> NC: I don't agree with that at all. I mean, look at the history:
> During the 1980's there was overwhelming opposition to US
> atrocities in Central America. As a matter of fact, opposition was
> so strong that the Reagan Administration had to back off and resort
> to using international terrorist networks like the Contras to carry
> out its policies. And there were no Americans in body bags then.
> Today there's strong opposition to US support for Indonesian
> slaughter in East Timor, and there are no American body bags. If
> you look at the opposition to the Vietnam War, Americans were of
> course being killed, but that was by no means the decisive factor.
> I think that the notion that only dead American soldiers will
> inspire a peace movement -- in other words, that people are
> motivated only by self-interest -- is US propaganda. It's
> intolerable for the propaganda system to concede that people might
> act on moral instinct, which is in fact what they do...
"Overwhelming"? "Strong"? Yes, there's a hard core of vocal opposition to the Indonesian abuse of East Timor, and there was a vigorous anti-intervention movement around Central America, but most Americans couldn't tell you where Nicaragua is, much less East Timor. The Contra strategy supports my point - it was precisely the bodybag anxiety that made Reagan use proxy armies and death squads in Central America. Several hundred thousand Central Americans died, and Reagan won those wars. Just how has Indonesia's hand been stayed in East Timor, anyway?
Doug