> > > Does that apply to Iraq and the former Yugoslavia too?
> >
> >One thing that really gets to me is the huge disparity between
> >world-wide reactions to the disasters. It is, I suppose, a
> combination
> >of many factors, including blatant racism, sycophancy (is that a
> word?)
> >and convenience (it is *very* convenient to only consider *western*
> >civilian deaths as tragic, any other civilian deaths are obviously
> >caused by their dictator/terrorist-friendly/drug-running leaders). I
> >guess it is also a monumental challenge for a person to have to
> perceive
> >of the USA (to someone apolitical) as not the father-figure, good
> >samaritan of the world, but as a war-mongering, self-serving state
> >willing and able to kill innocents at the drop of a hat...
>
> By which point a person appears to have become an unwitting apologist
> for the butchers of Srebrenica.
Really? At which point I believe a person has merely ceased to become blind to the media propaganda and has finally come to terms with the status quo of modern capitalism and what it takes to maintain it. Does that then qualify a person to be an apologist for the butchers of Srebenica?
> You may think of NATO policy in the Balkans as stupid,
> counterproductive, and wrong. But it did not arise out of an
> unwillingness to consider non-western civiilan deaths as tragic. It
> arose out of taking the deaths of Bosnian Muslim civilians very
> seriously indeed...
In some cases, yes, there was a humanitarian aspect that could be welcomed. Mostly, however, there is just plain old-fashioned death and destruction wreaked upon a people until their leaders' policies become more palatable, or until the Reagans, Bushes, Clintons and Blairs of the world feel that enough punishment has been metered out.
Cheers
Zak