>I think we would do better, and be more honest, to
>leave off complaining about the acts of NATO merely
>because they are NATO's acts, and switch instead to
>illuminating US and NATO hypocrisy. Hold them to the
>ideals they claim.
My criticism would be of those ideals themselves. The presumption that Nato, an unelected military alliance, has the right to determine the future of people in the Balkans, or in the West is dictatorial and wrong. The viciousness of the actions flows out of the ideals. Viewing foreigners as incapable of determining their own futures without Western tutelage and intervention is an attitude of racial supremacy. That is should lead to one thousand dead is not at all surprising. When you have no respect for people, then it is tenable to slaughter them.
>Our criticism, it seems to me, should be directed at
>the slime in power, who have a disgusting habit of
>protecting slime in power elsewhere. Thatcher resp.
>Pinochet is an egregious example. The US and NATO
>should be focusing on turfing out Milosevic and his
>ilk, and replacing them. We should criticise them
>strongly for not doing that. And we leftists should
>be concentrating on turfing out those who believe in
>the exploitation of the many by the few. They are our
>natural enemies, not NATO qua NATO.
I don't really understand this. Nato is the slime in power. Nato protects the interests of the elites in the elite nations. And yet you call on this club of military dictators to evict the elected president of the Yugoslav Republic. Wouldn't a more democratic solution be for the Yugoslavs to decide on Milosevic?
>
>Or is our real goal only to be always in opposition?
Not at all. But when the ruling machinery is dedicated to military domination, it is not really open to reform. For a progressive slaughter? For radical assassinations of foreign leaders? I don't think so. -- Jim heartfield