[PEN-L:5496] Re: Re: Re: Wall St running out of steam?
I see Wall St is another 2.6% up on the morning alone. That's about 17% so far this year, right? And on its way to gaining a full thousand in about a month. Either we're talking tulips, or we're talking something brand new. If memory serves, it was government action that eventually brought the tulip business to an end. Can't see that just now. And I guess it was a lot more obvious then - I mean tulips could never really be worth the price of a mansion on Amsterdam's central canal - anyone outside the feeding frenzy would have been able to see that. Exactly what is it about converged media that promises so much new commodification and productivity? Are they anticipating the detruction of the whole physical wholesale/retail infrastructure? Do they think all the retrenched will turn themselves into niche e-businesses? Or is Gene right, is all this moolah going into tomahawks? I see Boris has just warned Russia will move if the US go in mob-handed - that should be worth a few more points on the highway to hell. And they'll have all those shop-assistants who were never gonna cut it as cyber-sharks to allocate, ever-so-rationally, to 'ordnance deployment' and 'ordnance reception', eh? The new trinity: Clinton, Tomahawks and a couple million erstwhile clerks. Factors-of-destruction ... Anyway, not quite the volatility I had in mind. Don't these people read The *!# Australian? Yours humbled, Rob.
[PEN-L:5573] Cluster Bomb
Jim Devine wrote: As for the "large chunk of folks who have marched in anti-war marches for decades" before deciding that imperialism was great Don't forget Bill Clinton's letter about avoiding the military - he was worried about his future political viability. I think we're seeing that again with our young DSAers. Doug -- I wonder if the members of the youth branch of DSA are joining the armed forces in droves, to contribute to the war effort. Jim Devine I don't think they take people with prostate conditions. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) - Lou wrote: I resent this. While I am 54 years old, I can certainly cut the mustard provided I've had some good weed, a glass or two of wine, and the company of that special kind of woman who's read both Trotsky and Diane DiPrima. Whereas our armchair hawks can only get high on the Viagra of cruise-missile manhood. you're in good company, Yoshie
[PEN-L:5574] RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Young Democratic Socialists position on Kosovo
I wonder if the members of the youth branch of DSA are joining the armed forces in droves, to contribute to the war effort. Max Sawicky has already pronounced that to be a silly critique! Why should the policymakers and pundits of the future be asked to set aside their career path to take up arms? They have too much to contribute in the intellectual sphere to be bothered with mud bullets. Doug Silly shit indeed. What's sauce for the goose and all. The critics of NATO are at no greater risk than the supporters. If you're a revolutionary, by this logic, you should be rampaging thru Kosova with the Serbian commandoes, defending the working class against reactionary nationalists. If you're a pacifist, you could wrap bandages in Belgrade, or be like Ernest Hemingway and drive an ambulance around Serbia. And anyone who thinks they will advance in the U.S. power elite by enlisting in the Democratic Socialists of America, pro-war or not, is too dumb to be a concern to anyone. mbs
[PEN-L:5576] RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: How the Serbs became fascists
No, you're no "social fascist," Max. As long as I'm around, I'm going to fight the Manichean attitude expressed by Eldridge Cleaver that "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." . . . I was not indulging in self-pity, at least not in this post. My reference was not to Manicheanism, but to a specific political posture promoted by Joe Stalin during his leftward-lurch and mirrored in the notion that liberals are as bad as or worse than conservatives from a socialist standpoint. To this has been added the new, even more retrograde, anti-Marxist, monochromatic historical view that capitalist was no advance over feudalism, or that within capitalism no meaningful progress has ever taken place. The foreign policy extension of this view is revolutionary defeatism. Every imperialist war (e.g., every war involving capitalist powers) should be opposed and turned into a civil war. Ergo, we should oppose whatever NATO might do and let the Kosovars and Serbs sort out their own disputes. This may not be your view, Jim, but it is highly amplified on this list. In varying degrees, all the anti-bombing posts are infected with it. Fortunately, it has zero political future in the U.S. But in places where it acquires some political power, the indifference to human rights in the service of the revolutionary vision, not to say hallucination, is pretty deadly. We've gotten a lurid glimpse of this indifference right here at home, in the form of endless sniping at the premise that the Milo regime is guilty of crimes against humanity, mass deportation at a minimum, and possibly mass murder. mbs
[PEN-L:5575] RE: Young Democratic Socialists position on Kosovo
I wonder if the members of the youth branch of DSA are joining the armed forces in droves, to contribute to the war effort. Jim Devine I don't think they take people with prostate conditions. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) Louis, I think you've put your finger on something here. mbs
[PEN-L:5578] RE: Re: Young Democratic Socialists position on Kosovo
One more before bedtime: First, I don't think the DSA statement was all that great, though I'd encourage them to pursue the line they are taking. . . . For me, one line is particularly telling: [...] To really protect citizens and refugees, realistically and regrettably we will have to put soldiers in harm's way. Two points: First: Who are we? Only someone from deep inside the imperium, with a strong sense of _belonging_ in it and to it, could pen such a line. Au contraire, usage of "we" is pretty common. One might say that only someone extremely alienated would be irked by it. A perfect example would be Louis' post the other day, noted approvingly by our own irrepressible militiaman Valis. Second: What do you mean "we put". Why don't you "put" yourself? There are precedents: the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, some Witness for Peace and PBI work, etc. In the meantime -- while you money is still light years from your mouth -- don't go calling other people's numbers, goddamit. This tendency to demand that people make sacrifices for putting forward ideas is regrettable. Whether they do or not has no bearing on the value of the ideas. The only basis for raising this is in response to obnoxious preachments to action, but neither Nathan nor anyone else was demanding that the anti-bombers "do something" to prove their good faith. I do think there is something to the issue of calling for military action in terms of compelling people who serve in the armed forces to fight in this theater, one where there is no U.S. national interest per se at issue. On one hand, they elected to serve. It's not as if the U.S. had abstained from military actions for the past thirty years. It is not true that the U.S. armed services are based on a "poverty draft." The military has the luxury of being more selective than that. You don't have to join the Army to eat (especially now). If you did, the Army (et al) probably wouldn't take you. On the other hand, it would be reasonable to call this a 'working class draft,' so the basic point remains. One response is that only volunteers should be sent over. If nobody wants to go, then there's no intervention. The only other solution to a working class draft is a full draft, though in that case by long experience we know the wealthy can stay clean, even if they serve. Now that that's passed, are there any "Nathan Newmans" out there that can answer Devine when he writes: And as I've argued again and again ... the US/NATO is not making things better in Serbia, Kosova/o, Montenegro, Macedonia, or Albania. They are f*cking things up much more. It doesn't make sense tactically, strategically, politically, or morally. I knew Nathan Newman. I had lunch with Nathan Newman. Nathan Newman was a friend of mine, and I'm no Nathan Newman, but since he's gone you'll have to settle for me: NATO's cover story is that they thought a little bombing would turn Milo around straight-away. They did anticipate the possibility of him going ahead with his counter-insurgency and had no plan to counter it. That was stupid. They did not think he would go on quite the rampage he apparently has. I do not believe the rampage scenario was a desired outcome on NATO's part; it has given them, and the Clinton ADministration, an enormous black eye. They could not have wanted this to unfold the way it has. Bombing is not immoral. People who send bombers can be. Presently the people in question are immoral because they are using bombing as a political substitute for action that the NATO governments, especially the U.S., are too timid to propose and promote. In and of itself, bombing does not accomplish anything. Whether it makes things worse for Kosovars depends on what you think is actually going on in the province. If you think there is nothing but "normal" counter-insurgency, then the bombing makes things worse. If there is mass murder, then things can't get much worse. Those who refuse to condemn the bombing altogether are not immoral if they believe that some bombing is consistent with further objectives -- saving Kosova. I speculate that the Administration/Nato are of two minds about the bombing. One mind holds that the bombing and news of atrocities will prepare the public to accept a full-scale invasion. This makes some political sense, but it is craven and immoral: it sacrifices innocent Serbs to indulge the political cowardice of Western politicians. It also makes tactical sense; you pummel the Serbian military and economy and soften them up for the ground war. Again, not necessarily moral, but not irrational either. The other mind supports the Iraqi strategy -- just keep bombing till the cows come home. The Kosovars and Serb civilians are completely beside the point; it's about Nato being boss, not losing face, etc. Bankrupt in every way. (All the geopolitical scenarios about positioning against a resurgent Russia, NATO expansion, the war economy, the
[PEN-L:5583] (Fwd) YUGOSLAVIA: BOMBING THE BABY WITH THE BATHWATER
--- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date sent: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 17:30:22 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Sid Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:YUGOSLAVIA: BOMBING THE BABY WITH THE BATHWATER An editorial by Veran Matic, a former editor of Beograd's alternative media Radio B92: BelgradeMarch 30, 1999 BOMBING THE BABY WITH THE BATHWATER NATO's bombs have blasted the germinating seeds of democracy out of the soil of Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro and ensured that they will not sprout again for a very long time by Veran Matic The air strikes against Yugoslavia were supposed to stop the Milosevic war machine. The ultimate goal is ostensibly to support the people of Kosovo, as well as those of Serbia, who are equally victims of the Milosevic regime. In fact the bombing has jeopardised the lives of 10.5 million people and unleashed an attack on the fledgling forces of democracy in Kosovo and Serbia. It has undermined the work of reformists in Montenegro and the Serbian entity of Bosnia-Herzegovina and their efforts to promote peace. The bombing of Yugoslavia demonstrates the political impotence of US President Bill Clinton and the Western alliance in averting a human catastrophe in Kosovo. The protection of a population under threat is a noble duty, but it requires a clear strategy and a coherent end game. As the situation unfolds on the ground and in the air day by day, it is becoming more apparent that there is no such strategy. Instead, NATO is fulfilling the prophecy of its own doomsaying: each missile that hits the ground exacerbates the humanitarian disaster that NATO is supposed to be preventing. It's not easy to stop the war machine once its power has been unleashed. But I urge the members of NATO to pause for a moment and consider the consequences of what they are doing. Analysts are already asking whether the air strikes are still really about saving Kosovo Albanians. Just how far are NATO members prepared to go? What comes next after the "military" targets? What happens if the war spreads? All of these terrifying questions must be answered, although I suspect that few will want to live with the historical burden of having answered them. The same questions crowded my mind as I sat in a Belgrade prison on the first day of the NATO attack on my country. Whiling away the hours in the cell I shared with a murder suspect, I asked myself what the West's aim was for "the morning after". The image of NATO taking its finger off the trigger kept coming to mind. I've seen no indication so far that there is a clear plan to follow up the Western military resolve. My friends in the West keep asking me why there is no rebellion. Where are the people who poured onto the streets every day for three months in 1996 to demand democracy and human rights? Zoran Zivkovic, the opposition mayor of the city of Nis answered that last week: "Twenty minutes ago my city was bombed. The people who live here are the same people who voted for democracy in 1996, the same people who protested for a hundred days after the authorities tried to deny them their victory in the elections. They voted for the same democracy that exists in Europe and the US. Today my city was bombed by the democratic states of the USA, Britain, France, Germany and Canada! Is there any sense in this?" Most of these people feel betrayed by the countries which were their models. Only today a missile landed in the yard of our correspondent in Sombor. It didn't explode, fortunately, but many others have in many other people's yards. These people are now compelled to take up arms and join their sons who are already serving in the army. With the bombs falling all around them nobody can persuade them - though some have tried - that this is only an attack on their government and not their country. It may seem cynical that I am writing this from the security of my office in Belgrade - secure, that is, compared to Pristina, Djakovica, Podujevo and other places in Kosovo. But I can't help asking one question: How can F16s stop people in the street killing one another? Only days before the NATO aggression began, Secretary-General Solana suggested establishing a "Partnership for Democracy" in Serbia and the other countries of the former Yugoslavia to promote stability throughout the region. Then, in a rapid U-turn, he gave the order to attack Yugoslavia. With these attacks, it seems to me, the West has washed its hands of the people, Albanians, Serbs and others, living in the region. Thus the sins of the government have been visited on the people. Is this just? There are many more factors in the choice of a nation's government than merely the will of the voters on election day. If a stable, democratic rule is to be established, and the rise of populists, demagogues and other impostors avoided, the
[PEN-L:5585] (Fwd) Understanding the War in Kosovo in the Fourth Week
--- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date sent: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 17:47:44 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Sid Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Understanding the War in Kosovo in the Fourth Week From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 23:51:00 -0500 (CDT) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Weekly Analysis -- April 19, 1999 __ Stratfor's FREE Kosovo Crisis Center - http://www.stratfor.com/kosovo/crisis/ The most comprehensive coverage of the Kosovo Crisis anywhere on the Internet __ STRATFOR's Global Intelligence Update April 19, 1999 Weekly Analysis: Understanding the War in Kosovo in the Fourth Week Summary: The war in Kosovo grew out of fundamental miscalculations in Washington, particularly concerning the effect Russian support had on Milosevic's thinking. So long as Milosevic feels he has Russian support, he will act with confidence. If Russia wavers, Milosevic will have to deal. With the air war stalemated and talks of ground attack a pipe dream, diplomacy remains NATO's best option. That option depends on Russian cooperation. However, Russian cooperation will cost a great deal of money. That brings us to the IMF, the Germans, and former Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, who is Russia's new negotiator on Serbia, a leading economic reformer and a good friend of the West. Analysis: On March 24, 1999, NATO aircraft began to bomb Yugoslavia. We are in the fourth week of the campaign, which now appears to be a stalemate. NATO is unable to force Belgrade to capitulate to its demands using the force currently available. Yugoslavia is unable to inflict sufficient casualties on the attackers to dissuade NATO from continuing the campaign nor has it been able to drive a wedge into NATO from which a peace party might emerge that is prepared to negotiate a conclusion to the conflict on terms favorable to Serbia. As in most wars, the rhetoric on both sides is filled with purple prose, horrible accusations and much confusion. Given that the current stalemate cannot be maintained indefinitely, we are, almost by definition, at a turning point. While the stalemate can, theoretically, go on indefinitely, neither side has it in its interest to permit this to happen. NATO's unity is fragile at best, particularly if the conflict fails to resolve itself. Yugoslavia is losing valuable economic assets that it would rather not lose. Since neither side appears ready to capitulate and neither side wants the current stalemate to continue, it is useful to consider, leaving rhetoric aside, how we got here and where all this is likely to go. It is clear to us that the war began in a fundamental miscalculation by NATO planners and particularly by the civilian leadership of the United States: Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger, Richard Holbrooke and the President. They made a decision to impose the Rambouillet Accords on both sides in Kosovo. It was simply assumed that, given the threat of bombardment, Slobodan Milosevic would have no choice but to capitulate and accept the accords. By all accounts, Richard Holbrooke, architect of the Dayton Accords and the person most familiar with Milosevic was the author of this reading of Milosevic. Holbrooke had good historical precedent for his read of Milosevic. After all, when Serbs in Bosnia were bombed in 1995, Milosevic capitulated and signed the Dayton Accords. Holbrooke's reasoning was that history would repeat itself. The evidence that Washington expected capitulation was in its complete lack of preparation for an extended conflict. At the time the air campaign began, NATO had about 400 military aircraft available for the campaign, with less than 200 hundred for bombing missions. Even with the availability of cruise missiles, no serious military observer, including apparently senior U.S. military officials, believed this to have been anywhere near the amount required to inflict serious damage. Indeed, most observers doubted that an air campaign by itself could possibly succeed without a ground campaign. Thus, Washington and NATO were either wholly irresponsible in launching the campaign with insufficient forces, or had good reason to believe that Milosevic would rapidly capitulate. Since Albright, Berger, Holbrooke and the President are neither fools, nor irresponsible, we can only conclude that they were guilty of faulty judgment about how the Serbs would respond. There are three reasons for the difference in Milosevic's behavior in 1999 and 1995. First, Kosovo is strategically and psychologically critical to the Serbs. The demands of the Rambouillet Accords were crafted in such a way that the Serbs were convinced that NATO occupation would mean the loss of Serb sovereignty over Kosovo. Thus, where NATO was calculating that
[PEN-L:5586] (Fwd) MOSCOW STANDS BY MILOSEVIC
--- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date sent: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 11:08:48 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Sid Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:MOSCOW STANDS BY MILOSEVIC Reuters April 19, 1999 MOSCOW STANDS BY MILOSEVIC Meanwhile, British Prime Minister tells Milosevic he will be forced to withdraw from Kosovo BRUSSELS - Russian President Boris Yeltsin warned the West Monday he would not allow it to defeat President Slobodan Milosevic and establish control over Yugoslavia. Yeltsin, speaking hours before a scheduled telephone conversation with President Clinton, said Moscow could not ditch Milosevic whom the West has accused of war crimes. Clinton had asked for the telephone call to seek a solution to the crisis in Yugoslavia, which NATO has been bombing for nearly four weeks to end what it calls Belgrade's attempt to empty the southern Serbian province of Kosovo of its ethnic Albanian majority. The 19-nation alliance called off most of its air raids overnight because of bad weather in the Balkans. Kosovo Albanian guerrillas pleaded Monday for NATO tactical air strikes to save thousands of cold and hungry refugees trapped in the mountains of central Kosovo from Serbian shelling. A Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) official said some 40,000 refugees sheltering in the Berisha mountains had come under heavy fire since Sunday. The United Nations refugee agency, the UNHCR, said Monday Yugoslav forces appeared to be turning back ethnic Albanians trying to leave the country. UNHCR spokesman Kris Janowski said the latest flow of refugees from Kosovo into Albania had stopped overnight. He said refugees had also stopped crossing into the neighboring former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia and Montenegro, which with Serbia makes up the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. British Prime Minister Tony Blair vowed to force Milosevic to pull his troops out of Kosovo and return the province to ''the people to whom it belongs.'' ''You will be made to withdraw from Kosovo,'' Blair said in speech addressed to Milosevic. Yeltsin, whose earlier attempts to mediate in the conflict have failed, met top security officials Monday, including Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov and newly appointed Kosovo envoy Viktor Chernomyrdin, to work out Russia's strategy. ''Bill Clinton hopes that Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic will capitulate, give up the whole of Yugoslavia. We will not allow this. This is a strategic place,'' Itar-Tass news agency quoted Yeltsin as saying. Russian news agencies quoted Yeltsin as saying that during his conversation with Clinton he would reiterate Moscow's call for a halt to NATO air strikes to allow more talks. Interfax news agency quoted Yeltsin as saying Russia would exercise ''restraint'' in handling the Kosovo crisis, but it would maintain close ties with Milosevic. It quoted him as saying: ''We simply cannot ditch Milosevic. We want to embrace him as tight as possible.'' Russia has bitterly denounced NATO air strikes but made clear it will not get drawn into the conflict militarily. Washington said it had the support for the war from the states surrounding Serbia, to which hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians have fled. ''All of the leaders made clear that they stand behind what NATO is doing, that President Milosevic is isolated and that his brutality and repression will not go unanswered,'' a spokesman said of Clinton's telephone calls to Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania and Romania. Yugoslavia severed diplomatic relations with Albania Sunday, accusing it of siding with NATO. Despite criticism that 26 days of NATO air strikes had failed to stop the killings and deportations in Kosovo, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said Sunday there was no immediate plan for ground troops. But she added: ''That assessment can be quickly updated and that is where we are.'' Blair, addressing what he described as a simple message to Milosevic, said Monday an international military force ''will go in to secure the land for the people to whom it belongs.'' ''The dispossessed refugees of Kosovo will be brought back into possession of that which is rightfully theirs. Our determination on these points -- the minimum demands civilization makes -- is absolute,'' he said. Hundreds of thousands of refugees have streamed out of Kosovo since to escape Yugoslav forces. But those unable to cross into neighboring countries have taken to the hills of central Kosovo. ''There is no escape for anyone from this area,'' Sokol Bashota, a member of the KLA General Headquarters, told Reuters by telephone. ''They are coming at us from
[PEN-L:5587] (Fwd) BELGRADE 17-NGO APPEAL
--- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date sent: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 12:33:08 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Sid Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:BELGRADE 17-NGO APPEAL http://www.dds.nl/~pressnow/extra/ngoappeal.html BELGRADE 17-NGO APPEAL Deeply shocked by NATO strikes devastation of our country and the plight of Kosovo Albanians, we, the representatives of non- governmental organizations and the Nezavisnost Trade Union Confederation, energetically demand from those who have created this tragedy to immediately take all necessary steps to create conditions for the resumption of peace process. For two weeks now the most powerful military, political and economic countries in the world have been killing people and destroying military and civilian facilities, bridges, railway lines, factories, heating plants, storage facilities and fuel tanks. This has produced an exodus of unprecedented proportions. Hundreds of thousands of Yugoslavs, primarily ethnic Albanians, are forced to leave their devastated homes to escape the bombing and military actions of the regime and KLA, in the hope that they will find salvation in the tragic status of refugee. It is obvious that all this leads to a catastrophe and that a negotiated and peaceful solution to the Kosovo problem, which we have urged for years, is now farther than ever. Our effort to develop democracy and a civic society in Yugoslavia and help it restore its membership of all international institutions have taken place under constant pressure by the Serbian regime. We, the representatives of civil groups and organizations, have courageously and consistently fought against every war-mongering and nationalistic policy, and for the respect of human rights, and particularly against the repression of Kosovo Albanians. We have always insisted on the respect of their human rights and freedoms and on the restoration of autonomy for Kosovo. Throughout this period, Serb and Albanian civil society groups were the only ones to retain contacts and cooperation. The NATO intervention has destroyed everything that has been achieved so far and the very survival of the civic society in Serbia. Faced with the current tragic situation, we put up the following demands in the name of humanity and values and ideas that have been guiding us in our activities: We demand an immediate cessation of bombing and all armed operations; We demand the resumption of peace process with international mediation at the regional (Balkan) and European level, as well as in the United Nations; We demand from the European Union and Russia to take their charge of responsibility for finding a peaceful solution to the crisis; We demand an end to the practice of ethnic cleansing and repatriation of all refugees; We demand support for peace, stability and democratization of Montenegro and every possible action aimed at helping this republic alleviate the disastrous consequences of the refugee crisis; We demand from Serbian and international media to report professionally and impartially about current developments, to refrain from participation in the media war and from fanning inter- ethnic hatred, hysteria and glorification of force as the only reasonable way out of the crisis. We are unable to achieve this on our own. We expect from you to support our demands and help us realise them through your actions and initiatives. - Association of Citizens for Democracy, Social Justice and Support for Trade Unions - Belgrade Circle - Center for Cultural Decontamination - Center for Democracy and Free Elections - Center for Transition to Democracy - Civic Initiatives - EKO Center - European Movement in Serbia - Forum for Ethnic Relations and Foundation for Peace and Crisis Management - Group 484 - Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia - Students Union of Serbia - Union for Truth About Anti-Fascist Resistance - VIN: Weekly Video News - Women in Black - Yugoslavian Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, and - NEZAVISNOST Trade Union Confederation.
[PEN-L:5589] (Fwd) NATO GETTING COSY WITH RAGTAG GUERRILLA FORCE
--- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date sent: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 12:33:21 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Sid Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:NATO GETTING COSY WITH RAGTAG GUERRILLA FORCE The National Post Monday, April 19, 1999 NATO GETTING COSY WITH RAGTAG GUERRILLA FORCE Canadian government no longer considers KLA a terrorist organization; U.S. State Department, CIA still classify them as terrorists. By Isabel Vincent Last week, at one of the daily NATO press briefings in Brussels, the alliance's spokesman Jamie Shea noted that the Kosovo Liberation Army, the rebel force that is fighting for the independence of the troubled southern province of Serbia, was getting stronger. "Like a phoenix that rises from the ashes, it [the KLA] will be able to conduct a number of attacks," he said, adding that the combination of NATO air strikes and attacks by members of the rebel group would have a vice effect on the Serb armed forces and Slobodan Milosevic, the Yugoslav president. The longer Mr. Milosevic resists complying with NATO demands, the more the vice will tighten, he noted. On the same day, at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, William Cohen, the U.S. secretary of defence, described the KLA as resurgent. As if to illustrate NATO's and Mr. Cohen's statements, Kosovapress, the official news organization of Kosovo's provisional government run by the KLA, reported that over the weekend the KLA had made some "decisive" strikes against the Serb security forces in Kosovo. According to Kosovapress, the KLA overtook one unit of the 124th Brigade of the Serbian army at Rahovec and killed five Serbian soldiers on Saturday. In another attack on Friday in Vushtrri, Kosovapress reported another KLA victory, claiming the rebels "liquidated" a Serb police patrol in the region, killing five Serb police officers. Of course, the press reports and the statements by U.S. and NATO officials about the strength of the KLA are impossible to confirm in the absence of independent journalists in Kosovo. In fact, just about the only credible information we have about the KLA is that they are lightly armed and poorly trained. But as NATO air strikes fail to have their desired effect in bringing President Milosevic to his knees, the KLA is gaining greater legitimacy in the eyes of the international community. In their desire to appear on the side of morality and justice, the NATO allies are transforming what in reality is a ragtag guerrilla force, dependent on the drug trade and outside donations for its financing, into a "phoenix" and a well-organized fighting machine, capable of taking on the Yugoslav army. In the process, they are legitimizing their own intervention in what started out as an internal civil conflict, and now threatens to escalate into a geopolitical disaster. Even though NATO officials have said that they are still reluctant to become the "air force for the KLA," their increasingly cosy relationship with the guerrilla force seems to suggest otherwise. Perhaps NATO is gradually preparing the public for the day when its members decide to send ground troops to Kosovo. Those troops will inevitably find themselves fighting alongside the KLA, and therefore it is in NATO's interests to portray these guerrillas as noble warriors. Already, the hundreds of diaspora Kosovar Albanians who have volunteered to fight alongside the rebels in Kosovo seem to recall the Spanish Civil War, when idealistic young people, known as internacionalistas, from around the world, volunteered to fight in Spain against General Francisco Franco's fascist forces. Moved by the commitment of Kosovar Albanians to fight for an independent homeland, at least one U.S. senator has suggested that Washington commit funds to the rebel group to strengthen their position against the Serbs. The Canadian government says it no longer considers the KLA a terrorist organization, even though the U.S. State Department and the CIA still classify them as terrorists. Unconfirmed reports on the weekend suggested that multi- billionaire George Soros and his Open Society Foundation, which supports nascent democratic movements in the former Eastern bloc, were giving financial assistance to the KLA. In the past, the KLA has directly benefited from diplomatic negotiations conducted hundreds of kilometres outside Kosovo. Since October, 1998, when NATO came close to launching air strikes against Yugoslavia, the KLA rebels believed that they had the world's most powerful military alliance on their side. Emboldened by NATO's threat of air strikes against President Milosevic, the KLA reclaimed territory abandoned by Serb security forces
[PEN-L:5590] (Fwd) MILITARY ANALYSTS SAY NATO DEATHS COULD TOP 5,000 IN GRO
--- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date sent: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 12:32:57 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Sid Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:MILITARY ANALYSTS SAY NATO DEATHS COULD TOP 5,000 IN GROUND WAR The National PostMonday, April 19, 1999 MILITARY ANALYSTS SAY NATO DEATHS COULD TOP 5,000 IN GROUND WAR Entry to Kosovo could take months to prepare, battle could last years; be prepared to fight guerrillas for 20 years, says director of University of Calgary's Military and Strategic Studies Centre By Peter Goodspeed As the public clamour to end the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo grows, military strategists are peering into the abyss of a ground war in the Balkans to glimpse the dangers facing NATO. It's not a pretty sight. While support for a ground war against the Serbs gains political strength, the military prospects of such a battle remain daunting. "I'm concerned that we have a chorus that is beginning to call for this without understanding the military implications of what it is they are asking for," said David Bercuson, director of the Centre of Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary. "Militaries are not blunt instruments," he said. "They exist to achieve specific objectives. But when politicians simply throw the military at a problem, you have disasters." Any type of ground offensive faces huge obstacles, not the least of which is the simple geography of the Balkans. Kosovo is ringed with mountains and there are only 14 roads and river valleys leading into the territory. These are now all heavily guarded, mined, and covered by Serbian artillery. Most bridges are wired for demolition to resist an invasion. "Any possible way in would be extremely difficult," said Jim Hanson, a retired Canadian Forces brigadier-general who now works with the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. "I've heard people talk about airborne troops and that's fine. You can get them there. But then you have to link up with them. You still have to cross that rather forbidding terrain, and if the Yugoslav National Army decides to dig in to any extent, they can make you pay a price." In the Balkans, military intervention on the ground could pursue three very different objectives. NATO troops could: - try to carve out a protective enclave in Kosovo for the hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanian refugees who have been driven from their homes; - drive into Yugoslavia to rip Kosovo from Belgrade's grip and place the territory under international protection; - seek to conquer Yugoslavia completely, seize Belgrade, and topple the government of Slobodan Milosevic, Yugoslavia's president. Few strategists put any faith in sending troops into battle simply to set up areas to receive refugees. Such a goal would not stop or reverse ethnic cleansing and would not provide much security for the refugees. Serb troops could be expected to bombard and harass "safe havens," much as they did when the United Nations adopted a similar protection policy in Bosnia earlier this decade. "The 7,000 or so people who died in Sebrenica, when it was a 'safe-haven' under the UN, gave the whole concept a pretty bad name," said David Rudd, executive director of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. "If the objective is to stop all of this at its source, then you go to Belgrade, you take out the president, you establish a military occupation, and you have to be prepared to fight the guerrillas for the next 20 years," Mr. Bercuson said. "If your objective is to take Kosovo, then be prepared to continue to fend off Serb attacks and Serb guerrilla operations in a low-intensity conflict for the next who-knows-how-many years," he added. Yugoslavia's military is prepared, Gen. Hanson says. In the days of the Cold War under Marshall Tito, the country feared invasion from the Soviet Union and prepared itself accordingly: People were psyched up for the sacrifices of a defensive war, they planned their defense in depth, and they built their own armaments industry. "A lot of their military equipment is pretty old, but it can do the job," Gen. Hanson said. "Especially if they are not too worried about casualties amongst their own troops and if they are fighting someone who is. That gives them a bit of an advantage right there." Most observers predict NATO will need to field an army ranging from 60,000 to 250,000 troops, depending on the battle plan it adopts. Yugoslavia's standing army totals 90,000 men and can be boosted to as many as 250,000 by calling up reserve forces and former conscripts. With no easy route into Yugoslavia, NATO
[PEN-L:5591] (Fwd) MISSILE STRIKES POLLUTE DANUBE
--- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date sent: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 12:32:34 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Sid Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:MISSILE STRIKES POLLUTE DANUBE The Globe and Mail April 19, 1999 MISSILE STRIKES POLLUTE DANUBE By Tom Walker Special to the Globe and Mail Pancevo, Yugoslavia An ecological disaster was unfolding yesterday after NATO missiles ripped apart a combined petrochemical, fertilizer and refinery complex on the banks of the Danube River north of Belgrade. A series of detonations that shook the city early yesterday morning sent a cloud of smoke and toxic gases hundreds of metres into the sky where they were considered to be relatively safe. Among the gases reported to be billowing above thousands of homes were chlorine, hydrochloric acid and phosgene. Workers at the industrial complex in Pancevo decided to release tonnes of ether dichloride, a powerful carcinogen, into the Danube rather than risk seeing it blown up. At least three missiles strikes left large areas of the plant crippled, and oil and gasoline from the damaged refinery coursed into the river, forming slicks up to 20 kilometres long. Scientists warned people to stay indoors and to avoid fish caught from the Danube. They said the pollution would spread downstream to Romania and Bulgaria and then into the Black Sea. At least 50 residents of Pancevo were reported suffering from phosgene poisoning and health ministry workers tried to round up gas masks for belated protection. Residents were told to breathe through cloth soaked in water and bicarbonate of soda as a precaution against showers of nitric acid and nitrogen compounds. Thirteen hours after the first explosions, the Yugoslav army took journalists to the Pancevo site. "This plant is 37 years old and has never witnessed anything like it. This is our worst nightmare," said plant director Miralem Dzindo. "The sickness of the minds that did this too us is enormous. By taking away our fertilizer they stop us growing food, and then they try to poison us as well." He said the plant's production was strictly non-military, and noted that the warehouses had been largely empty when the North Atlantic Treaty Organization struck, because the attack had been expected and many chemicals and compounds had been moved to underground bunkers. Still, the Serbian environment minister, Dragoljub Jelovic, accused NATO of trying to destroy the whole Yugoslav environment. He said pollution in the Danube and in the atmosphere above Belgrade "knows no frontiers." "If NATO continues to attack us like this there is no future, he said. "A vast part of Europe is in danger. Those who ordered this crime do not have the minimum of sense." Mr. Dzindo took journalists around the huge plant complex, advising reporters to put handkerchiefs over their faces as they were shown two destroyed fertilizer storage areas. The choking air burned the eyes and nostrils and many reporters refused to get off the tour bus. Slobodan Tosovic, a physician and toxicology expert, said the worst gases had been released after a cruise missile burst into a part of the plant where plastics were made. "Not even Reagan when he attacked Libya ordered missiles against this sort of facility," Dr. Tosovic said, adding that the explosion had produced phosgene- caronyl chloride, along with carbon monoxide and hydrochloric acid.
