Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 19:23:33 -0500 (EST)
From: danceswithcarp <dcombs-AT-bloomington.in.us>
Subject: Re: roger doesn't want diplomacy




On Thu, 15 Apr 1999, Aaron Micheau wrote:

> Oh, this should be stunning... you're going to explain to me how, in the
> long term, NATO is going to contribute to a Kosovar solution.  Let's hear
> it.  

Weaken Milosevic's ability to rule, then let all of these Noble And
Well-Intentioned Fucking Serbs I keep hearing about run with the ball.  
I thought that's what giving peace a chance was all about.  Duh.

> i suppose a prerequisite to being in it for the Long Haul is
> dismissing any naive Russian, 

The russians can't solve russian problems.  An old dictum of marraige
counseling is "If your counselor is divorced, don't put much hope into the
advice." 

> European, 

Who do you think is supplying half of the planes?

> or UN attempts to negotiate along
> the way.  They're all biased and self-interested anyway... 

You are absolutley right.  The UN's main goal is to make the UN Numero Uno
in imposing solutions.  There is no difference here from NATO.

> Sometimes, there can be military solutions to problems like these. 
> Sometimes the solutions take quite a lot of time and effort.  But
> commitment is a prerequisite, and NATO has no commitment to Kosovar
> Albanians, anymore than the US military had to the Iraqi Kurds,  

Okay, which side are you on?  "NATO is hell-bent on dominance," or "NATO
is NOT hell-bent on dominance?"  You seem to be taking whichever side puts
you in position to not offer any alternatives.

> the
> thousands of Somalis they mowed down whilst saving, 

Which "thousands of Somalis" would these be?  The freedom loving warlords
and their gangster mercenary enforcers?  Oh.  

> and the Haitians they
> saved from democracy.

You got me there:  You seem to be more "pro-whatever dictator is anti-U$"
than having any real and original ideas.  Do you realize how queer it must
sound for a self-professed "anarchist" like you to oppose every action
against dictators?  

>   your whole argument is founded on the premise that NATO has good
> intentions.   

You, obviously have a reading disorder.  Please return to previous post
where I said it is possible for a state to act on the side of "good" for
all of the worng reasons.

> This is a central thesis in American media propaganda - no
> matter what harm US foreign policy does, no matter how much the rulers
> profit, no matter how many people die as a direct result, such policies are
> always grounded in The Best Of Intentions. you say "NATO fucked up", "NATO
> made a mistake", NATO's on the "good" side for the wrong reasons, etc.
> Bullshit.  

Your shit is weak aaron.  Why don't you go to Kosovo and chain your ass to
one of those freedom-loving tanks that is leveling villages and towns in
order to protect it from the criminal henchmen of NATO?  You're a
pathetic excuse for a humynatarian.  Yeah, let 750,000 people be
displaced by a bunch of thugs.  What are you doing about it aaron?
Sending +emails+?  How does this help anyone but Arkan?
 
> i say NATO's on the wrong side for the wrong reasons. NATO is not on
> Milosevic's side.  NATO is not on the Kosovar Albanians side.  NATO is on
> NATO's side, and everybody else loses when they win.  

Nope.  All of us will be left standing and we start all over again. It
ain't like we'll be losing much.  Your old dead-people sstyle of anarchism
hasn't been making too many Great Leaps Forward lately anyways.  And what
are you wirried about losing here anyways, your internet account?  You
have yet to oiffer one realistic solution except "Run, run, run away from
that bully Milosevic.  We'll feed you all well in those refugee camps."  
That might be popular with all of the Big Bad Lefties, but it don't mean
shit to me.

> I know this is a
> difficult concept for some on this list to understand- that everything is
> not good and evil, black and white- that there can be more than two sides
> to a conflict.  But, there it is.  i haven't heard one argument that
> persuades me to think that NATO means well, but they "fucked up".  That's
> nonsense, and it doesn't jibe with history.  NATO is doing exactly what it
> intends, and will continue to, provided that it can continue to manufacture
> and maintain American public support.

You are so caught up in assuming The Proper Leftist Position you couldn't
have a bowel movement without someone first surgically extracting your
cranium from your rectum.  

Go ahead, Neville, champion appeasement.

> i don't think Serbians are stupid.  i think they have a press (such as
> survives the bombs)  that's about as independent as the American wartime
> press.  i would consider attacks on US civilians for the countless evils we
> have tacitly or unknowingly supported to be equally counterproductive. 
> wouldn't you?

I haven't a clue as to what you are saying here.  Posting it twice doesn't
help.  I thought you supported wirld-wide attacks against american
civilians as a means of toppling the regime.  Are you saying that the
money-managers on teh move should have some immunity from payback?


carp