Now his claim that it is "immediate" and "could save lives now" presupposes that someone with the power to do so might listen to him or Angela. Yet he offers no way to induce them to listen beyond the vague suggestion that we (??) should "focus our pressure on the U.S "where it will do the most good." And this is "concrete and immediate"?
Concrete and immediate proposals for anything are those proposals that can be made by those men and women who walk the corridors of power, who flit from capital to capital putting together deals. "U.S. out now!" rallies chanted all over the world in the late 1960s -- but no one voicing that chant had any delusions to that being something "concrete" or "immediate," or that anything other than a (disguised) Vietnamese surrender to Washington could end the war "now."
There is *no* "humanitarian solution" to the Balkan War, and Gar's proposal is *Either* a rhetorical maneuver, aimed at making the enemy (NATO, U.S. imperialism) "reveal himself" (as such it's not a bad trick at that, as long as it doesn't fool the trickster him/herself), *Or* it belongs in the never-never land of sexual fantasy, where the agents always behave as the dreamer dictates.
All mass campaigns, as a matter of course, include such demands, and if the Balkan War drags on and expands and a possibility and necessity for massive anti-interventionist campaign opens up, certainly Angela's proposal could be included in its wish list. But it is simple cruelty or worse to pretend that such a proposal is going to bring "immediate" relief to anyone.
It is April 1. Is Gar having his little joke?
Carrol
=============
Gar Lipow wrote:
> Given how throughly the U.S. has screwed things up in Kosovo Angela
> from Australia (on another list) has suggested the U.S. should start
> admitting refugees from the war between the Serb government and NATO.
> So for that matter should other NATO members who have gone along with
> this -- but the vast majority on this list are U.S. citizens and
> should focus our pressure on the U.S. where we can do the most good.
> (The Brits on the same grounds can pressure Blair and so forth.) This
> is something that I hope both the people opposing and supporting the
> NATO intervention can support. This is NATO malice or a NATO screwup
> (or both -- my personal view) In any case this is something concrete
> and immediate that could save lives, and anyone with humanitarian
> motives should support.
>