Question for Max

[Seth Ackerman]

Max, I wonder what you think would happen if Russia drew up a similar
"peace plan" for Turkey and its Kurdish population? 30,000 Russian
troops occupy Southeastern Turkey for 3 years, run its government,
select its leaders, manage its economy, with free range over the rest of
the country if need be -- all to "end the suffering," of course. No
negotiations, just an ultimatum: sign or be bombed. After all, you can't
negotiate with those butchers.

Offered these choices, what would the Turks do? What would the
*Americans* do? Would the Kurds be better off? Would we dismiss concerns
about sovereignty as a smokescreen to distract from the human rights
abuses? 

In light of these considerations, ask yourself again: Has the U.S. acted
reasonably? Was Rambouillet done in good faith? Were the options for
diplomacy exhausted?


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	sawicky at epinet.org [SMTP:sawicky at epinet.org]
> Sent:	Friday, April 30, 1999 2:14 PM
> To:	lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject:	RE: New light on NATO motives?
> 
> .> Enrique Diaz-Alvarez wrote:
> >
> > >What's the difference between "allowing NATO troops
> > to rampage through
> > >the country" and "taking it over"?
> >
> > Taking it over is a lot more troublesome - you have to
> > run a colonial
> > government. Rampages are simpler, and so much more fun!
> 
> Quite so.  If Nato is intent on replacing the Milo regime with
> someone of their choosing, they are going about it in a funny (as
> in strange, not ha-ha) way.
> 
> mbs