Have you gone mad? Are your ethnic roots somewhere in the former Yugoslavia? I'm wondering why you've gotten so worked up over this issue. This post occasionally borders on incoherency.
>Y'aint got squat to say about the National Question.
That's true, I don't. But it seems to me you could say this about pretty much everyone, so its a red herring as far as support of the bombing is concerned.
>Aint any of you had anything to say on this list about the people getting
>slaughtered *before* the US intervened. Too bizzy with
>the microsoft trial and power relations in porno.
This is a cheap shot.
As for myself, I don't know much about pre-1990 Yugoslavia. When it came to the fighting in the early '90's, I didn't see any point in "rooting" for any of the sides, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, etc. They all seemed pretty unsavory. I did favor lifting the arms embargo against Bosnia - at least they should have been able to defend themselves. But perhaps this is misguided, as my knowledge of the region (its history, the objectives of each faction, etc.) is limited.
However, as a general principle, I would like to see the evolution of libertarian socialist political and economic institutions. This is the case regardless of whether we're talking about the former Yugoslavia or the United States. And, of course, I'd like to see the killing and pillaging in Kosovo stop as soon as possible.
>Aint any of you willing to say whether you are for or
>against the extension of bourgeois Europe and if not
>what it is you would like to see, and what role
>Milosovitch would have in your merry plans for European
>socialism without capitalism. He's not a
>tolerable local tyrant. You can't go burning down
>villages, and least it became less customary in
>European circles, even Portugal and Spain, as the area
>rolled out of WWII
Given my position stated above, I wouldn't mind too much if Serbia came to look like western europe politically and economically, but this would merely be an improvement over what they have now - not ultimately what I'd like to see (a socialist society).
However, there are a number of reason this won't happen in the short term. I don't believe the west would let it happen (they want to exploit Eastern Europe - they don't want new industrial competitors). Secondly, the people probably don't want it. Since I believe in democracy, this means educating the people politically, and there is a LOT of work to do there. So for now, maybe the best one can hope for is setting up a reasonably stable, not-too repressive government so that everyone can have 3 meals a day and not be in fear for their life. Start to heal the wounds of the last few years and then build on that.
As for Milosevic, I'm not convinced that we couldn't stop the killing by diplomatic means. We've given him an ultimatum, allow NATO troops in Kosovo or face the bombing. There may be other options he would agree to that really would stop the killing. In any event, the KLA will have to agree to the cease-fire as well (or should we expect Serbian troops to stand by and get shot by the rebels?). And the KLA are just as intransigent - they want nothing short of independence, and they were only willing to sign the cease-fire/peace treaty because they know Milosevic would not accept NATO troops in Kosovo. If Milo backed down on that issue, the KLA might have refused to sign - they want independence, not some form of autonomy maintained by NATO troops.
And isn't a shooting war supposed to be the last option, when ALL diplomatic channels have been exhausted? The US can not claim in good faith that it has done its best to come at the situation from every angle to try to find a non-violent solution. Mainly because WE won't accept certain terms, even though we are talking about a country (?) halfway across the world, where presumably we shouldn't have ANY interests other than helping them find a peaceful way to come to terms with each other.
>Y'all so bizzy confusin' consumerist mindless ideologically
>hegemonic capitalism with real fascism (don't see any of you
>being carted off to jail, yet, anyhow) that y'all
>forget what the real thing looks like, and that lefties
>of both bourgeois and Marxist varieties sometimes did
>good by intervening.
Another cheap shot.
>Y'all going to say the Viet
>Namese were imperialist in Cambodia. Chinese thought
>so. Imperialism like that we need more of. And are
>you really so hooked that you can't see it might be
>preferable for a bourgeois democracy (sometimes
>imperialist and cruel, sometimes much less so) to reign
>in the ugly bug. Who you going to get to do it? You
>ain't got squat to say or recommend. Write Mr.
>Milosovitch a letter. A sanction and a letter. All
>been done.
I agree to a large degree with your notion that Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia is something we might want more of, although I doubt I would support an outright invasion.