[PEN-L:5592] Re: RE: Re: Young Democratic Socialists position on Kosovo
Bombing is not immoral. The burden of proof is on you to show this. Lets have some reasons. I take it as a starting point (i.e.self-evident) that peace is everywhere and always preferable to war. People who send bombers can be. Anybody can be immoral. What theory of morality are you working with? What the hell, lets get into some philosophy. What is it for an agent to be moral? Acting in accordance with a categorical imperative(i.e. rules or maxims)? Acting so as to maximize the total amount of happiness in a given society? Acting rationally? Acting out of self-interest (any libertarians out there?) Pacifists argue that any initiation of the use of force is immoral because it violates someone elses property right of self-ownership. Self-ownership is thorny issue for Marxists, but that's another story. Some Marxists use it defend abortion ( anti-abortion laws are wrong because they violate self-ownership) while they must abandone self-ownership to defend a certain interpretation of capitalist exploitation. Presently the people in question are immoral because they are using bombing as a political substitute for action that the NATO governments, especially the U.S., are too timid to propose and promote. In and of itself, bombing does not accomplish anything. Bombing does a lot of things like destroy economies and property, kill people, destroy lives and destroy ecosystems. In econospeak, NATO views these ,as well as the hundreds of thousands of *Muslims* in Iraq starving to death because of US policy, as negative externalities. A price worth paying. Human life is simply an externality. Whether it makes things worse for Kosovars depends on what you think is actually going on in the province. If you think there is nothing but "normal" counter-insurgency, then the bombing makes things worse. If there is mass murder, then things can't get much worse. There was no mass murder before the bombing and ,what evidence there is, shows no mass murder after the bombing. Those who refuse to condemn the bombing altogether are not immoral if they believe that some bombing is consistent with further objectives -- saving Kosova. We have to bomb Kosovo to save it. I speculate that the Administration/Nato are of two minds about the bombing. One mind holds that the bombing and news of atrocities will prepare the public to accept a full-scale invasion. This makes some political sense, but it is craven and immoral: it sacrifices innocent Serbs to indulge the political cowardice of Western politicians. It also makes tactical sense; you pummel the Serbian military and economy and soften them up for the ground war. Again, not necessarily moral, but not irrational either. Quite rational, quite immoral by any standard of morality. The other mind supports the Iraqi strategy -- just keep bombing till the cows come home. The Kosovars and Serb civilians are completely beside the point; it's about Nato being boss, not losing face, etc. Bankrupt in every way. (All the geopolitical scenarios about positioning against a resurgent Russia, NATO expansion, the war economy, the economic 'crisis' are such rubbish they are hardly worth disputing.) So sure, bombing isn't helping Kosovars. But at this point, a ceasefire might not help them either. You help them by protecting them, which means ground troops. Ground troops will escalate the war in Kosovo and possibly the whole region. This will lead to more death and destruction.The effect of NATO's actions over the past few weeks has been the exact opposite of what it intended. (assuming that NATO intended to do good viz. save Kosovo, its people, ensure stability in the region and weaken Milosevic). It follows that if NATO does the exact opposite of what it is doing now ( i.e. stops bombing and starts fair negotiations) it will have the effect that NATO intended when it first started the bombing. Give peace a chance! In one sense I think all of us are going at this from a similar, top-down view, as if we were little secretaries of state in exile or something. The real focus should be Kosovars. The first principle is, self-determination for Kosova. As far as I can determine, both this list and LBO are Muslim-free zones. We seem to be utterly separated from the principal victims in this drama. As if we were discussing civil rights in the absence of any African-Americans. I really don't care how retrograde the nationalism of the Muslims may be, though I wouldn't take Louis' word on this for a second. The Serbs don't have the right to destroy them because their politics and culture offend some leftists. No, but the same holds for NATO vis a vis Serbia. Thus NATO has no right to destroy Serbia because it elected Milosevic. BTW, I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but Milosevic is quite moderate compared to his right wing nationalist competitors. Just for the record, I have no sympathy for Milosevic or his government.
[PEN-L:5593] Meltdown book Oz Update
G'day, Peter Brain's 'Global Meltdown', from an Australian economic forecaster who enjoys a Krugmanesque reputation here on account of he picked the Asia crisis in advance (and with more of a nod to exogenous forces than Krugman at that), sounds pretty interesting. For Brain, the US's success is stunting growth over the rest of the world - itself an interesting point as all we've been hearing is that America's selfless gluttony is all that's keeping the global economy from slipping under the waves. Having re-engineered its economy towards a near-monopolistic cutting-edge presence in the electronics/information sectors, having rationalised and flexibilised itself into centralised (yet 'post-Fordist') network clusters, at the expense of a more wide-spread interdependence (Ricardo's comparative advantage stuff is more 'out' than ever, as marginalised areas go backwards), the American economy has produced a global propensity to spectacularly uneven development and something very like Jim Devine's underconsumption dynamic, and at the global level. Oz ain't riding the challenge as well as our Treasurer really seems to believe it is. The CAD is lousy in numbers and rotten in structure - in short, we're talking unsustainable deficits - rapidly ageing population - national savings low in relation to national investment, but consumer demand is all over the top of domestic production - Indeed our CAD is nearly 4 per cent higher than that of the US. The blunt instrument of interest rate manipulations has thrashed our economy within an inch of its life before (in the late eighties, when we hit 18.5% and NZ hit 23%). Woebetide us when they get that old blunderbuss out - especially if they do just as Asia's medium-technology sector begins to cream ours - which will doubtlessly coincide with Latin America, South Africa and Russia madly exporting commodities (never mind the US's protected agricultural producers) - which just about covers our entire export economy. Shudder ... Rob.
[PEN-L:5594] Re: Wall St running out of steam?
The DJI went up and the Nasdaq went down 6% - Oz's markets have now taken a hot bath - especially in high-tech stocks (at least THEY read The Australian). Diaper time for all those teenage day-traders? Cash time amongst the fund managers? What say you, noble Penners? Rob.
[PEN-L:5597] Re: How the Left repeats simplistic analogies(How the Serbs became fascists
Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/19/99 05:15PM Nathan Newman wrote: I am starting to find pen-l as intellectually narrow as freerepublic.com (with pretty damn similar rhetoric) in the complete refusal to respectfully engage with those you disagree with. ((( Chas.: I see that Nathan has left the list. But I must say that his allegation that pen-L has a "complete refusal to respectfully engage with those you disagree with" is not true. There have been plenty of arguments on this list in which the disputants were respectful of each other, including on the current war. Charles Brown
[PEN-L:5599] RE: Re: RE: Re: Young Democratic Socialists position onKosovo
Max Sawicky wrote: In my romantic senility I'm maturing to the left. We welcome you Max. Now if you could only shake your infatuation with ordnance. Doug Maybe I should look forward to welcoming you. mbs "Ballots or bullets." -- Malcolm X
[PEN-L:5602] BLS Daily Report
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --_=_NextPart_000_01BE8B3B.1F9C08E0 BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 1999 RELEASED TODAY: Regional and state unemployment rates remained relatively stable in March. All four regions reported little or no change from February, and 43 states and the District of Columbia recorded shifts of 0.3 percentage point or less. The national jobless rate declined by 0.2 percentage point over the month to 4.2 percent. Nonfarm payroll employment rose in 37 states. ... Median weekly earnings for the nation's full-time wage and salary workers were 3.3 percent greater in the first quarter of 1999 than they were one year earlier, the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics reported. Meanwhile, the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) rose only 1.7 percent in the same period. After adjusting the data for this inflation gain, real median weekly earnings advanced 1.6 percent. Median weekly earnings reached $538 in the first quarter before adjustment for changes in inflation. The gender gap in wages continued. Median earnings for women who worked full time were 76.5 percent of those for men. ... (Daily Labor Report, page D-3). New claims filed with state agencies for unemployment insurance benefits rose by 14,000 to 316,000 in the week ended April 10, the Labor Department's Employment and Training Administration announced. In the previous week, new claims hit 302,000 according to revised data. ... The four-week moving average of initial UI claims was 305,000, an increase of 4,250 from the previous week's revised average. ... (Daily Labor Report, page D-1)_Demand for workers continues to be strong. ... (Wall Street Journal, page A2). --_=_NextPart_000_01BE8B3B.1F9C08E0 b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQWAAwAOzwcEABQACgAkAAQAAgAiAQEggAMADgAAAM8HBAAU AAoAJAAGAAIAJAEBCYABACEyRkE3OUI2RjAzRjdEMjExODg4RTAwQzA0RjhDNzgzMQAnBwEE gAEAEQAAAEJMUyBEYWlseSBSZXBvcnQAkAUBDYAEAAICAAIAAQOQBgCQBwAAHEAAOQAg w0oeO4u+AR4AcAABEQAAAEJMUyBEYWlseSBSZXBvcnQAAgFxAAEWAb6LOxzh b5unMPcDEdKIjgDAT4x4MQAAHgAxQAENUklDSEFSRFNPTl9EAAMAGkAAHgAw zTDyrP8ACgEPAhUCpAPkBesCgwBQEwNUAgBjaArAc2V0bjIGAAbDAoMyA8UCAHDccnESIAcTAoB9 CoAIz8UJ2TsVLzI1NQKACoEDDbELYG5nMTAzM0cK+xLyAdAgQkwF8EQQQUlMWQfwRVBPAFJULCBU SFVSilMaEFka0EFQUhowyCAxNhrQMTkcQAqFAwqFGnBMRUFTRUQlGuBPG0E6IAfwZWcWaQIgB0Ag AHBkIHMBAZB0ZSB1bmVt3QtQbwbACfAFQHIfUQQgPxUwAMALgAmAILELYHRp+nYhYHkfIgJgH3AL gAXQ6wrAEbAuE9BsAyACEAhwNyCxHoIgonAU0SEhbGnHAkAiQQWxbm8gEbEYMAMfcANSIEZlYnJ1 zQrAeRrQHvI0Mx8kBCCpHvJ0aB9wRAQAdAUQ4mMFQG9mIAhQCkAG0F8HMCCxBaENsB8RaAaQdFME ICjRMC4nMHAEkGP9ICFhJcEkQAuAKLEFwCJAewQQIvBUKBEesCGQHqNq7m8iMQQRIGIgBYEksCES 3mIh4CrAEiArD28hsAXAtygCBGACMGgn8CVgNC8YdSLwTgIgZgrAJiAKsHk3A2AjIR+6bxHwImIz N7snRSLwLjUgHkAcfE0JgKsHMAOgdwngayHRZQrAvwMAGDAEIAIQMIQs5Cc3ofp1IyAtIZAHgDaw K3Ie8+8HQCaRNrAFsGsEkAQgNsD3FTA0YCrYIAnBH1EFwCJx2SgCZmkR4AVAcSaBPEL/KNEcMifx A5EoATpROwICIP0fcHk3MTciJLAEkBrQKAL2TAGgBbFEJDA9cSASOKHfGOwKIBnACHA3MHUowkCk /lMfQShRKJBBviQXNUE2UP0AcHcqMCJAQEQFoACAKTDfMHETkCiQIlINsHg3swdAOwMgCHBiA5FH JgQgKEPgUEktVSkz5AIgIdH8MS40gDuGPIU6ADlBL0EbHpBF8UEBgDBxYWRq3nVEMRgwHkAoAmQf UClw/zfEBAAiYRgBLQI78AtxGtC/PBEDIAeANn83gk1wdgBw9yswHxBLEDYxqDZPN1U8EcMRsCEh JDUzODx/PYP+Yg3ABbA5oU2DIBM3wiWE/08iTzg1QSyiJcBIIQXAT+D+cCJiOXIEIEchTcEKUEX0 31OTNzs6cCARU9BoJWA6cx8fEDjSJ/A5MzsCNzYu/jU7dyjRKAA0AjfCIBE1BfwoRAtwIdFApB5g JEIa0IMKsCXBRC0zKS4cfPcHwi5gC3BtN6FGkR8QA/D/MREfNCtxUkAIkDekH5sLgP9HUCBgUkFW 8R+gPPAqYTPzYS7RMTQsMGmgMTIzfxvxaaJVtTbCMzBIIR8QQd9HsQMgGFBAT0FWRR/IHvKOVCBg C4BN0kFkbW7hfyhhT4QAcCVQH5BSUTVBSfNVxBOQZXYekE2gU9Ma0I8foGSHKjAFQDMwMmmT/wDQ KbJN0jFBcXIR8B8QTmL3NQUsoiNSLWsDBGBxkE3hfmEwYStyKNFu4SGQHsFV3klkljlwBCBzQDVp kibC/yJhBQA3MEqSKOBpgBdgGbB/JfNxLzihdJZ3FWEvYj8t+DEpX3/SQQADgV5BXSP/OpRbVgQg MUFXAB8hA2AYML19hldIskPgCdEFQEoIYfMesWLFQTJjZxifGaGFFQUUUQCHcAADAPE/CQQAAAMA /T/kBwAmAAADADYAAAIBRwABLwAAAGM9VVM7YT0gO3A9QkxTO2w9RENQQ1NN QUlMMS05OTA0MjAxNDM2MDRaLTMxMjAAAB4AOEABDQAAAFJJQ0hBUkRTT05fRAAeADlA AQ0AAABSSUNIQVJEU09OX0QAQAAHMBDGSh47i74BQAAIMOAInB87i74BHgA9AAEB AB4AHQ4BEQAAAEJMUyBEYWlseSBSZXBvcnQAHgA1EAE0PEUxNkVF QTRDRTlDN0QwMTE5QUU0MDA2MDk3MDVDRDg4RDY3NDE3QGRjcGNzbWFpbDE+AAsAKQAACwAj AAADAAYQSDPWcQMABxAwBQAAAwAQEAADABEQAQAAAB4ACBABZQAAAEJMU0RBSUxZ UkVQT1JULFRIVVJTREFZLEFQUklMMTYsMTk5OVJFTEVBU0VEVE9EQVk6UkVHSU9OQUxBTkRTVEFU RVVORU1QTE9ZTUVOVFJBVEVTUkVNQUlORURSRUxBVElWRUwAAgF/AAE0PEUxNkVF QTRDRTlDN0QwMTE5QUU0MDA2MDk3MDVDRDg4RDY3NDE3QGRjcGNzbWFpbDE+APEY --_=_NextPart_000_01BE8B3B.1F9C08E0--
[PEN-L:5605] Re: RE: Re: Young Democratic Socialists position on Kosovo
At 12:34 AM 4/20/99 -0700, Max Sawicky wrote: I speculate that the Administration/Nato are of two minds about the bombing. One mind holds that the bombing and news of atrocities will prepare the public to accept a full-scale invasion. This makes some political sense, but it is craven and immoral: it sacrifices innocent Serbs to indulge the political cowardice of Western politicians. It also makes tactical sense; you pummel the Serbian military and economy and soften them up for the ground war. Again, not necessarily moral, but not irrational either. The other mind supports the Iraqi strategy -- just keep bombing till the cows come home. The Kosovars and Serb civilians are completely beside the point; it's about Nato being boss, not losing face, etc. Bankrupt in every way. (All the geopolitical scenarios about positioning against a resurgent Russia, NATO expansion, the war economy, the economic 'crisis' are such rubbish they are hardly worth disputing.) That is probably the most convincing explanation of the NATO behavior. "Ritualism in the face of uncertainty" has been frequently evoked by organizational behavior theorists - and that explanation seems to be th eonly one that fits the apparent madness of the NATO policy (I've been effectively persuaded that no significant economic or politcal self-interests are at stake). But that is really a bad news. Since military and political egos are at stake and few "reality checks" exist - the current course of action will escalate until a major disaster brings them into a halt. That means that your conclusion So sure, bombing isn't helping Kosovars. But at this point, a ceasefire might not help them either. You help them by protecting them, which means ground troops. is a non-sequitur. Things can get much much worse, perhaps not for Kosovars (since they've already hit the rock bottom), but for other peoples in the region. Regards, Wojtek PS. Max, I appreciate your sense of humor in the face of this madness. It keeps me from sinking into depression.
