-----Original Message----- From: Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Nathan, can you honestly (and i really mean that) answer the following
>question:
>Would you still disagree with Chomsky on this war if, everything else being
>equal, our fearless commander in chief's name was Bob Dole or George Bush
>instead of Bill Clinton.
Honestly, I would no doubt be more suspicious, precisely because I know labor and progressive forces have little influence over GOP Presidents. (Which is the link to the debate over Kosovo to the debate over the Dems). But precisely because this war is being fought from the center left across the US and Europe, I do accept the possibility of better motives.
But that doesn't mean I would automatically support it, just as I marched in the streets against Clinton signing welfare reform and against NAFTA. Like sifting through biased media reports and every other piece of evidence we face in making left decisions, the party affiliation of people pushing policy is one piece of data that influences decisions.
>And a related question: Where did you stand during the Persian Gulf War?
>Did you also put a yellow ribbon to support out troops 'kicking the butt"
>of the first incarnation of Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein?
No, I marched in the streets of San Francisco with the tens of thousands of other protesters.
As Charles noted, that bloody immoral war (with far, far more civilian casualties than this one) was fought with full "international law" legitimacy through UN sanction.
The US and United Nations committed mass murder against young Iraqi soldiers and fire-bombed civilian centers like Basra to defend a rich Kuwaiti aristocracy, who themselves exploited and brutalized guest workers who had no vote in their society.
One more reason why all this "international law" distinction leaves me cold. This illegimiate NATO war looks a hell of a lot more moral than that "legitimate" war in the Gulf on behalf of oil interests.
-- Nathan Newman