[lbo-talk] Cuba petition

[Jim Farmelant]

Well put.  I am willing to concede Nathan's good
intentions but he is remarkably naive about
the US government and the Bush Administration.
They would just love to get some "left cover" for
justifying a military assault.  And while I will
grant Nathan's good intentions, I don't think
the same can be said for all the rest, some
of whom would no doubt jump on the
"humanitarian intervention" bandwagon, to
rationalize a US invasion of Cuba.

Jim F.

On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 18:29:02 -0400 "Max B. Sawicky"
<sawicky at bellatlantic.net> writes:
> I am off the human rights bandwagon.
> 
> In a world where international institutions had some
> legitimacy, where decisions were based on some kind
> of consensus and in accordance with well-wrought
> international law, human rights would be a legitimate
> topic anywhere.
> 
> The world we are in is bereft of effective international
> institutions and devoid of effective international law.
> The U.S. Gov does anything it likes, says black is
> white with impunity, flaunts the law without hesitation,
> and the structure of public debate here precludes fair and
> rational consideration of public policy.  The Bushies lie
> like their lives depend on it.  About everything.
> 
> The only occasion for pointing to human rights problems
> is when it affronts U.S. interests.  Politics is a mud
> fight now.  Nathan's subtleties don't have a chance.
> 
> Giving any sort of support to the anti-Castro initiative
> is especially dangerous.  I think it would be miraculous
> if we got through two Bush terms without a Cuba invasion.
> The Bushies are like newly-hatched killers.  After the
> first one, it gets easier.
> 
> I think this is the only defensible liberal position.
> 
> mbs
> 
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> 

________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com