[PEN-L:5606] RE: Re: RE: Re: Young Democratic Socialists position on Kosovo
Bombing is not immoral. The burden of proof is on you to show this. Lets have some reasons. I take it as a starting point (i.e.self-evident) that peace is everywhere and always preferable to war. I've acknowledged that those who command the bombers are not acting out of moral precepts. Neither you nor I have anything to do with this, however. The bombing will persist regardless of what we do, especially if we hold more to your view of U.S. democracy than mine. The more pertinent question for us is what should we do? To me the greater human emergency is the Muslims, not the Serbs. Muslims are suffering more in aggregate and individually than Serbs. My starting point and priority is how to effect the rescue of Muslims. I further think that such a rescue would preclude most of the current threat to innocent Serbs. How to do it? Not, I would say, by focusing protest against NATO bombing, which on this list and LBO often entails "pogrom-denial," and in the real world is typically wound up with isolationism. The case for the Muslims argues against ineffectual bombing (which incidentally is destroying the land to which the Muslims would like to return), and for peace-keeping via ground troops. The no bombing/no genocide line has the merit of foregoing callousness towards Muslims, but otherwise the 'no genocide' component is meaningless. Pacifism here is meaningless as well. Sometimes you have to pick a side. People who send bombers can be. Anybody can be immoral. What theory of morality are you working with? What the hell, lets get into some philosophy. I'd really rather not. I tried to read Hegel a few times and always dozed off after about 20 pages. What is it for an agent to be moral? Acting in accordance with a categorical imperative(i.e. rules or maxims)? Acting so as to maximize the total amount of happiness in a given society? Acting rationally? Acting out of self-interest (any libertarians out there?) Pacifists argue that any initiation of the use of force is immoral because it violates someone elses property right of self-ownership. Self-ownership is thorny issue for Marxists, but that's another story. Some Marxists use it defend abortion ( anti-abortion laws are wrong because they violate self-ownership) while they must abandon self-ownership to defend a certain interpretation of capitalist exploitation. I'll leave the abstract construction to others with the expertise and inclination. I'd rather simplify: HOW TO PROTECT INNOCENT MUSLIMS IN KOSOVA? That's my preferred moral question of the day. Presently the people in question are immoral because they are using bombing as a political substitute for action that the NATO governments, especially the U.S., are too timid to propose and promote. In and of itself, bombing does not accomplish anything. From context, it should be clear I meant 'anything positive.' Bombing does a lot of things like destroy economies and property, kill people, destroy lives and destroy ecosystems. In econospeak, NATO views these ,as well as the hundreds of thousands of *Muslims* in Iraq starving to death because of US policy, as negative externalities. A price worth paying. Human life is simply an externality. That's Nato. I'm not Nato, and neither is Nathan. Whether it makes things worse for Kosovars depends on what you think is actually going on in the province. If you think there is nothing but "normal" counter-insurgency, then the bombing makes things worse. If there is mass murder, then things can't get much worse. There was no mass murder before the bombing and ,what evidence there is, shows no mass murder after the bombing. This is total bullshit, as some informed anti-bombers have attested. Since Louis didn't answer, I'll throw his question to you: if no independent journalists are permitted to investigate atrocities in Kosova, and since both refugees and Serbs are biased, from what source would you accept as legitimate a report of atrocities? If none, haven't you precluded such information on spurious, a priori grounds? Those who refuse to condemn the bombing altogether are not immoral if they believe that some bombing is consistent with further objectives -- saving Kosova. We have to bomb Kosovo to save it. I've made clear that the all-bombing strategy is no good, so this cliche cuts no ice. I speculate that the Administration/Nato are of two minds about the bombing. One mind holds that the bombing and news of atrocities will prepare the public to accept a full-scale invasion. This makes some political sense, but it is craven and immoral: it sacrifices innocent Serbs to indulge the political cowardice of Western politicians. It also makes tactical sense; you pummel the Serbian military and economy and soften them up for the ground war. Again, not necessarily moral, but not irrational either. Quite rational, quite immoral by any standard of morality. Well this was in response to Devine and Kruse,
[PEN-L:5607] RE: Re: RE: Re: Young Democratic Socialists position on Kosovo
But that is really a bad news. Since military and political egos are at stake and few "reality checks" exist - the current course of action will escalate until a major disaster brings them into a halt. That means that your conclusion So sure, bombing isn't helping Kosovars. But at this point, a ceasefire might not help them either. You help them by protecting them, which means ground troops. is a non-sequitur. Things can get much much worse, perhaps not for Kosovars (since they've already hit the rock bottom), but for other peoples in the region. One consideration is that it should be up to Kosovars whether their situation can get worse or not, and what to do about it. Since we don't have much idea of what they want, my response is simply that the situation is fluid and what might persist as an interminable, utterly useless, Iraqi-type bombing campaign might instead deviate into a plausible rescue/relief effort. My hunch is that at this point, Kosovars are clinging to the latter belief, so I feel obliged to cling along with them. mbs
[PEN-L:5608] Re: NATO GETTING COSY WITH RAGTAG GUERRILLA FORCE
Brussels, the alliance's spokesman Jamie Shea noted that the Has anybody got the bio on this spook? All I'm going on is elocution. But I'd say off-hand, he's a classically trained thespian. At least with Ronald Reagan, we KNEW he was an actor all along. regards, Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/covenant.htm
[PEN-L:5609] Misc on Max
I wrote: I wonder if the members of the youth branch of DSA are joining the armed forces in droves, to contribute to the war effort. Doug answers: Max Sawicky has already pronounced that to be a silly critique! Why should the policy makers and pundits of the future be asked to set aside their career path to take up arms? They have too much to contribute in the intellectual sphere to be bothered with mud bullets. Max ripostes: Silly shit indeed. What's sauce for the goose and all. The critics of NATO are at no greater risk than the supporters. If you're a revolutionary, by this logic, you should be rampaging thru Kosova with the Serbian commandoes, defending the working class against reactionary nationalists. That's assuming that the critics of the US/NATO war against Serbia all side with Serbian ethnic chauvinism, an assumption I've criticized again and again. Max, have you ever read Chomsky? ... And anyone who thinks they will advance in the U.S. power elite by enlisting in the Democratic Socialists of America, pro-war or not, is too dumb to be a concern to anyone. And here's a nasty and sarcastic crack that I held back because I didn't want to offend Nathan: maybe the leaders of US/NATO will decide they've made a mistake in attacking Serbia, because if DSA supports their policy, it must be wrong. In a separate missive, I wrote: No, you're no "social fascist," Max. As long as I'm around, I'm going to fight the Manichean attitude expressed by Eldridge Cleaver that "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Max responds: I was not indulging in self-pity, at least not in this post. My reference was not to Manicheanism, but to a specific political posture promoted by Joe Stalin during his leftward-lurch and mirrored in the notion that liberals are as bad as or worse than conservatives from a socialist standpoint. I haven't seen anyone put forth the "social fascism" thesis (i.e., the view that the folks immediately to the right of us on the political spectrum are as bad as or worse than the fascists or Nazis), though there have been so many pen-l messages of late I may have missed it. The closest to a "third period" view I've seen was Nathan's view that NATO's conquests would build the basis for socialism (and thus should be supported), which as someone pointed out, has parallels to the "after Hitler, us" position of the CP of Germany. BTW, I don't read Stalin's third period of "ultra-leftism" as really being leftist (whatever that means). Rather than using the simplistic "left" vs. "right" political spectrum, I would see that period as a matter of the tightening of bureaucratic control of the COMINTERN by Moscow that went along with the consolidation of a new class system in the old USSR. (It's a little like the "ultra-leftism" that hit a lot of leftist groups (including the International Socialists and the Socialist Workers Party, among others), where the national-office bureaucrats and the central committee united to push sectarian politics and the "colonization" of factories (sending students and middle class folk to work in factories to mobilize the workers), which went along with the consolidation of power by the bureaucrats and central committees. Of course, Stalin did it on a much bigger scale.) To this has been added the new, even more retrograde, anti-Marxist, monochromatic historical view that capitalist was no advance over feudalism, or that within capitalism no meaningful progress has ever taken place. I haven't seen that perspective put forth. To whose opinions are you referring? The foreign policy extension of this view is revolutionary defeatism. Every imperialist war (e.g., every war involving capitalist powers) should be opposed and turned into a civil war. Ergo, we should oppose whatever NATO might do and let the Kosovars and Serbs sort out their own disputes. I'm sure someone has that perspective on pen-l. But I've also noticed a large number of other arguments put forth against that war. ...We've gotten a lurid glimpse of this indifference right here at home, in the form of endless sniping at the premise that the Milo regime is guilty of crimes against humanity, mass deportation at a minimum, and possibly mass murder. I haven't seen this as "endless." It seems only part of the crowd in pen-l. In the real world of politics, of course, the most active element opposing the war is the Serbian-Americans, who tend to apologize for Milosevic. But it's important not to confuse pen-l with real-world politics. Max wrote: And anyone who thinks they will advance in the U.S. power elite by enlisting in the Democratic Socialists of America, pro-war or not, is too dumb to be a concern to anyone. Tom Walker writes: They could always serve their "socialist in my romantic youth" time in DSA, then have second thoughts and intellectually mature to the right. It's been done. Given the hegemony of "right-wing" thinking (i.e., acquiescence to and
[PEN-L:5610] A personal note from a Philadelphia Democrat
"Another concern is that the Republicans will successfully elect a new national team in this country next year, partly by playing off against the perceived failure of the Democratic administration's Kosovo policy. In this, they will follow the lead of Eisenhower, who successfully argued in 1952 that he would clean up the Democratic mess in Korea." The above was written to me by a prominent Philadelphia area Democrat this morning. 33's Tom L.
[PEN-L:5613] Re: Re: Wall St running out of steam?
Rob Schaap wrote: The DJI went up and the Nasdaq went down 6% - Oz's markets have now taken a hot bath - especially in high-tech stocks (at least THEY read The Australian). Diaper time for all those teenage day-traders? Cash time amongst the fund managers? What say you, noble Penners? Rob, these things take time. A bull market of over 16 years won't turn into a bear overnight, especially as long as interest rates behave. Doug
[PEN-L:5615] Maxing out
I wrote ... I don't read Stalin's third period of "ultra-leftism" as really being leftist (whatever that means). Rather than using the simplistic "left" vs. "right" political spectrum, I would see that period as a matter of the tightening of bureaucratic control of the COMINTERN . . . Max writes: Yes but the control manifested itself as prescriptions of different political lines at different times. There was one period when the prescription was to eschew all political alliances with non-communists and focus on building separate mass organizations, particularly the 'red unions' of the 1920's. There was also the brief period when the CP line re: Hitler was 'revolutionary defeatism,' conforming to isolationism. The strain of thinking to which I refer seems to have a lot in common with those approaches. My impression is that the "third period" involved (among other things) Stalin's pretending to be more "left" than the internal opposition, mouthing seemingly more revolutionary slogans, etc., to build up popular inside and outside of the CPSU support for his faction. (It's a little like Blair mouthing humanitarian slogans to justify _his_ policies in the Balkans.) Stalin went through all sorts of stages (including the Hitler-Stalin pact), but I think the most dominant policy (in terms of influence and length of life-span) was the "Popular Front" opinion that everyone to left of the vaguely-defined center should unite against fascism. (Not "social fascism," but actual fascism and Naziism.) It was Stalin's main policy partly because it was most successful in terms of his goals. BTW, if you believe that "if it's Stalin's policy it's got to be bad," then you've got to reject the popular front, which as far as I can tell is the one of the most popular positions on the left. Though maybe he was like the proverbial stopped clock and right twice a day, so this rejection is wrong. But that suggests that we can't reject the third period on these grounds either. It should be rejected on its merits (or rather, its lack thereof). I wrote: . . . However, the DSA-types are not likely to do this is a radical way; they're gradualists (and mostly careerists). Unless you've taken a census of all DSAers and read their minds, I don't think you should apply blanket characterizations like this. At different times, I was a member of the two different organizations that merged to form DSA (though I never joined DSA itself) and I'm pretty sure that they are all gradualists. If they weren't gradualists, they wouldn't join DSA. On the other hand, it's only _most_ of them (as I said) that are careerists. I'd say that the younget they are, the less likely they are to be careerists. There are academic marxist careerists, policy wonk careerists, journalistic careerists, etc. etc. Reference to others' motives is not really the point, more often than not. Actually, I was making the point that the non-gradualists and non-careerists are the ones who are more likely to undergo radical lurches to the "right." And that one can't take _anyone's_ opinion as gospel, no matter what fraction of the "left" they come from. BTW, I think a certain amount of careerism is necessary to survival, to living up to family obligations, etc. The problem arises when one's career goals shape one's principles (assuming that one's principles were good in the first place), as seen in the most extreme case when Bill "Serbicus" Clinton justified his opposition to his being drafted in terms of his wish to rise in the political hierarchy. Gradualism isn't all bad. I think the only way to go is to gradually build up grass-roots opposition groups to the capitalist power structure. Even if we were to have a revolution right now, without a deeply rooted popular movement that can step in and replace capitalism, it would probably be a disaster. (Who would step into the power vacuum?) At the same time, a growing popular-democratic movement of workers and other dominated groups can and does pressure the powers that be (the Republicrats and Democans, etc.) to shift their policies in a "left" direction. The problem is when gradualistic politics (of the sort just described or of other sorts) get subordinated to personal career needs -- or when some petty party bureaucrat subordinates his or her "revolutionary" politics to the preservation of his or her power position in the party. The key problem is when people see the success of their own careers as substitutes for growing popular opposition to the system. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html Bombing DESTROYS human rights. US/NATO out of Serbia!
[PEN-L:5617] Re: Young Democratic Socialists position on Kosovo
Max Sawicky wrote: First: Who are we? Only someone from deep inside the imperium, with a strong sense of _belonging_ in it and to it, could pen such a line. Au contraire, usage of "we" is pretty common. One might say that only someone extremely alienated would be irked by it. The common usage of we should not be taken as vindication. I've written public relations material and the use of we to create a vague sense of identification with authority is a first principle. But then, being "extremely alienated" shouldn't be assumed to be shameful, either. Rather, extreme alienation can more usefully be read as subjective awareness of the objective alienation that infects all of us. This tendency to demand that people make sacrifices for putting forward ideas is regrettable. Whether they do or not has no bearing on the value of the ideas. I've got no use for the DEMAND that people make sacrifices for putting forward ideas. However, the quality of ideas that people feel comfortable offering "for free" (that is without personal sacrifice) is less than that of the ideas that people are prepared to act on. Wendell Berry wrote an essay on this titled "Stand by Words". It goes without saying, of course, that the quality of ideas that people are only prepared to entertain in expectation of a reward is even worse. Those who refuse to condemn the bombing altogether are not immoral if they believe that some bombing is consistent with further objectives -- saving Kosova. I agree with this. People who believe that bombing is a necessary means to an ethical end are not immoral. They may be tragically mistaken, but they're not immoral. Only people who celebrate bombing is an expedient means to a self-serving end are immoral. But what does one call it when the means at one's disposal overwhelm the ends and "credible ends" have to be woven for institutionally inevitible means? William Blake called it 'Satanic'. Which brings me to a pair of quotes I'm juxtaposing. The kicker is that Blake's "Satanic Mills" aren't "fire and brimstone" belching factories of the industrial revolution that a precocious high school student might suppose them to be. They are the self-same utilitarian calculi that Samuelson hails (contradictorily) simultaneously as unpretentious, necessary and revelatory. "Any prescribed set of ends is grist for the economist's unpretentious deductive mill, and often he can be expected to reveal that the prescribed ends are incomplete and inconsistent. The social welfare function is a concept as broad and empty as language itself -- and as necessary." -- Paul Samuelson 'And was Jerusalem builded here Among these dark Satanic Mills?' -- William Blake And how's that for a post-mod assertion, ". . . as broad and empty as language itself . . ."? regards, Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/covenant.htm
[PEN-L:5619] When Adolf Hitler defended self-determination
Max wrote: Uh, the analogy can be made just as well to Serbia vis a vis Kosovo with the shoe on the other foot. After all, Serbia is protecting its own national minority against the majority Albanians in Kosmet, the basis for His Excellency's Yugoslavia-destroying speech at Kosovo Polje on June 28, 1989 at which he outlined an approach that he is following today. Serbia is a small, underdeveloped country with a population of 10 million or so. The US and Nazi Germany were powerful imperialist nations bent on conquest. They use the pretext of defending "captive nations" in order to extend their imperial control. I think a better way of understanding the problem in Yugoslavia is through the analogy with Sandinista Nicaragua, who faced a secessionist movement on the Atlantic coast backed by US imperialism. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:5621] Re: Young Democratic Socialists position on Kosovo
At 02:01 PM 4/20/99 -0400, Louis wrote: In WWII, we bombed Dresden which had no military value. This atrocity was dramatized in Vonnegut's "Slaugherhouse Five". We firebombed Tokyo to spread terror among the Japanese civilian population. We then topped that off by dropping A-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when the Japanese had already given signals that they were ready to make peace. Why? As Stimson put it, we wanted to teach the Russians a "lesson". This is the kind of lesson we are trying to teach them today, by the way. The US rules the world. This is what happens when harvard and yale intellectuals are in the business of war making. Material victory ain't good enough for them - they also want to make a more general point i.e. "teach a lesson." That reminds me a Calvinists anecdote about a boy who was convicted of blasphemy and thoroughly educated so he could understand the full nature of his deed, and only then put to death as a punishment. As someone observed, intellectuals have more power than they think, but not nearly enough as they would want to have. Beware of that crowd. Wojtek
[PEN-L:5622] Re: RE: Re: How the Left repeats simplisticanalogies (How the Serbs became fascists
"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/20/99 01:23PM BTW, even though I am sometimes viewed as some kind of "voice of reason" (except when I'm not, :-)) I just lost it in my Principles of Economics classes today and ended up screaming at the top of my lungs and nearly breaking lecterns while denouncing the bombing. This thing is now out of control and has become totally unpredictable and very dangerous (or maybe that description just applies to me, :-)). The big joke is that in one section I got applauded by a rightwing Republican. Oh well... ( Charles: Good show, Barkley ! The widely held belief that emotion and reason are incompatible is a symptom of the separation of theory and practice. People are moved to action by their emotions. Charles Brown
[PEN-L:5623] terror bombing
[Aside from the unfortunate Spartacist boilerplate, this is a fine history
of the U.S. use of air power, back from the days when Jan Norden was
editing Workers Vanguard. Its news hook is the Gulf War, but the message is
timeless. - Doug]
THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF U.S. TERROR BOMBING
How Washington Perfected Hitler's Schrecklichkeit
Workers Vanguard, March 1, 1991
Video images of laser-guided "smart" bombs homing in on their targets,
generals talking of "precision bombing," vague references to "collateral
damage": the Pentagon has worked up A cult of high-tech as Washington's,
propaganda 'machine is spreading the lie that the U.S. air assault against
Iraq is a "clean" war. And meanwhile Iraqi civilians are deliberately
incinerated in a bomb shelter in Baghdad. The roads of Iraq have become
killing fields, lined with the bombed-out wreckage of cars and trucks. In
two recent atrocities, bombers targeted buses loaded with civilians,
killing a total of 60 people. The "surgical strikes" are hitting hospitals
where doctors perform surgery on mutilated women and children.
