Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote
>Gar has come up with a modest proposal for all people of good will.
I reproduce the whole proposal at the end of this post, but I want
to focus here on his closing claim: "In any case this is something
concrete and immediate that could save lives, and anyone with
humanitarian motives should support."
>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.
Nonsense. It is -- as you said -- a proposal, or rather a demand. Like ending the bombing it is a concrete and immediate demand, something that would concretely contribute to the immediate saving of lives if implemented. Presumably when we make our demands, no matter how far from implementation, we try to demand things that will make the world better rather than worse. Or at least that is the approach most of us take. Are you an exception?
> 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"?
When we demonstrate, write letters do whatever we can to pressure the U.S. that we should include this in our demand right along with demands to stop to bombing, right along with demands not escalate to the use of ground troops. It is concrete and immediate in the sense of being something we struggle to make happen immediately rather than something which will happen immediately.
>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."
If we have to power to implement it immediately it is not a demand at all -- it is a strategy.
>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),
There are more and less humane approaches. Bombing Yugoslavia back to the stone age followed by a forty thousand strong invasion force is one of the least humane. Ending the bombing, providing haven for the refugees, and negotiation is among the most humane approaches.
>c*Or* it belongs in the never-never land of sexual fantasy, where
the agents always behave as the dreamer dictates.
You used nineteen words to call me a jerk-off; four fewer just proved you a blowhard.
>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.
So you agree that this should be included on the list of demands. All this is just a reproach for sloppy phrasing? And is it really that sloppy? It that the reading a reasonable person would give this phrase.
> But it is simple cruelty or worse to pretend that such a proposal is
going to bring "immediate" relief to anyone.
Not "going to" "would". Like emding the bomb this is a proposal that *would* concretely and immediately reduce suffering if implemented.
>It is April 1. Is Gar having his little joke?
In making a demand that would immediately save lives if implemented is it really neccesary to add that no lives will be saved if it is not implemented?
When I stood out on the street last week with fifteen other people carrying signs saying "End the bombing now!" should I have included a footnote saying "It's going to be a while before they listen, folks"?
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.
>
-- Gar W. Lipow 815 Dundee RD NW Olympia, WA 98502