>Max Sawicky wrote:
>
>>The fundamental question is whether the lives of many innocent people are
>>under immediate, deadly threat at the hands of the Serbs.
>
>Sure they are, but so are the lives of many other innocent people all over
>the place - Kurds, at the hands of Turkey for example, where the casualties
>have been far greater. But Turkey, being a NATO member and a loyal stooge
>of the United States, gets a free ride. Africa is a goddamn "humanitarian
>catastrophe," to use the phrase I keep hearing on TV, and the U.S. won't
>even forgive its debts. These rescue missions are very selective, aren't
>they?
Yes, they are selective, and disgustingly so. But what are we to do then? It's despicable, as you imply, that the US establishment doesn't really give a rat's backside for anything but the wealthy. But isn't it even worse to let positively _every_one suffer? Surely ameliorating the lives of a few for the wrong reasons is better -- at least for those few! -- than letting everyone go hang. Isn't it?
Rather than protest the intervention in Kosovo, wouldn't it be better to protest US _failure_ to intervene on behalf of the Kurds et al.?
=margaret