The orgy of destruction has leveled power plants, factories, warehouses,
bridges, roads, phone installations-the entire infrastructure of the
country. The city of Basra in southern Iraq, which has been singled out for
special devastation, was simply declared by U.S. military authorities to be
a "military town." Pentagon spokesmen classify any civilian target hit as
"dual purpose," both military and civilian. According to our estimate the
U.S. is dropping at least 16,000 tons of bombs a day, so after 40 days of
air war, with 100,000 sorties flown, the U.S. has dropped on Iraq almost a
quarter of the total tonnage dropped by all the belligerent powers in World
War II!
Uneasy with the "bad press" that the bombing of civilians is getting, the
New York Times (14 February) asked plaintively: "Why not stop bombing
cities?"' Liberals have often sought to distance themselves from the policy
of strategic bombing, arguing that in any case it is "ineffective" in
destroying a country's ability to wage war. This is the argument of
economist John Kenneth Galbraith, who headed the U.S. Strategic Bombing
Survey in World War II. Galbraith writes that his study showed, "Germany's
industrial production-weapons and munitions, in particular-continued to
increase, with no visible halt until nearly the end of the war" (Los
Angeles Times, 10 February).
What Galbraith leaves unsaid is that the nose dive in production in those
final months was because of the mass terror bombing campaign which
deliberately targeted and massacred hundreds of thousands of industrial
workers.
Colonel Harry Summers Jr., the Vietnam War historian and former professor
of strategy at the Army War College, was blunter. In a column titled
"'Collateral Damage' a Familiar, Often Intended, Part of War" (Los Angeles
Times, 8 February), Summers noted that the deliberate targeting of the
civilian population in order to break the will to resist "didn't start with
'We had to destroy the town in order to save it,' the unfortunate remark of
the young Army officer in the Mekong Delta during the Vietnam war" The
carpetbombing of Vietnam only continued the U.S. forces' "scorched earth"
policy in Korea, the firebombing campaign in Germany and Japan and-the
A-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In our last issue ("Terror Bombing Has Not Broken Iraq," WV No. 520, 15
February) we noted that "in World War II Hitler adopted a policy of
Schrecklichkeit, deliberate terrorizing of the 'enemy' population," but
"the Allies outdid the Nazis in this department." The "democratic"
imperialists in fact had a preference for mass slaughter through air power,
which kept the horrendous casualties at a distance.
The Allies pursued the policy of mass terror bombing of civilians with
increasing ferocity throughout World War 11, raising it to unspeakable
dimensions. Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are among the
many cities which were transformed into fiery crematoriums for their
working populations. In Germany, Allied bombers deliberately massacred some
600,000 civilians; in Japan hundreds of thousands died under U.S. bombs. In
sum, almost one million civilians were deliberately massacred by Allied
terror bombing.
Schrecklichkeit U.S.-Style
In the Dictionary of Historical Terms (1983) by Chris Cook, Schrecklichkeit
is defined as the "deliberate policy of committing atrocities to subdue a
subject people." Louis L. Snyder's Historical Guide to World War 11 (1982)
writes that "The bombing of Warsaw early in the war made it clear to the
Allies how Hitler intended to fight his war. It was to be Schrecklichkeit
('frightfulness') with no regard for the civilian population." The
Luftwaffe began the Blitzkrieg (lightning war) by destroying the Polish Air
Force on the ground, and for six days 400 German bombers. battered the city
day and night.
The next year, the Germans put an end to the Sitzkrieg (sitting war),
[PEN-L:5624] Re: When Adolf Hitler defended self-determination
Louis writes: Serbia is a small, underdeveloped country with a population of 10 million or so. The US and Nazi Germany were powerful imperialist nations bent on conquest. They use the pretext of defending "captive nations" in order to extend their imperial control. I think a better way of understanding the problem in Yugoslavia is through the analogy with Sandinista Nicaragua, who faced a secessionist movement on the Atlantic coast backed by US imperialism. The problem with this formulation is that the Sandinistas, who ruled Nicaragua at the time, were more-or-less "good guys" (despite their treatment of the Miskitos). Milosevic is not. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html Bombing DESTROYS human rights. US/NATO out of Serbia!
[PEN-L:5625] Progressive Response: NATO-Russia, Global Economy
[PEN-L:5626] Re: RE: Re: How the Left repeats simplisticanalogies (How the Serbs became fascists
"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/20/99 01:23PM I don't have Nathan's email address, but I would urge Michael P. to express to Nathan that at least some of us regret his departure, despite our disagreements. Heck, if all the pro-bombing people leave the list, I'll have to make their arguments for them, even though I oppose the bombing, ugh This is a very serious and difficult issue and it is understandable that people are getting worked up about it. There are strong arguments on each side, as the labels "pro-imperialist" and "pro-genocide" suggest. I would not like to see this list become a love-in fest for the anti-bomb crowd, even though there are some who might prefer that for the purposes of spending our time in figuring out "how to oppose imperialism." ((( Charles: I guess it is a demonstration of dialectics that most e-mail list discussions are driven , "get their motion" , from debates or "contradiction". I'm not sure that an anti-war love-in would generate many posts, from my experience on these lists. However, from my standpoint, because the left is so small today, and there are plenty of communication networks for the neo-liberal /conservative majority views (including all of the monopoly media) , it would not be such a bad thing if a few lists such as this one could became an anti-war planning center. In other words, Nathan's point of view will get plenty of broadcast anyway, so, his side of the debate is not silenced by no one (or fewer) being on this particular, relatively small in the larger picture, list. We can get that point of view by picking up the NYT or receiving any major news outlet. In the current war debate, although I have the impression that anti-war discussants are in a majority, there seems to be a significant minority ON THE LEFT who support the war. This seems to be a new situation for the late twentieth century left. But since the list(s) probably accurately represents a split on the left beyond the lists, I think we anti-warriors must engage this struggle in order to keep our thinking in touch with real opinions of the left ( if you follow me). This reasoning ( sort of :we need opponents here as sparring partners)may not be a palatable basis for drawing Nathan back. Anyway, I think Nathan's departure is also related to the fact that he probably was in the minority here, and therefore felt a lot more flak than the war opponents. I haven't followed every post and exchange, but I don't really think that the anti-warriors were less polite than the pro-warriors, there are just more of the former. The sharpness of discussion was not greater than typical in the many other disputes on the lists, and this issue is literally a matter of life and death, although our debate probably doesn't directly impact the life or death occurrences. To sum up, I don't agree that Nathan had a legitimate gripe that he was treated more impolitely or unfairly than he treated others (if that is what he thinks). On the substantive issue, THE WAR, let me be frank and say that I think it is a measure of the degeneration of the left that there is significant left support for the current war. So, I don't view the debates as sorting out a truly new situation that might end with a call for left support of U.S. imperialism inadvertently doing the right thing. Rather, as I say above, the only value of these debates is for us anti-warriors to sharpen our anti-war arguments against "real" opponents. Perhaps Nathan could sense that he was not about to change anybody's point of view on the issue. So, maybe it is better for Nathan to take a break from a fight in which he is so outnumbered. Hopefully, this does not have to become a permanent separation. Charles Brown
[PEN-L:5631] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Young Democratic Socialists position on Kosovo
Max, I'm getting on your case again about terminology. The group that I think that you are worried about (I sure as hell am) is the Albanian Kosovars. Repeat after me, ALBANIAN KOSOVARS. I have just addressed the fact that "Muslims" is a too narrow term. However, "Kosovars" includes the Serb population of Kosmet, who are in danger of getting bombed by NATO, but unless they are in a mixed marriage or the victims of a mistake, are not in much danger (except as "collateral damage") from their fellow Serbs. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 11:24 AM Subject: [PEN-L:5607] RE: Re: RE: Re: Young Democratic Socialists position on Kosovo But that is really a bad news. Since military and political egos are at stake and few "reality checks" exist - the current course of action will escalate until a major disaster brings them into a halt. That means that your conclusion So sure, bombing isn't helping Kosovars. But at this point, a ceasefire might not help them either. You help them by protecting them, which means ground troops. is a non-sequitur. Things can get much much worse, perhaps not for Kosovars (since they've already hit the rock bottom), but for other peoples in the region. One consideration is that it should be up to Kosovars whether their situation can get worse or not, and what to do about it. Since we don't have much idea of what they want, my response is simply that the situation is fluid and what might persist as an interminable, utterly useless, Iraqi-type bombing campaign might instead deviate into a plausible rescue/relief effort. My hunch is that at this point, Kosovars are clinging to the latter belief, so I feel obliged to cling along with them. mbs
[PEN-L:5634] Re: When Adolf Hitler defended self-determination
Louis, That was me, Barkley, not Max. I agree that His Excellency is no Hitler. He is not out to conquer the world, and so far has not committed genocide or called for it, despite some pretty ugly stuff. But I don't think the Nicaragua/Miskito example is very good either. Were the Miskitos oppressing regular Nicaraguans during some period of autonomy? I don't think so, although I could be mistaken. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 1:38 PM Subject: [PEN-L:5619] When Adolf Hitler defended self-determination Max wrote: Uh, the analogy can be made just as well to Serbia vis a vis Kosovo with the shoe on the other foot. After all, Serbia is protecting its own national minority against the majority Albanians in Kosmet, the basis for His Excellency's Yugoslavia-destroying speech at Kosovo Polje on June 28, 1989 at which he outlined an approach that he is following today. Serbia is a small, underdeveloped country with a population of 10 million or so. The US and Nazi Germany were powerful imperialist nations bent on conquest. They use the pretext of defending "captive nations" in order to extend their imperial control. I think a better way of understanding the problem in Yugoslavia is through the analogy with Sandinista Nicaragua, who faced a secessionist movement on the Atlantic coast backed by US imperialism. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:5635] RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Young Democratic Socialists position on Kosovo
I'll leave the abstract construction to others with the expertise and inclination. I'd rather simplify: HOW TO PROTECT INNOCENT MUSLIMS IN KOSOVA? That's my preferred moral question of the day. Acceptance of Serbian government's peace plan and offer of ceasefire. U.N.and/or E.U. monitoring team to make sure the plan is being implemented and enforced. What other options are there? We've been there before. The Serbs reportedly would beat the monitors up and otherwise restrict their movements. Observers are not very effective if they are under threat if they actually observe something important, or if the local population is too intimidated to assist them. The other option is chasing the sumbitches out of Kosova. This is total bullshit, as some informed anti-bombers have attested. Saying so doesn't make it so. I don't have to prove Serbian atrocities, since only a tiny, albeit vocal minority doubt their prevalence. Besides, given your likely rejection of Western sources, there is no way I could prove it to you. Since Louis didn't answer, I'll throw his question to you: if no independent journalists are permitted to investigate atrocities in Kosova, and since both refugees and Serbs are biased, from what source would you accept as legitimate a report of atrocities? If none, haven't you precluded such information on spurious, a priori grounds? Well there are problems all around. Its the same problem that occurred in Cambodia in the 1970's when refugees were the only source of information. Some of their stories were true, others false and some exaggerated. Refugees can be a good source but one has to take extreme care because refugees are not neutral actors. That's a curious example, since in that case a massacre truly was in progress and the outside world did nothing, other than aggravate the situation. If sending in troops to protect Muslims and secure Kosova is escalation, that's what we need. That is a pretty big IF. Evidence and the way the situation is going so far suggests that sending in troops would have the opposite effect of what you say above. Would you be in favor of a U.N. peacekeeping mission? It would be an improvement over present circumstances. I'd trade it for the bombing in a second. But suppose one was sent in and they got shot up by the Serbs? What do you think Milo is prepared to concede, in the way of security for Kosovars, especially in light of the lack of pressure implied by nothing more than UN peace-keepers? If ground troops are send in, the invasion will have to be staged from a neutral country like Romania, Macedonia, Hungary or Bosnia. Various pundits have even suggested that staging may occur in Montenegro. The Serbian government and people will view this as a declaration of war on it, which will destabilize the region for many decades to come. There's also Albania. As for a declaration of war, we're there already. Except the bad guys are winning and the other bad guys are diddling. I thought you were some kind of Leninist. What's your problem with death and destruction? Ha. Guilt by association, ad hominem and fallacy of composition all in one. Which is it? No it was serious and not hostile, if a little jocular. I really did think you were a Leninist by your other remarks here. Leninists have no problem using force to achieve their revolutionary ends. Nor do I. I'm not a pacifist. I'm a laptop bombadier, remember? It follows that if NATO does the exact opposite of what it is doing now ( i.e. stops bombing and starts fair negotiations) it will have the effect that NATO intended when it first started the bombing. Give peace a chance! No, that doesn't follow one tiny bit. Yes it does by modus todus. If P then Q. ~P so ~ Q. If bombing leads to the destruction of Kosovo then not bombing will lead to not destroying Kosovo. Modus schmodus. If Milo is determined to destroy Kosova, bombing or no, than no bombing does not save Kosova. A cessation of all bombing and an invitation to negotiation simply affords Milo Co. the opportunity to do what they like with Kosova at their leisure. *Bombing* has lead Milosevic to do whatever he likes with Kosovo. Without the war, there were constraints on what he could do. I'm not sure what those constraints were, but you agree that bombing has made the situation worse. Bombing has provided some cover for dirty deeds, yes. I'd say the cover persists, even if bombing stops. If I knew three weeks ago what I know now, I would have counseled Madeleine not to bomb, but to ship in every variety of aid worker, monitor, journalist, and other third party possible, and to prepare for a ground invasion (including selling it to the U.S. public). But we're not there anymore. case I propose: 1) minimization of all suffering by: 2) Immediate acceptance of the Serbian government's peace plan. If they Is their "plan" still on the table, including your peacekeepers? If it is, I
[PEN-L:5637] Re: Re: Young Democratic Socialists position on Kosovo
On Tuesday, April 20, 1999 at 16:31:49 (-0400) Max Sawicky writes: [Barkley?:] Acceptance of Serbian government's peace plan and offer of ceasefire. U.N.and/or E.U. monitoring team to make sure the plan is being implemented and enforced. What other options are there? We've been there before. The Serbs reportedly would beat the monitors up and otherwise restrict their movements. .. Been where before? Why did we not pursue the Serbian parliament's counter-offer after Rambouillet? They supposedly agreed to work toward autonomy in Kosovo with a multinational (UN) force to come in as well. Why did we dismiss this and threaten them with bombing? Bill
[PEN-L:5638] Molotov Cocktail
