Iraq and that UFPJ won't quarrel with a certain amount of military
> assistance any more?
> Well, then, what do you think UFPJ can
> possibly be up to in this "reaching out" that can be of use?
Why don't we take the UFPJ leaders at their own word? The Open Letter says:
<blockquote>We are writing to request a meeting with you during your
visit in New York City on Thursday, July 27, 2006, in order to brief
you about the U.S. peace movement's efforts to end the military
occupation of Iraq and to discuss how to work together to bring about
a troop withdrawal, promote reconciliation, and begin the process of
reconstruction and development.
We have been heartened by the Iraqi reconciliation plan put forth by
numerous Iraqi leaders to end both the occupation and sectarian
tension within Iraq. We are dismayed, however, that due in part to
U.S. pressure, the plan does not include a demand for a timetable for
withdrawing the troops -- a point that is essential for any true
Is it wrong for UPFJ to convey to Al-Maliki, et al. that its
displeasure that, "due in part to U.S. pressure, the plan does not
include a demand for a timetable for withdrawing the troops"?
> The UFPJ is not a country.
> It does not have the obligation to maintain diplomatic relations with all governments.
An open letter does not equal diplomatic relations. The point of open
letters in general is not to entertain any hope that their addressees
will respond but to encourage those other than the addressees to read
them and think about them.
That said, there is nothing wrong with leftists out of power
conducting their own independent citizen diplomatic relations. I'd
recommend that ANSWER, UFPJ, USLAW, and other leaders to pursue them
where doing so is possible and may potentially be effective.
> The Saudi royal family is not a US artifact,
It probably is. It is unlikely to survive long without Washington's
commitment to defend it.
> I suppose this makes me an evil sectarian once again,
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that what you are saying is 100%
correct and UFPJ is being 100% wrong. It still does not appear to me
that the Open Letter is worth making much of. Leftists had better
pick battles carefully, so we can conserve our energy for the ones
More information about the Marxism