I do not claim to have the "definite explanation." Sorry. I think that it is a combination of things. Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: Charles Brown <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Friday, April 30, 1999 10:17 AM Subject: Re: il manifesto on the war and labour
>Barkley,
>
>This process of elimination of explanations is narrowing things down.
Could you please repeat what the main explanation of the current U.S/NATO
war is ? I have been reading the posts, but I am not sure if the definite
explanation has crystalized in your statements yet, although I might have
missed it.
>
>Charles Brown
>
>>>> "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb at jmu.edu> 04/29/99 04:30PM >>>
>Doug,
> Well, we've been over this before. Certainly
>it is important that the US is the biggest country
>in NATO and that it has a more organized, if not
>necessarily more competent, leadership than does
>the EU which remains still pretty decentralized. It
>also has the major military firepower.
> I guess I tend to side with Wojtek on this one.
>There are people in Washington and New York who
>sit up nights worrying about the euro. But that worry
>has subsided somewhat given its general decline
>since the beginning of the year. I just don't see the
>US as having instigated this war to "show the Europeans
>who's boss."
> Clearly the US is the military instigator
>and leader and everybody knew that and knows that.
>Nothing whatsoever has been shown that was not already
>known. If anything the limits of US power are being shown.
>Without the concurrence of the leading European nations
>the US would be doing nothing, and it is the lack of support
>from some of those powers that is ultimately going to prevent
>the introduction of ground troops, not some resolution in the
>US Congress.
> If Italy did not support this, no bombing from the Aviano
>base. If other NATO powerse refused overflight, more problems.
>If Germany and others did not support this, then no use of other
>bases and weakened supply routes. Sure the US (along with
>maybe the UK) could sit on aircraft carriers and fly stuff over
>friendly Albania, or send in the B-2s from Missouri, but this
>operation would be a joke without the support of the major
>NATO nations. The question is why are they supporting this,
>and I do not think it is because they are craven wimps quivering
>in fear of the mighty US. Again and again, the French in particular
>have never hesitated to tell the US where to get off when they have
>felt like it. That has not changed one bit, despite M. Singer.
> This is old hat, but I think that the Euro-periphery-
>pacification issue is quite serious, especially for Germany,
>even if the Redmond argument about US debts and the Nowell
>thesis about a focus on the Danube were either misguided or
>only relatively minor explanations of what is going on.
>Barkley Rosser
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Date: Thursday, April 29, 1999 1:37 PM
>Subject: Re: il manifesto on the war and labour
>
>
>>Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>>
>>>I am somewhat skeptical about claims that this is a US-led aggression.
It
>>>looks to me more like a genuine European social-dummiecratic concoction -
>>>in which the Clinton administration was a co-conspirator but not
>>>necessarily the leader.
>>
>>Europe can't even agree on building a damn naval frigate. How could they
>>launch a common war?
>>
>>Doug
>>
>
>
>