Soviet Foreign Minister V. M. Molotov: "The principle of so-called equal opportunity has become a favorite topic of late. What, it is argued, could be better than this principle, which would establish equal opportunity for all states without discrimination?... [Take] Rumania, enfeebled by war, or Yugoslavia, ruined by German and Italian fascists, and the United States of America, whose wealth has grown immensely during the war, and you will clearly see what the implementation of the principle of 'equal opportunity' would mean in practice. Imagine, under these circumstances, that in this same Rumania or Yugoslavia, or in some other war-weakened state, you have this so-called equal opportunity for, let us say, American capital - that is, the opportunity for it to penetrate unhindered into Rumanian industry, or Yugoslav industry and so forth: what, then, will remain of Rumania's national industry, or of Yugoslavia's national industry?" (_Problems of Foreign Policy_, Moscow, 1949, pp. 207 214) Michael Hoover
[PEN-L:5639] Re: Young Democratic Socialists position on Kosovo
At 04:31 PM 4/20/99 -0400, you wrote: Yes it does by modus todus. If P then Q. ~P so ~ Q. If bombing leads to the destruction of Kosovo then not bombing will lead to not destroying Kosovo. Modus tollens, I presume which takes the form if p then q, not q, therefore not p. It is clear form the truth table for the implication p q if p then q T TT F TT T FF F FT (in plain English: implication cannot lead from a true premise toa false conclusion). the form "if p then q, not p therefore not q" is a non-sequitur which can be easily demonstrated by the following example. If someone is shot in the head, that someone is dead. (true) Nixon was not shot in the head. (true) Ergo: Nixon is not dead (false). Wojtek Modus schmodus. If Milo is determined to destroy Kosova, bombing or no, than no bombing does not save Kosova. A cessation of all bombing and an invitation to negotiation simply affords Milo Co. the opportunity to do what they like with Kosova at their leisure. *Bombing* has lead Milosevic to do whatever he likes with Kosovo. Without the war, there were constraints on what he could do. I'm not sure what those constraints were, but you agree that bombing has made the situation worse. Bombing has provided some cover for dirty deeds, yes. I'd say the cover persists, even if bombing stops. If I knew three weeks ago what I know now, I would have counseled Madeleine not to bomb, but to ship in every variety of aid worker, monitor, journalist, and other third party possible, and to prepare for a ground invasion (including selling it to the U.S. public). But we're not there anymore. case I propose: 1) minimization of all suffering by: 2) Immediate acceptance of the Serbian government's peace plan. If they Is their "plan" still on the table, including your peacekeepers? If it is, I would take it, all the while building up forces for a land invasion in the event it proved necessary. Though the decision should really be up to Kosovars, not me or you. I really don't care. So you have no respect for international law or national sovereignty? Not in its present, highly dysfunctional form, no. Who does? It's like what Gandhi said about Western civilization: "it would be a good idea." mbs
[PEN-L:5640] A forward
A forward. Charles Brown ( In a message dated 4/20/99 3:23:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Subj: (abolition-usa) Fwd: 'Let Civility Prevail': an appeal from Belgrade Date: 4/20/99 3:23:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ASlater) Sender:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 'Let Civility Prevail': an appeal from Belgrade Priority: non-urgent X-FC-MachineGenerated: true To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-FC-Forwarded-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- Forwarded by Tom K Snowdon/Winnipeg/MCC on 04/20/99 11:16 AM --- From: Zarana Papic [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bojan Aleksov [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Fwd: Syndicate: nettime Let Civility Prevail - A Statement of Concerned SerbianCitizens] Original Message Subject: Syndicate: nettime Let Civility Prevail - A Statement of Concerned SerbianCitizens From: Andreas Broeckmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 16:45:32 +0200 (CEST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] LET CIVILITY PREVAIL A STATEMENT OF CONCERNED SERBIAN CITIZENS As long time proponents of and activists for a democratic and anti-nationalist Serbia, who have chosen to remain in Yugoslavia during this moment of crisis and who want to see our country reintegrated into the community of world nations, we state the following: 1. We strongly condemn the NATO bombings which have hugely exacerbated violence in Kosovo and have caused the displacement of people outside and throughout Yugoslavia. We strongly condemn the ethnic cleansing of the Albanian population perpetrated by any Yugoslav forces. We strongly condemn the Kosovo Liberation Army's (KLA) violence targeted against the Serbs, moderate Albanians and other ethnic communities in Kosovo. The humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo - death, grief and extreme suffering for hundreds of thousands of Albanians, Serbs and members of other ethnic communities - has to be ended now. All refugees from Yugoslavia must immediately and unconditionally be allowed to return to their homes, their security and human rights guaranteed, and aid for reconstruction provided. Perpetrators of crimes against humanity whoever they are must be brought to justice. 2. The fighting between Serbian forces and KLA has to be stopped immediately in order to start a new round of negotiations. All sides must put aside their maximalist demands. There are (as in other numerous similar conflicts such as Northern Ireland) no quick and easy solutions. We all must be prepared for a long and painstaking process of negotiation and normalization. 3. The bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO causes destruction and growing numbers of civilian victims (at least several hundred, maybe a thousand, by now). The final outcome will be the destruction of the economic and cultural foundations of Yugoslav society. It must be stopped immediately. 4. The UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act, the founding document of NATO, as well as the constitutions of countries such as Germany, Italy, Portugal, have been violated by this aggression. As individuals who have devoted their lives to the defense of basic democratic values, who believe in universal legal norms we are deeply concerned that NATO's violation of these norms will incapacitate all those struggling for the rule of law and human rights in this country and elsewhere in the world. 5. NATO's bombings have further destabilized the southern Balkans. If continued this conflict can escalate beyond Balkan borders and, if turned into land military operations, thousands of NATO and Yugoslav soldiers, as well as Albanian and Serbian civilians, will die in a futile war as in Vietnam. Political negotiations toward a peaceful settlement should be reopened immediately. 6. The existing regime has only been reinforced by NATO's attacks in Yugoslavia by way of the natural reaction of people to rally around the flag in times of foreign aggression. We continue our opposition to the present anti-democratic and authoritarian regime, but we also emphatically oppose NATO's aggression. The democratic forces in Serbia have been weakened and the democratic reformist Government of Montenegro threatened by NATO's attacks and by the regime's subsequent proclamation of the state of war and now find themselves between NATO's hammer and regime's anvil. 7. In dealing with the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia the leaders of the world community have in the past made numerous fatal errors. New errors are leading to an aggravation of the conflict and are removing us from the search for peaceful solutions. We appeal to all: President Milosevic, the
More Double Standards
US winks at sanctions, imports from BARC By Dinesh C Sharma The Times of India News Service MUMBAI: Are US sanctions a one-way street? It would seem so, with the US importing high-tech products from some of the very institutions which are on its black list. One such institution is the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) which hit the US embargo charts after the nuclear tests last May. BARC has finalised a deal to supply some critical components called ``thorium buttons'' to GE of the US. These are used in non-nuclear generators manufactured by the American electrical giant. ``The number of buttons is large though the value may be small. But what matters is that it is an American order,'' says BARC director Anil Kakodkar who is also a member of the Atomic Energy Commission. In fact, embargo is not a such a dreaded word in BARC. Living with embargoes is a way of life for BARC and other establishments of the Department of Atomic Energy. ``We have lived with sanctions since 1974. We developed pressurised heavy water reactors, fast breeder reactors and the Kamini, all despite sanctions. We are not vulnerable to external embargoes. If a supplier refuses to supply, we say thank you,'' points out Mr Kalkodkar. When an equipment or component is denied, scientists work overtime to develop it in India. For example, the furnace for the Nuclear Fuel Complex in Hyderabad. The US supplied the hardware but denied the software. BARC developed the software within a few months. ``Sometimes this process may be time consuming. But this is the only way to do it. Self-reliance is your immunity against technology denials,'' feels DAE chairman R Chidambaram. In many cases, the embargo vanishes as soon as we develop the systems, said a DAE official. Oddly, even safety related equipment comes under embargoes. Mr Chidambaram says a he has asked members of the Nuclear Suppliers' Group, an offshoot of the NPT signatories' club, to lift the sanctions on these items. About nuclear deterrence, he says ``we have developed an adequate scientific database to develop devices which you need for a credible nuclear deterrence. We tested a dozen ideas and systems and all of them were successful. The sub- kiloton test has given us the capability to carry out sub-critical tests, should we need such tests''. -- Anthony P. D'Costa Associate Professor Comparative International Development University of Washington 1900 Commerce Street Tacoma, WA 98402, USA Phone: (253) 692-4462 Fax : (253) 692-5612
[PEN-L:5641] Progressive Response: NATO-Russia, Global Economy
-- The Progressive Response 19 April 1999 Vol. 3, No. 14 Editor: Tom Barry -- The Progressive Response is a publication of Foreign Policy In Focus, a joint project of the Interhemispheric Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies. The project produces Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) briefs on various areas of current foreign policy debate. Electronic mail versions are available free of charge for subscribers. The Progressive Response is designed to keep the writers, contributors, and readers of the FPIF series informed about new issues and debates concerning U.S. foreign policy issues. The purpose of the and "Comments" section of PR is to serve as a forum to discuss issues of controversy within the progressive community--not to express the institutional position of either the IRC or IPS. We encourage comments to the FPIF briefs and to opinions expressed in PR. We're working to make the Progressive Response informative and useful, so let us know how we're doing, via email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (that's irc, then the number one NOT the letter L.) Please put "Progressive Response" in the subject line. Please feel free to cross-post The Progressive Response elsewhere. We apologize for any duplicate copies of The Progressive Response you may receive. -- Table of Contents I. Updates and Out-Takes *** CONTAINMENT LITE: U.S. POLICY TOWARD RUSSIA AND ITS NEIGHBORS *** By John Feffer *** GLOBAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT RESOLUTION *** By Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith II. Comments *** QUESTIONS ABOUT FPIF'S KOSOVO BRIEFING DOCUMENT *** *** ULTERIOR MOTIVES? *** -- I. Updates and Out-Takes *** CONTAINMENT LITE: U.S. POLICY TOWARD RUSSIA AND ITS NEIGHBORS *** By John Feffer (Ed. Note: As NATO marks its 50th anniversary in Washington this week, it finds itself immersed in a war in the Balkans, raining bombs on the Yugoslav federation in the name of humanitarianism. In 1949 the U.S. established NATO as a military alliance to defend the West against the perceived threat of Soviet expansionism. When the Soviet Union imploded, the U.S. and other countries of the Atlantic alliance sought to bring Russia into a strategic partnership. Today, NATO's new militarism and its expansionism have undermined that partnership. The following analysis is excerpted from a new FPIF essay by John Feffer on U.S. policy in the former Soviet Union.) *** Containment Lite: U.S. Policy Toward Russia and its Neighbors *** If the U.S. government had wanted to destroy Russia from the inside out, it couldn't have devised a more effective policy than the so-called "strategic partnership." From aggressive foreign policy to misguided economic advice to undemocratic influence-peddling, the U.S. has ushered in a cold peace on the heels of the cold war. Containment remains the centerpiece of U.S. policy toward Russia. But it is a "soft" containment. It is Containment Lite. On the foreign policy front, for instance, Containment Lite has consisted of a three-tiered effort to isolate Russia: from its neighbors, from Europe, and from the international community more generally. The Clinton administration's policy of "geopolitical pluralism," designed to strengthen key neighbors such as Ukraine and Kazakhstan, has driven wedges into the loose confederation of post-Soviet states. By pushing ahead recklessly with expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the U.S. government is deepening the divide that separates Russia from Europe, effectively building a new Iron Curtain down the middle of Eurasia. Instead of consulting with Russia over key foreign policy issues such as the Iraq bombings and allied policy toward former Yugoslavia, Washington has attempted to steer Moscow into a diplomatic backwater where it can exert little global influence. Part of this three-tiered foreign policy of "soft" containment has been to eliminate Russia's last claim to superpower status--its nuclear arsenal--without providing sufficient funds for mothballing the weapons and without pursuing commensurate reductions in U.S. stockpiles. By pursuing a missile defense system, the U.S. has put several arms control treaties in jeopardy; by opposing key sales of Russian military technology, the U.S. has applied a double standard on proliferation. Announcing the largest increase in the military budget since the end of the cold war, the Clinton administration began 1999 with a clear signal that Russia's decline would have little effect on the Pentagon's appetite. While Russia's geopolitical fortunes have been grim, its economic position is even grimmer. In 1992, when implementing the first market reforms, Boris Yeltsin
[PEN-L:5644] Re: Misc on Max
Jim to Max: ... And anyone who thinks they will advance in the U.S. power elite by enlisting in the Democratic Socialists of America, pro-war or not, is too dumb to be a concern to anyone. And here's a nasty and sarcastic crack that I held back because I didn't want to offend Nathan: maybe the leaders of US/NATO will decide they've made a mistake in attacking Serbia, because if DSA supports their policy, it must be wrong. According to Tom Lehman's missive, the Democrats are likely to come to regret the DSA's active advocacy for the bombings and ground troops: "Another concern is that the Republicans will successfully elect a new national team in this country next year, partly by playing off against the perceived failure of the Democratic administration's Kosovo policy. In this, they will follow the lead of Eisenhower, who successfully argued in 1952 that he would clean up the Democratic mess in Korea." The above was written to me by a prominent Philadelphia area Democrat this morning. Yoshie
[PEN-L:5645] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Young Democratic Socialistsposition onKosovo
Max Sawicky wrote: In my romantic senility I'm maturing to the left. We welcome you Max. Now if you could only shake your infatuation with ordnance. Doug Maybe I should look forward to welcoming you. mbs "Ballots or bullets." -- Malcolm X Malcolm X didn't invite the US government to kill Patrice Lumumba in the name of autonomy and freedom for Katanga. Yoshie
[PEN-L:5647] Re: Re: When Adolf Hitler defended self-determination
Jim wrote: The problem with this formulation is that the Sandinistas, who ruled Nicaragua at the time, were more-or-less "good guys" (despite their treatment of the Miskitos). Milosevic is not. I agree that Milosevic is not a 'good guy,' but anti-imperialism doesn't mean defending 'good guys' (= socialists) from the USA. The point of Lou's comparison is while the USA is a superpower that regards the entire world as its actual or potential territory (including rich nations such as Japan and Germany), Yugoslavia (or Iraq for that matter) is not. Yoshie
[PEN-L:5648] Re: Commandante Soros?
Sam wrote: The National Post (Canada's new Connie Black propaganda tool) had an article today that stated that George Soros and his Open Society operation are funding the KLA. I guess the big boys just want be sure that the KLA will act like local gendarmes for imperialism. Another reason not to support the KLA. Also another reason to question the enthusiasm for 'civil society' and NGOs. Yoshie
[PEN-L:5649] Re: From Jim Craven
At 03:15 PM 4/19/99 -0400, you wrote: The paradox of our time in history is that: We have taller buildings, but shorter tempers; wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints; we spend more, but have less; we buy more, but enjoy it less. etc. I think a lot of this can be summed up by saying that we get a lot more in terms of commodified products -- the kind of stuff that's counted in Gross Domestic Product because it's bought and sold -- but we're not doing well in terms of non-commodities. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html Bombing DESTROYS human rights. US/NATO out of Serbia!
