> The following is an expanded version of remarks I made a few days > ago on the marxism list. > > I think I have mentioned Sartre's "On Genocide" in other posts. > His > core argument was that the Vietnam War was fought not primarily > over Viet Nam but over Latin America, which is and always has > been the very core and foundation of U.S. Imperialism. In > contrast > to the French in Algeria, the labor and economic wealth of which > was at the heart of the conflict, Vietnam had little intrinsic > interest > to the Empire, and thus the U.S. could follow a genocidal policy > there with the primary purpose of teaching the people of Latin > America a lesson. > > The ferocity of the U.S. response to the tiniest anti-imperialist > developments in Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Panama, Haiti, > etc. (not to mention the large threats such as Chile) is an index > to how > > impossible it will be (has been) for any Latin American country > to > declare even partial or limited independence without being > prepared > for the most god-awful response from the U.S. > > Could it be that the current attack on Yugoslavia fits Sartre's > analysis? > That wherever U.S. bombers or infantry or CIA spooks go, it is > really > Latin America which is at stake? > Carrol _______________________ I have a feeling that the design here must be much greater than just keeping Latin America in line, which is pretty much in line to begin with. The risk that US/NATO has taken in this operation has been the greatest--much greater than the Gulf War. This whole operation must have been in making for a long time. We need a comprehensive geo-political as well as cost-benifit analysis from US/NATO point of view to understand this phenomenon. Cheers, ajit sinha > >
