I got my aunt to admit (and my uncle didn't protest her position) that it was OK for the US to intervene in foreign societies if they were oppressive. In other words, its OK to put a stop, forcefully if necessary, to various forms of repression around the globe.
I figured they surely wouldn't support that position, but they stuck to it.
I was so dumbfounded I didn't know what else to say. I was stunned by their arrogance. I basically blanked out and was reduced to saying "but.., but.., but.."
I was particularly surprised because on domestic issues they are quite liberal. It really brought home the extent to which people internalize the "US is good" propaganda bullsh*t. Even when they've already rejected some of it, the rest still has a powerful grip.
Having thought about this further, I wish I had used the argument put forth in the article Bill Lear posted a couple of days ago. I'd never seen the argument made so lucidly before, although of course it makes perfect sense - namely that this principle of intervention should be rejected because:
1) of power asymmetry, i.e., only the powerful can intervene in the affairs of the weak. The powerful will not tolerate the meddling of the weak (i.e., the US wouldn't stand for Cubans bombing Miami as a means to put an end to sweatshops, for example).
2) There is always some abuse you can point to in virtually ANY country as a justification for intervention. So in practice this principle acts as a rationale for powerful states who want to intervene in the affairs of weaker nations, and can provide a cover for invervention for other reasons.
Brett
At 03:21 PM 4/30/99 -0400, you wrote:
>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
>
>