[PEN-L:5651] Re: Re: Young Democratic Socialists position on Kosovo
Wojtek Sokolowski wrote: At 04:31 PM 4/20/99 -0400, you wrote: Yes it does by modus todus. If P then Q. ~P so ~ Q. If bombing leads to the destruction of Kosovo then not bombing will lead to not destroying Kosovo. Modus tollens, I presume which takes the form if p then q, not q, therefore not p. It is clear form the truth table for the implication p q if p then q T TT F TT T FF F FT (in plain English: implication cannot lead from a true premise toa false conclusion). the form "if p then q, not p therefore not q" is a non-sequitur which can be easily demonstrated by the following example. If someone is shot in the head, that someone is dead. (true) Nixon was not shot in the head. (true) Ergo: Nixon is not dead (false). Right. Which is why I work in a kitchen and not a classroom! The proper form of the argument would have been negation introduction or reductio ad absurdum: p - q ~q - ~p Sam Pawlett
[PEN-L:5652] Chemical Warfare and Ecological Disaster
NATO bombings of petrochemical plants such as the ones described below should be considered chemical warfare and hence *war crime* and *crime against humanity*, damaging not only economic infrastructure of Yugoslavia but directly harming Yugo civilians and those in surrounding countries. Also, when the NATO ground troops come back, we'll hear about the effects of toxic chemicals unleashed in this war. Yoshie Forwared by Katha Pollitt to M-Fem: Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 06:21:59 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Aleksandra Milicevic [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: cernobyl again? I am forwarding you the letter that I have received today from my hometown, addressing the issue of the possible ecological catastrophe bound to happen if NATO continue with the operations. The letter is written by director of Petro chemical complex which was heavily bombed two nights ago and then, again, last night. Could you please post it on your page and forward it further, as it is very important that as many people as possible be aware of the consequences of "collateral damages". If you need any additional information, feel free to contact me by email. Best regards, Sasha Milicevic Europe facing ecological disaster Pancevo, April 16, 1999 It is my duty and obligation to inform the domestic and international public that on 15th April 1999 at 22:40 NATO forces heavily bombarded the plants of the Petrochemical Complex in Pancevo which were in regular operation. Installations and equipment of the Vinyl Chloride Monomer plant and Ethylene plant were directly hit. Indirectly, heavy and destructive explosions damaged the Chlor-alkali plant and Polyvinylchloride plant and buildings inside the complex as well as a large number of civilian houses and flats in the surrounding area. The fire broke out and huge quantities of toxic matters such as chlorine, ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride monomer flowed out. The transformer stations were also heavily damaged and very toxic transformer oil flowed out. Unfortunately but unavoidably a large number of people were injured and intoxicated. At this moment we do not know the exact number of intoxicated and injured civilians who were evacuated. Due to the power failure and utilities and auxiliary fluids interruption a large quantity of combustible, explosive and toxic matters remained trapped in the equipment, installations and tanks. It will take a lot of time to drain and evacuate all those matters from the plants before the plants could be considered safe for a wide surrounding area. The plants have been heavily damaged and cannot be put in operation. According to all the terms and rules of warfare accepted and followed so far, the plants of chemical process industries of this type have never been military targets and objects of strikes. The range of products of "HIP Petrohemija" d.p. Pancevo is of extremely civilian nature and bombardment of these plants represents the worst war crime and it reveals genocidal intentions of the aggressor. Therefore, we call upon the petrochemical producers, licencors and engineering houses all over the world to raise their voice and warn those who give orders for bombing of the danger and catastrophic consequences which might be caused by bombing of this kind of plants. HIP PETROHEMIJA (Pancevo petro chemical complex) Dr Slobodan Tresac Director General
[PEN-L:5653] Re: Molotov Cocktail
Michael "Not-Mike" Hoover posted: Soviet Foreign Minister V. M. Molotov: "The principle of so-called equal opportunity has become a favorite topic of late. What, it is argued, could be better than this principle, which would establish equal opportunity for all states without discrimination?... [Take] Rumania, enfeebled by war, or Yugoslavia, ruined by German and Italian fascists, and the United States of America, whose wealth has grown immensely during the war, and you will clearly see what the implementation of the principle of 'equal opportunity' would mean in practice. Imagine, under these circumstances, that in this same Rumania or Yugoslavia, or in some other war-weakened state, you have this so-called equal opportunity for, let us say, American capital - that is, the opportunity for it to penetrate unhindered into Rumanian industry, or Yugoslav industry and so forth: what, then, will remain of Rumania's national industry, or of Yugoslavia's national industry?" (_Problems of Foreign Policy_, Moscow, 1949, pp. 207 214) The above argument is an important one to remember. It is silly for those of us who live in imperialist nations to say, "pox on both houses," when one house (the one we live in) is bombing and planning to invade the other. Yoshie
[PEN-L:5654] need advice
I have a former student from 20 years ago who wants to go back to school to finish an undergraduate degree where he can study alternative forms of economic organization. I don't think that his is necessarily into Marx, but more into co-ops and the like. Any suggestions for an undergraduate program? Please contact him Chuck Kasmire [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:5655] NATO Bombs Big Tabacco
This just in (via Louis Godena). Beware of health nuts. (What's next? Bombing Cuban cigar factories in the name of 'liberating' the oppressed queer-Cuban nation?) Yoshie * The end result of tonight's bombing of my city (11:15 p.m., April 19): one dead, 15 wounded. All civilians of course. Several streets in the vicinity of the Tobacco factory of Nis levelled, only rubble left. The Tobacco factory of Nis, one of the largest in Europe, was hit several times last night and it is no more. It produced cigarettes only. 35,000 workers out of work now, meaning that 100,000 people (their families) will be left penniless in my city (300,000 people). It is ominous that the American administration reformulated its targets now --- they are focusing on the "economy", and, of course, you know what that means. Djordje University of Nis, Serbia [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
[PEN-L:5656] Re: Re: Re: Wall St running out of steam?
Doug wrote: Rob, these things take time. A bull market of over 16 years won't turn into a bear overnight, especially as long as interest rates behave. How will a prolonged war against Yugoslavia (and a lesser one against Iraq) affect interest rates? Yoshie
[PEN-L:5659] Russia and Yugoslavia
Take a look at Abu Nasr's post below (to marxism-international) and see the effects of NATO's war against Yugoslavia upon the internal politics of Russia. Without the Russian support and with the coming NATO oil embargo, the Yugoslavs may either be *slaughtered* en masse (since there are not enough people in the West yet who are opposing war or *at least* actively demanding to restrain the NATO means of indiscriminate warfare) or capitulate to the US/NATO on their terms, thus becoming *colonial subjects* (as those in Bosnia have). Not that Russia is in a good position to help either even if it is determined to do so, for the Russians must fear themselves becoming a target of U.S. economic sanctions (and/or bombings in the name of 'liberating' Chechnya or on some other pretext). João Paulo Monteiro earlier said on Lou's marxism list that lots of arms could be smuggled in, so guerrilla warfare against the invading NATO forces (when they come) may continue, but things look dismal. missing the Soviet Union, which at least served as a restraint upon the Evil Empire, Yoshie * The reports about Russia trying to distance herself from Yugoslavia are true. "Russia" here meaning President Boris Yel'tsin and his special representative on Yugoslavia, former pro-western Primeminister Viktor Chernomyrdin. snip Zyuganov and the Communist Party, for what it's worth, are denouncing this distancing. The distancing consists of the following: One of the first things Chenomyrdin did after being appointed special presidential representative on Yugoslavia last week was to announce Russia's acceptance of the German peace proposal (one predicated on Yugoslavia's acceptance of NATO conditions, of course). This prompted even the Russian independent newspaper, Nezavisimaya Gazeta to ask critically if next Russia will be endorsing the NATO bombing. (report from Pravda-Internet, 16 April 1999, 18:43 hours Moscow time). In a 45-minute telephone conversation with Bill Clinton yesterday, Yel'tsin told the US president that contrary to earlier plans, Russia would not be sending any more naval vessels into the Adriatic.(ITAR-TASS dispatch, 19 April 1999, 14:28 hours Moscow time). Later, at a meeting in Moscow, Yel'tsin criticised Milosevic as "inflexible" for not agreeing to allow peacekeeping troops into Yugoslavia. Yel'tsin specifically went on to say that Russia was ready to mediate between Yugoslavia and the US and he criticised Bill Clinton for wanting Milosevic simply "to capitulate and put all of Yugoslavia under a United States protectorate. This we will not allow. The Balkans are a strategic place, very responsible." Yel'tsin said.(ITAR-TASS dispatch, 19 April 1999, 14:34 hours Moscow time). Meanwhile the foreign minister Igor' Ivanov announced principles for a peace settlement that included a withdrawal of "excess" Yugoslav army and police forces from Kosovo, as well as a pull back of Nato forces and weapons "having an offensive character" from the Yugoslav border. Ivanov did not mention military peacekeepers, however, only stipulating the free access of humanitarian organisations to Kosovo to resume their work.(ITAR-TASS dispatch 19 April 1999, 18:40 hours Moscow time). Today a dispatch from Pravda-Internet critically noted that Ivanov, after meeting a group of representatives of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference included among the Russian principles for a settlement the "necessity for an international presence" in Yugoslavia. Pravda-Internet (a Communist voice) highlighted and criticised this change in the official Russian position.(Pravda-Internet dispatch 20 April 1999, 16:34 hours, Moscow time). Thus while official Russia has not abandoned the Yugoslavs, and remains fairly critical of Washington, it has made some changes in its policy, bringing it closer to NATO positions. This trend has been particularly notable after Chernomyrdin was put in charge of Russia's Yugoslav dipolomacy. Basically, Yel'tsin, initially responding to NATO's attacks with firey rhetoric, has been able to use the Yugoslav crisis to mute criticism of himself. The proposed impeachement in the Duma was put off until the middle of May as the country was supposed to rally around its leader. Then, with the threat of impeachment out of the way, Yel'tsin appointed the pro-western Chernomyrdin his personal representative on Yugoslavia -- at a time when the Russian primeminister Yevgeniy Primakov was ill. For their part, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation under Gennadiy Zyuganov remains explicitly in favour of Yugoslavia. Speaking on Tuesday after arriving in Cyprus for a meeting with representatives of Communist and Leftist Parties from NATO countries on Yugoslavia, Zyuganov said, "Russia must help Yugoslavia both in the humanitarian and military areas." (ITAR-TASS dispatch, 21 April 1999, 00:46 hours, Moscow time.) Thus, as Yel'tsin makes moves toward the west, he also arouses increasing criticism from leftist and
[PEN-L:5661] Re: NATO Bombs Big Tabacco
I just read a post from the TiM (Truth in Media ) website. The fellow who runs it went over to Belgrade just recently to report the war firsthand. He noted that there was a huge lineup at one place in Belgrade. He asked someone if they were lining up for food. No, cigarettes, the fellow said. The TiM guy checked with someone in the line. Yes. Indeed. So at least some good has come of the NATO bombing. Many Serbs will have to quit cold turkey. CHeers, Ken Hanly Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: This just in (via Louis Godena). Beware of health nuts. (What's next? Bombing Cuban cigar factories in the name of 'liberating' the oppressed queer-Cuban nation?) Yoshie * The end result of tonight's bombing of my city (11:15 p.m., April 19): one dead, 15 wounded. All civilians of course. Several streets in the vicinity of the Tobacco factory of Nis levelled, only rubble left. The Tobacco factory of Nis, one of the largest in Europe, was hit several times last night and it is no more. It produced cigarettes only. 35,000 workers out of work now, meaning that 100,000 people (their families) will be left penniless in my city (300,000 people). It is ominous that the American administration reformulated its targets now --- they are focusing on the "economy", and, of course, you know what that means. Djordje University of Nis, Serbia [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
[PEN-L:5668] data question
I read an interesting article by Lester Thurow in a recent Journal of
Post Keynesian Economics. He gives some interesting data without
sources and without years. Can anyone {Doug?} verify the statement?
Thurow, Lester. 1998. "Wage Dispersion: 'Who Done It?':" Journal of Post
Keynesian Economics, 21: 1 {Fall}: pp. 25-37.
26: Wages of high school graduates, but also college graduates, and
masters degrees other than MBA's have declined. How is this consistent
with a skill driven phenomenon?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5662] Media targets
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --06A6643443AEDEA7DA05D837 As I predicted, NATO is bombing media targets now but without giving any ludicrous justifications as they had done previously. Originally NATO floated an Orwellian balloon. They were bombing Serb media in order to give the Serbs access to information. Of course the information was NATO propoganda via VOA and Radio Free Europe et al. Deprive people of information so that they can have information. This fits in with bombing for peace no doubt. Now they bomb even without an Orwellian fig leaf to cover their ass. Cheers, Ken Hanly --06A6643443AEDEA7DA05D837 .htm" htmlhead meta name="description" content=" Washington: NATO's military commander, US Army General Wesley Clark, appears to have prevailed in a debate among alliance members over whether to target television and radio broadcasting facilities in Serbia. " titleSydney Morning Herald - World - Radio and TV stations now in bombers' sights /title /head BODY BGCOLOR="#FF" TEXT="#00" LINK="#C5" ALINK="#000894" VLINK="#AA" !-- AdSpace -- IFRAME WIDTH=468 HEIGHT=60 MARGINWIDTH=0 MARGINHEIGHT=0 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 FRAMEBORDER=0 SCROLLING=no BORDERCOLOR="#00" SRC="http://ads.fairfax.com.au/html.ng/site=smhcat=worldpagepos=1" SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript1.1" SRC="http://ads.fairfax.com.au/js.ng/Params.richmedia=yessite=smhcat=worldpagepos=1" /SCRIPT NOSCRIPT A HREF="http://ads.fairfax.com.au/click.ng/Params.richmedia=yessite=smhcat=worldpagepos=1" IMG SRC="http://ads.fairfax.com.au/image.ng/Params.richmedia=yessite=smhcat=worldpagepos=1"/A /NOSCRIPT /IFRAME !-- AdSpace -- P TABLE WIDTH="475" BORDER="0" CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" TRTD WIDTH="475"IMG SRC="/news/static/graphics/top_worldnews.gif" ALIGN="TOP" ALT="WORLD NEWS"/TD/TR /TABLE TABLE WIDTH="475" BORDER="0" CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" TRTDA HREF="../contents.html" TARGET="contents" onMouseOver="self.status='THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD HOME PAGE';return true" onMouseOut="self.status='';return true"IMG SRC="/news/static/graphics/top_navhome.gif" ALIGN="TOP" ALT="SMH HOME" BORDER="0"/A/TD TDA HREF="../pageone/contents.html" TARGET="contents" onMouseOver="self.status='PAGE ONE INDEX';return true" onMouseOut="self.status='';return true"IMG SRC="/news/static/graphics/top_navpageone.gif" ALIGN="TOP" ALT="PAGE ONE" BORDER="0"/A/TD TDA HREF="../national/contents.html" TARGET="contents" onMouseOver="self.status='NATIONAL INDEX';return true" onMouseOut="self.status='';return true"IMG SRC="/news/static/graphics/top_navnational.gif" ALIGN="TOP" ALT=" NATIONAL" BORDER="0"/A/TD TDA HREF="../world/contents.html" TARGET="contents" onMouseOver="self.status='WORLD INDEX';return true" onMouseOut="self.status='';return true"IMG SRC="/news/static/graphics/top_navworld.gif" ALIGN="TOP" ALT=" WORLD" BORDER="0"/A/TD TDA HREF="../business/index.html" TARGET="_top" onMouseOver="self.status='BUSINESS INDEX';return true" onMouseOut="self.status='';return true"IMG SRC="/news/static/graphics/top_navbusiness.gif" ALIGN="TOP" ALT=" BUSINESS" BORDER="0"/A/TD TDA HREF="../sport/index.html" TARGET="_top" onMouseOver="self.status='SPORT INDEX';return true" onMouseOut="self.status='';return true"IMG SRC="/news/static/graphics/top_navsport.gif" ALIGN="TOP" ALT=" SPORT" BORDER="0"/A/TD TDA HREF="../features/contents.html" TARGET="contents" onMouseOver="self.status='FEATURES INDEX';return true" onMouseOut="self.status='';return true"IMG SRC="/news/static/graphics/top_navfeatures.gif" ALIGN="TOP" ALT=" FEATURES" BORDER="0"/A/TD/TR /TABLE TABLE WIDTH="475" BORDER="0" CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" TR TDIMG SRC="/news/static/graphics/top_smh_sml.gif" WIDTH="291" HEIGHT="21" ALIGN="TOP" VALIGN="TOP" ALT=""/TD TD !-- START NAV1 -- A HREF="world1.html" IMG BORDER=0 ALIGN=TOP HEIGHT=21 WIDTH=89 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 SRC="/news/static/graphics/topN_prev_on.gif" ALT="Previous Story"/A /TDTD A HREF="world3.html" IMG BORDER=0 ALIGN=TOP HEIGHT=21 WIDTH=95 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 SRC="/news/static/graphics/topN_next_on.gif" ALT="Next Story"/A !-- END NAV1 -- /TD/TR/TABLE br clear=all FONT SIZE="2" FACE="helvetica,times new roman,times" !-- START DATE1 -- Wednesday, April 21, 1999 !-- END DATE1 -- /FONTP TABLE WIDTH="475" BORDER="0" CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" TRTD WIDTH="475" FONT FACE="times new roman,times,helvetica" H3 STRAPBALKANS: NATO'S REVERSAL/STRAP!-- STRAP=BALKANS: NATO'S REVERSAL -- /H3/TD/TR TRTD WIDTH="475"H2 HEADLINERadio and TV stations now in bombers' sights/HEADLINE /H2/FONT/TD/TR TRTD WIDTH="475" FONT SIZE="2" FACE="times new roman,times,helvetica" CAPT/CAPT /FONTP BWOF/WOF /BP BBYLINE/BYLINE /BP BODWashington: NATO's military commander, US Army General Wesley Clark, appears to have prevailed in a debate among alliance members over whether to target television and radio broadcasting facilities in Serbia. P The French and Italian governments, among others, had
[PEN-L:5660] Re: Re: Re: Re: Wall St running out of steam?
