> I think the point is that Marko considers anything less than outright
> attack as appeasement. This is the smear implicit in Marko's
> argumentation. If you do not endorse his programme of action, then you are
> by definition on the other side. That is the kind of demand for obedience
> that puts Marko outside of the ordinary rules of debate, it seems to me.
Beyond that, I'm curious if Marko and MPug believe that Western military action against former friends/allies has anything to do with moral conscience, as if the US suddenly saw the "progressive" light (putting aside the fact that states -- esp imperial states -- do not possess "morals," but interests) in the Balkans and the Middle East. It sure seems like they do. But if they don't, then it appears they're applauding imperial violence so long as it can kinda fit into a "humanitarian" construct. If that's the case, then they're not backing and encouraging a real institutional shift in power relations, but squinting their eyes and pretending that bombing Iraqi civilians with white phosphorus and Mark-77 fuel bombs is comparable to marching for civil rights in Alabama in 1963.
Dennis