Question for Max

Seth Ackerman SAckerman at
Fri Apr 30 12:21:57 PDT 1999

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 [SMTP:sawicky at]
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 2:14 PM
> To: lbo-talk at
> 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

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list