Protest against the Bombing

[NM]

>Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu>) wrote:
>
>>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.

No one has tried to grapple with this?  In fact, I remember the Left
throughout Europe and the US grappling with fascism long before
Krystalnacht, whether it was in the Italian red belts in the 1910s, or
street fights and protests against the Nazis in the 1920s and 30s.  You know
the 30s?  When FDR was calling Hitler "The man of hope" but the Left was
hightailing to Spain to try to stop fascism?  That's who I support, not the
US.

Btw, way to leave out the bombing of Dresden or the dropping of two nuclear
bombs on non-combatant cities.  So much for thinking about the consequences
of the US 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?

You mispelled "hallucinate" as "point out" for some reason.  Why do think
the US or NATO wants Milosevic gone?  They could certainly have gotten rid
of him if they wanted to.  They want to keep him there and in charge because
his absense would cause a vacuum of power not easily filled.  If they can
get him in line, and they will, then Milosevic the imperialist will soon
become Milosevic, friend of the US.  A little aid package, a few troops, the
occasional flare-up just to show the hardcores that he is still Serbian and
Milosevic will be ready to make sure that US imperialism stretches across
Central Europe.


>What is there about Milosevic that makes him worthy of
>such uncritical support?

Who is supporting Milosevic "uncritically"?


>Europe and the US stood by while genocidal atrocities
>were perpetrated in Bosnia.

Ethnic atrocities were perpetrated by all three sides, and I don't think the
actions of any side merits the genocide label.  And the West didn't stand by
at all, it encouraged the actions by recognizing Bosnia and then leaving it
to hang.


>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?

We're not.  Why are you building strawmen and ignoring both history and
current events?  Is there any particular reason you have bought the old US
'____ Is The Next Hitler' bumper sticker and stuck it on your car?  Fill in
the blank for easy use.