>What I do not understand is the position the Europeans are taking - it
>seems so antithetical to their most vital interests. The bombing will
>solve nothing, but will stirr up national animosities, refugee problems,
>and fuel a conflict that is likely to spread to the neighboring regions; it
>will alsoe strengthen the position of the US vis a vis Europe (united or
>not) and antagonize Russia. It just does not make sense to me why the
>continetal Europe is doing that (despite the position taken by the UK that
>one British columnist described as the "doormat of the US").
Max posed what seems to me a very interesting and apposite question...and one with which no one opposed to the bombing has tried to grapple, here:
>>Here's a thought experiment. Imagine a debate on whether the left should
>>support the response of a U.S., bursting with imperial ambition, to
>>Krystalnacht or to the Japanese militarists' rape of Nanking. Think of all
>>the bad reasons why FDR would be interested in such a response, but consider
>>also the real facts of the situations, the consequences of the U.S.
>>abstaining, and the consequences of the U.S. intervening.
Max goes on to point out that an uncritical 'stop the bombing' generally benefits only Milosevic and _his_ imperialist ambitions. Should the left be doing that? What is there about Milosevic that makes him worthy of such uncritical support?
Europe and the US stood by while genocidal atrocities were perpetrated in Bosnia. That was disgusting and shameful and, as one rabbi put it with great sadness, it showed that at the end of the day the world rulers simply Don't Care; that pious claims of 'never again' are so much hot air when set against private economic interests. Why are we supporting that?