But we should all be able to agree (I would hope) that we should AT A MINIMUM withdraw support from regimes such as Milosevic's, or regimes like Suharto in Indonesia, Somoza in Nicaragua and the like. Or the current regime in Turkey. All of these places should evoke the same level of disgust, if we are to be consistent. Or rather, a level of disgust in line with the viciousness of the crimes of each regime.
In addition, if we are really serious about human rights and democracy, we would lend our considerable diplomatic support to the groups in these countries which support these goals. But we don't. In fact we usually act to undermine them (as others have shown), as we have done yet again by blocking settlements which we are uncomfortable with and then bombing Kosovo.
>No: that's OK, as long as we don't bomb, it's OK for us
>to tittle on about leftie discourse and relations of
>power and consider ourselves opporessed as we sip our
>cappucino.
Another cheap shot.
And forget the damn Kosovars and Bosnians
>and all those weird names that sound like they're out
>of a Star Trek episode. (Cap'n Kirk! The Kosovar ship
>has opened fire!) Y'all remind of Max Weber's
>obsevations about early Christianity: Its pacifist
>threads could only have evolved in the midst of the
>most powerful empire of all time.
Yet another cheap shot. Is it our fault that we live in an affluent society? What relevance does this have on the merits of our opinions? And when did you read our minds and discover that we don't give a damn what happens to the Bosnians or Kosovars?
>Ain't one of you
>scarcely even thinks about the peasants on the coffee
>plantations as ya sip. Boo-hoo, they're bombing the
>Serbian Nazis. Milosovitch may be bad but his people
>are not.
Yet another cheap shot.
What are we supposed to do, not buy coffee? Go be hermits in Antarctica so we don't have to buy any products that are produced by a system we despise and want to change? What is the point of making such inane accusations?
>Anyone got anti-tyrant removal spray that
>*doesn't* involve the country he rules over? Boo-hoo,
>they might build a capitalist E. Europe and bring
>Starbucks there as well as crappy minimum wages. Not
>like Iraq, folks. No plans for democracy there or in
>the environ states. Different imperial game. Same
>capitalists, different game objectives.
It's not that easy - you really think bombing is any more enlightened an approach? Do a few cruise missles serve the role of "anti-tyrant removal spray." Even if we invade and get rid of Milo, who do we put in his place?
You're ignoring all sorts of sticky questions. We don't have to have all the answers, or necessarily be blind to the atrocities which are being committed, in order to oppose the bombing.
In any case, working at a Starbucks at minimum wage may be better than being ethnically cleansed, but to present that as the only alternative, or even a worthy end result is dishonest (assuming you're anti-capitalist). Sure, I might support minimum wage jobs for all people in the former Yugoslavia in place of what they have now, but ultimately this isn't a very satisfying long term solution.
>Oh, ouch, I don't have health care, I'm oppressed!
>Indeed you are. But you're orders of magnitude away
>from being hunted down because of your skin or your
>language. Y'all gotta face the facts of the bourgeois
>state. Have to understand it's benign as well as its
>malign aspects. Otherwise you're lefties in fantasy
>land.
Who are the lefties who fail to recognize the benign aspects of the bourgeois state?
>Except, the bourgeois democracies don't have the
>chutzpah to go in and take Milosovitch out the way the
>comrades did in the Caucasus, or Cambodia. So they may
>not do what they should do, and partial commitment is
>perhaps more to be feared than inaction.
What you think we should do does not correspond with what I think we should do, and just because you disagree with me isn't an excuse for the kind of nonsense you've put in this post. You may even be right about partial commitment vs. inaction (I assume you're talking about military intervention here), but I would say that's an argument for inaction, not total commitment.
>And I see y'all coming out heavy and indignant on
>Margaret and everything and y'all don't even say who
>y'are and where ya is. Not even a first name like she
>does.
Thankfully this is the last of the cheap shots. I fail to see how this information enlightens the debate, but I'll fill in the blanks for you anyway.
Incidentally, I have nothing against Margaret. In fact, the terms under which she said she would support the bombing are reasonable. But the facts of the situation don't match the criteria she initially described.
Brett Knowlton Software Engineer Unica Technologies 55 Old Bedford Rd. Lincoln, MA 01773