> To avoid a bit of the beating the dead horse thing, I will try to be as
> unpolemical as possible in this post and hope for the same in the responses.
>
> . . . There are also folks who opposed all interventions,
> even sanctions, in any of these cases - a few stray pacificists and maybe
> Pat Buchanan.
I would agree with Nathan that further polemics between those who support interventions and those who do not are pointless. That is, there clearly exists no framework that contain supporters of U.S. imperialism such as Nathan and opponents of it who opposed all three interventions. Such a debate could not rise above a sterile exchange of 'tis/'tisn't endlessly repeated. (Note: Beginning with a pledge to avoid polemics, Nathan immediately descends into pure name calling by identifying anti-imperialists with "a few stray pacifists and maybe Pat Buchanan.")
But Nathan's pointless call for non-polemical discussion between those who support and those who oppose imperialism does suggest a more fruitful direction for the latter to pursue. I suggest that the debates over the Yugoslavian and Timorese interventions have drawn a line between useful and useless polemics (both on and off maillists). Useful polemics are among those who share recognition of U.S. imperialism as the main enemy, and who can therefore hope that their debates with each other within this shared framework can move toward greater unity.
In the last year there have been sharp polemics and/or flamewars among those who, within the framework I am suggesting here, would have seen the contradictions dividing them as (in Mao's phrase) contradictions among the people, no matter how sharp. The contradiction between those who support u.s. (or "western") interventions on the one hand and those who oppose them is an antagonistic contradiction between supporters and opponents of imperialism. It cannot lead to fruitful discussion. (One may *negotiate* but not enter into discussion with the enemy.)
Carrol