From: "Andy" <as-AT-spelthorne.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 20:32:01 +0000
Subject: Re: Anarchy Magazine and Violence



> On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Chuck Munson wrote:
> 
> > > Albright is nuts, but Blair and Schroeder and the French really pushed
> > > this issue.  The Grrrmans and Frogs for the cause of the EU, and Blair for
> > > both domestic reasons and basically he's as immature as Clinton.

Blair isn't immature - he may be a ruthless control freak on a 
mission, and he is genuinely religious and goes to church[ You don't 
have to be religious to get elected here]regularly, which neither 
Major, Thatcher, Callaghan nor Wilson did. His motives are more 
complex, whatever they are. I prefer to believe that one element is 
that as a public [ie private] school boy, he is happy to placate the 
military and FO elites into which class he has always belonged.

Carp:

> I don't know.  Somebody needs to seperate the Serb Nationalist Nuts from,
> well, from the rest of the wirld.  I've seen Blair paraphrased or
> insinutations he is saying that he sees the goal as noting less than
> Milosevic's removal.  Also it is Blair who is pushing for a ground war.

This was always inevitable as dear old Chomsky said. All Blair has 
done is wait for UK public opinion to tell him that we are happy with 
a ground war. You yourself noted the spin-offs for the arms industry 
- us Brits still turn a fair old penny on this, plus his 'ethical' 
stance [we've banned land-mines etc and are now fighting a 'just' war 
- even the old peaceniks  of the left eg Michael Foot say so] might 
give a sort of moral hegemony for NATO's new peace enforcing role.

> Realistically, can air-power get the kosovars back in their homes?  Maybe.

Not this year - winter starts in October - probably can't get them 
back with land war this year either.

> The, like, vice-premiere of Serbia went on TV the other night and said the
> only way this would be resolved would be for the higher-highers in Serbia
> to come clean on the causes of the war and also for them to admit NATO
> wasn't fracturing under the stresses.  Of course since then he hasn't been
> seen, but all it would take would be for one or two Serbs to realize life
> without Milosevic would be much too pleasant to pass up this opportunity
> to dump him.  Without Milosevic it's questionable whether NATO can keep
> their coalition going.

That doesn't matter too much, if the USA, UK, FR, and GER tell the 
others it will continue.


> I'd much rather europeans get between the warriors, but they seem to want
> the U$ to hold their hands because it's easier to get re-elected in the UK
> if the casualties are american.  

This is just wrong. The British do not mind their soldiers getting 
killed - we kind of think that's what they are there for. We lost 
quite a few in the Falklands [pointlessly and with negligence proven] 
but Thatcher won a landslide - she was in trouble in the polls before 
the war, not after she wasted billions in losing the islands, getting 
them back, and losing a few lives into the bargain. Also we've been 
pointlessly losing troops in Ireland for over 20 years and the 
Troops Out movement has never been big. We didn't even moan when 
British troops got killed in the Gulf and that was through US 
friendly  fire. We have a much bloodthirstier imperial heritage than 
the US, and are always happy to send a gun boat.

 The British also do not see themselves as Europeans.

 I think polls are of marginal relevance, although Dave Coull cited 
the Scottish elections, where the war seems to have  stuffed the Scot 
Nats, except that Blair acts in accordance with opinion polls as 
I said above, or perhaps waits for public opinion.

OK, Americans will lose more lives, than the UK but ours 
[depressingly] will be happy to join in. We need our hands held 
because we aren't rich enough to do it alone.


 Personally, I'd like to see a U$
> intervention in Chiapas that seperates the two parties and brings them to
> talk on an fair basis.  I know that won't (wouldn't) happen but it beats
> the hell out of letting the Mexican gov't simply starve out the people.
> 
I agree, and also a UK intervention in Indonesia, and South Africa 
may start bubbling along soon....but you can only afford so many 
N.Irelands. 

A civil war isn't just for Christmas.
 
> whatever.  It's a gordonian knot or a Hobsian (sp) choice.
> 
 The knot problem was solved with Alexander the Great taking a bloody 
great sword to it. This would seem to support intervention?


Andy



_as