> Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>) wrote:
>
> >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.?
Sure, why not? Why shouldn't the left join up in the latest surge in military mania? If we try hard enough, we can permanently alienate Russia, bringing the most reactionary forces there to power.
Then we'll be able to DOUBLE defense spending under a Democratic President and TRIPLE it under a Republican. Or is it the other way around?
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"