>
>
>One of the things I've found most depressing about this evil war has been
>all the side-taking. Either you're pro-NATO or pro-Milo. You've got
>leftists condemning the KLA as a bunch of gangsters, or treating them as a
>liberation movement worthy of support; condemning Serbia as fascist and
>genocidal or canonizing it as a hardy outpost of socialism. In other words,
>there's hardly been a position that doesn't end up endorsing some variety
>of simplified nationalism in an unimaginably complicated part of the
world.
>I don't see why it isn't possible to condemn the barbarism all around,
>except that people seem to find it simpler to cling to some good guy/bad
>guy model, even though they differ on their casting preferences.
>
>Doug
Well, the problem seems to be that the West's own barbarism is acceptable to many people including the columnists of the NY Times. It also has a far softer coverage than that of the Serbs or any other non-Nato nation for the matter. I have yet to read a serious article on the mainstream North American press about the barbarism against the Kurds in Turkey and about the situation in Iraq. It seems that killing about 800,000 thousands kids in Iraq is not a crime against humanity but rather a humane act. And throwing about 3 million Kurds out of their homes and destroying 3,500 villages is not ethnic cleansing.
elias