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Rob, these things take time. A bull market of over 16 years won't turn into a bear overnight, especially as long as interest rates behave. How will a prolonged war against Yugoslavia (and a lesser one against Iraq) affect interest rates? The line from Wall Street is that the war doesn't matter to the U.S. economy or financial markets. Unless it gets really nasty, the bastards are probably right. Doug
[PEN-L:5658] Re: Re: Young Democratic Socialists position on Kosovo
Wojtek is quite right there is no such valid form as P ) Q therefore ~P ) ~Q. The form is invalid as Wojtek shows. I think that Max's form should be called modus turdus. Perhaps Max meant not modus tollens but the transposed equivalent ~Q ) ~P. If Kosovo is not destroyed then there is not bombing. Milosevic could show Max how to destroy Kosovo without bombing it so not bombing is not a sufficient condition of Kosovo not being destroyed. Cheers, Ken Hanly Wojtek Sokolowski wrote: At 04:31 PM 4/20/99 -0400, you wrote: Yes it does by modus todus. If P then Q. ~P so ~ Q. If bombing leads to the destruction of Kosovo then not bombing will lead to not destroying Kosovo. Modus tollens, I presume which takes the form if p then q, not q, therefore not p. It is clear form the truth table for the implication p q if p then q T TT F TT T FF F FT (in plain English: implication cannot lead from a true premise toa false conclusion). the form "if p then q, not p therefore not q" is a non-sequitur which can be easily demonstrated by the following example. If someone is shot in the head, that someone is dead. (true) Nixon was not shot in the head. (true) Ergo: Nixon is not dead (false). Wojtek Modus schmodus. If Milo is determined to destroy Kosova, bombing or no, than no bombing does not save Kosova. A cessation of all bombing and an invitation to negotiation simply affords Milo Co. the opportunity to do what they like with Kosova at their leisure. *Bombing* has lead Milosevic to do whatever he likes with Kosovo. Without the war, there were constraints on what he could do. I'm not sure what those constraints were, but you agree that bombing has made the situation worse. Bombing has provided some cover for dirty deeds, yes. I'd say the cover persists, even if bombing stops. If I knew three weeks ago what I know now, I would have counseled Madeleine not to bomb, but to ship in every variety of aid worker, monitor, journalist, and other third party possible, and to prepare for a ground invasion (including selling it to the U.S. public). But we're not there anymore. case I propose: 1) minimization of all suffering by: 2) Immediate acceptance of the Serbian government's peace plan. If they Is their "plan" still on the table, including your peacekeepers? If it is, I would take it, all the while building up forces for a land invasion in the event it proved necessary. Though the decision should really be up to Kosovars, not me or you. I really don't care. So you have no respect for international law or national sovereignty? Not in its present, highly dysfunctional form, no. Who does? It's like what Gandhi said about Western civilization: "it would be a good idea." mbs
[PEN-L:5657] Re: From Jim Craven
Jim Devine wrote: I think a lot of this can be summed up by saying that we get a lot more in terms of commodified products -- the kind of stuff that's counted in Gross Domestic Product because it's bought and sold -- but we're not doing well in terms of non-commodities. I agree 100%. So far no one has commented -- even so far as to say huh? I don't know what you're talking about -- on my claim that the commodification growth agenda can be traced to a conceptual flaw in the calculus underlying mainstream economic analysis. I've given the page number where Enrico Barone introduces a demonstratively fallacious notion of labour time/output into a pareto optimalization equation. I'm got the smoking fucking gun, you guys, and nobody says "huh?" Oh yeah, right. I forgot. Nobody ever makes goofs of this magnitude. Child bed fever was Semmelweis's paranoid fantasy -- doctor, don't bother washing your hands. The Y2K bug is 600 billion dollar urban myth -- programmer, don't touch that code. And the fact that S.J. Chapman's theory of hours just kinda got forgot without anyone noticing is the kind of thing that happens everyday in academia. Where'd I put that . . . uhm? Who? Duh? Oh well, moving right along. Yeah, that and the fact that the lump-of-labour fallacy bandied about by Samuelson and the Economist and others doesn't happen to be the lump-of- labour fallacy as stated by Schloss in the 1891 Economic Review. Hey bros, I'm telling you we got a systematic pattern of fuck-ups here that points to a fatal flaw. Fantastic uptake, here considering that the eight-hours day movement was the birthplace of the modern working class movement. Am I getting impatient? Oh no. I'm just patiently writing away in the two or three hours a day when I'm not looking after a five year old, while the world is quickly going to fucking hell in a handbasket and I've got the key to turn the thing around and nobody even asks, "what's that you keep going on about, Walker?" The calculus is null and void, man, Barone ramps up dead meat onto the calculus and everything since Bergson ain't worth the trees they murdered to print the lousy journals on. Dumb fuck. regards, Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/covenant.htm
[PEN-L:5650] Greek Soldiers Refusing NATO Orders (was Re: War Communism?)
--_-1287465497==_ma Lou wrote: Over on the Trotsky newsgroup, somebody just posted something about Greek troops refusing orders. * http://www.serbia-info.com/news/military/index.html Greek army won't fight for US interests April 19, 1999 Thesalonika against NATO aggression Athens, April 19, 1999 (Beta - abridged) - More than 80 soldiers of the Greek armed forces condemned the aggression of the NATO forces on Yugoslavia and refused carrying out their duties relating to the attack on Yugoslavia. Sailor of the Greek Navy Nikos Gardikis from the destroyer Themistocles which should have set off to the Adriatic, announced his written statement in which he says he should not be involved in this war because it is beyond his oath he had given to defend his own country. The destroyer Themistocles was to replace the destroyer Kimon, taking part in annual Nato exercises in the region. Another officer and one non-commissioned officer of the destroyer Themistocles also expressed their refusal to participate in the NATO attack. The statement also came from George Papaioannou, a sailor, who said in a statement on behalf of the eight sailors who joined him: "We would rather face imprisonment, but stay with our head up high and our principles intact, rather than serve under the Nato flag and participate even indirectly in the crime being committed against Yugoslavia." His letter was backed by 26 Greek artists and novelists. =20 Copyright =A9 1998, 1999 Ministry of Information Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] * Yoshie P.S. I wonder how long we can continue to post this sort of info, in that NATO regards Yugo media (especially TV but not limited to them) as legitimate bombing targets and that the US military is developing what to do with left-wing uses of the internet. According to Michael Perelman's PEN-L post: * A study prepared for the US military on what they call "Netwar" concludes that they must center attention on countering the activities of NGOs using Internet communication. The study was sponsored by the US Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence and was produced in the RAND Arroyo Center's Strategy and Doctrine Program. The Arroyo Center is a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the United States Army. Based on an analysis of the international solidarity developed by NGOs in support of the Zapatistas, it particularly targets the APC as a network for NGOs. The following quote indicates the thrust of the study: "The most important remains the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), which, as discussed earlier, is a worldwide partnership of member networks (like Peacenet and Conflictnet) that provides low-cost computer communications services and information-sharing tools to individuals and NGOs working on social issues." The full report (in Adobe Acrobat format) is at: http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR994/MR994.pdf/ see also eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mediamentor =46ree Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com * --_-1287465497==_ma Lou wrote: Over on the Trotsky newsgroup, somebody just posted something about Greek troops refusing orders. * http://www.serbia-info.com/news/military/index.html=20 boldfontfamilyparamArial/parambiggerbiggerGreek army won't fight for US interests /bigger/bigger/fontfamily/boldApril 19, 1999 boldThesalonika against NATO aggression /boldAthens, April 19, 1999 (Beta - abridged) - More than 80 soldiers of the Greek armed forces condemned the aggression of the NATO forces on Yugoslavia and refused carrying out their duties relating to the attack on Yugoslavia. Sailor of the Greek Navy Nikos Gardikis from the destroyer Themistocles which should have set off to the Adriatic, announced his written statement in which he says he should not be involved in this war because it is beyond his oath he had given to defend his own country. The destroyer Themistocles was to replace the destroyer Kimon, taking part in annual Nato exercises in the region. Another officer and one non-commissioned officer of the destroyer Themistocles also expressed their refusal to participate in the NATO attack. The statement also came from George Papaioannou, a sailor, who said in a statement on behalf of the eight sailors who joined him: "We would rather face imprisonment, but stay with our head up high and our principles intact, rather than serve under the Nato flag and participate even indirectly in the crime being committed against Yugoslavia." His letter was backed by 26 Greek artists and novelists. =20 Copyright =A9 1998, 1999 Ministry of Information Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] * Yoshie P.S. I wonder how long we can continue to post this sort of info, in that NATO regards Yugo media (especially TV but not limited to them) as legitimate bombing targets and that the US military is developing what to do with left-wing
[PEN-L:5646] Re: Divining Devine
Max: I haven't seen anyone put forth the "social fascism" thesis (i.e., the view that the folks immediately to the right of us on the political spectrum are as bad as or worse than the fascists or Nazis), See most any post (other than reprints from the media) from Louis, Carroll, Yoshie, Valis, or, periodically, Henwood. Well, well, well. On LBO, Chris Burford called *me* social fascist for my opposition to the NATO bombings. Also, KelleyGirl called me *totalitarian* for quitting the list. Yikes! Yoshie
[PEN-L:5643] Re: Exchange with Michael Tomasky
At 05:42 PM 4/20/99 -0400, Louis wrote:Congratulations, Michael [Tomasky], you've become the Max Shachtman of the 1990s! For those who don't know, Max Shachtman was a follower and friend of Leon Trotsky's who broke with the latter when the USSR invaded Finland in 1940 and Trotsky defended that invasion. Shachtman, who'd been having increasing trouble with Trotsky's form of critical defense of the USSR, decided that the USSR was a new form of class society, neither socialist nor capitalist. He called it "bureaucratic collectivism." (He did not invent that analysis and since that time people have come up with it independent of his analysis.) But that's not what Louis was referring to, I believe. After a period of doing some progressive work, Shachtman took the ingredients of cold war liberalism from US society after World War II and added in his own brand of fierce sectarianism. He was one of the leaders of the 1960s and early 1970s movement to take over the old Socialist Party-USA and turn it into a cheering squad for the US side of the Cold War (that I referred to in an earlier missive), what became Social Democrats, USA. Shachtman had decided that the labor movement was the "third force" against both the US and the USSR. Then he equated the labor movement was the AFL-CIO. Then he equated the AFL-CIO with its president, George Meany, a heavy Cold Warrior. His close followers got jobs with the AFL-CIO or with Albert Shanker's United Federation of Teachers in NYC, siding with the union against the Black community in the 1968 strike. (I'm pretty sure that the current leader of the AFT (nee UFT) is a former member of Schachtman's inner circle.) It's interesting that some of the Cold Warriors of the Shachtman circle were pacifists who opposed World War II. People change, especially when times are bad (as during the Truman-McCarthy period). This path has been followed before. Jay Lovestone went from being a communist to being an AFL-CIO cold warrior in the generation that preceded Shachtman's. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html Bombing DESTROYS human rights. US/NATO out of Serbia!
[PEN-L:5642] Exchange with Michael Tomasky
I sent a copy of my Smedley Butler post to Michael Tomasky at New York Magazine. (www.newyorkmag.com) He is a left-liberal who backed the war in his latest column in the magazine devoted to questions about where to get the best banana split in NYC or how to meet your perfect significant other. I have had no success on either score. Tomasky's reply is followed by my nasty dig. = I know all about Smedley Butler. And I was an intern at the Nation (Cockburn's intern at that, during the contra war!!), so I know the whole scene. We probably agree on a lot of things, but you are making the Chomsky mistake of being so intent on ascribing evil to the U.S. that you fail to see evil anywhere else. The U.S. has blood on its hands, yes. So does the Soviet Union, so did Japan, so does Serbia, so do a lot of people. Your kind of thinking--that the U.S. by definition can do no good overseas--would have kept us out of WWII and given Hitler Europe. Grow up a little. = Congratulations, Michael, you've become the Max Shachtman of the 1990s! Maybe you've been watching too many Stephen Spielberg movies. This is the real reason we entered WWII, not to save Jews: "Whatever the outcome of the war, America has embarked upon a career of imperialism, both in world affairs and in every other aspect of her life...Even though, by our aid, England should emerge from this struggle without defeat, she will be so impoverished economically and crippled in prestige that it is improbable she will be able to resume or maintain the dominant position in world affairs which she has occupied so long. At best, England will become a junior partner in a new Anglo-Saxon imperialism, in which the economic resources and the military and naval strength of the United States will be the center of gravity. Southward in our hemisphere and westward in the Pacific the path of empire takes its way, and in modern terms of economic power as well as political prestige, the sceptre passes to the United States. All this is what lies beneath the phrase 'national defense'--some of it deeply hidden, some of it very near the surface and soon to emerge to challenge us." (From a speech by Virgil Jordan, president of the National Industrial Conference Board, to the Convention of the Investment Bankers Association, Dec. 10, 1940) Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:5636] RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Young Democratic Socialists position on Kosovo
Max, I've been on your case about this before, but don't you think that we can get this straight, please? Those who are being attacked, displaced, cleansed, etc. in Kosovo-Metohija, are Albanian Kosovars. Many of them are NOT Muslims, with some being Catholics (like that well known Albanian, Mother Teresa) and some are Orthodox. We have seen reports that the Serbs torched the Catholic cathedral in Pec. I would hope that you are as concerned about the non-Muslim Albanians as you are about the Muslim ones. I hear you. mbs
[PEN-L:5632] Nathan's exit
I don't know if the anti-warriors were grossly unfair to Nathan or not; it's hard for me to judge, being too close to the issue to have perspective. But I know that when I criticize anyone's opinions, I try to criticize them idea by idea, attacking the words, not the person. On the other hand, I sometimes criticize general opinions -- such as jingoism -- giving anyone who has vaguely jingoistic opinions to decide for whether they fit in that rubric. I never said Nathan was a jingoist, for example. In argument, I prefer the style where you attack from only three sides, so that the "opponent" can retreat (a strategy recommended somewhere in the Old Testament but eschewed by NATO/US). If someone says "I'm no jingo," I might say "well, your ideas share some characteristics with those of jingoes" rather than "yes you are." But Nathan didn't respond to my point-by-point criticism of his opinions. Rather he responded to my broad criticism of jingoism -- and later of DSA -- by taking it personally. I can only speculate why he did so. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html Bombing DESTROYS human rights. US/NATO out of Serbia!
[PEN-L:5630] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Young Democratic Socialists position on Kosovo
Max, I've been on your case about this before, but don't you think that we can get this straight, please? Those who are being attacked, displaced, cleansed, etc. in Kosovo-Metohija, are Albanian Kosovars. Many of them are NOT Muslims, with some being Catholics (like that well known Albanian, Mother Teresa) and some are Orthodox. We have seen reports that the Serbs torched the Catholic cathedral in Pec. I would hope that you are as concerned about the non-Muslim Albanians as you are about the Muslim ones. I realize that you were very moved by that Muslim demo you attended in Lafayette Square. But, please, let's not make an ugly situation worse, by turning an ethnic conflict into a Holy War, which there are certainly people out there trying to make it, on both sides. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 11:17 AM Subject: [PEN-L:5606] RE: Re: RE: Re: Young Democratic Socialists position on Kosovo Bombing is not immoral. The burden of proof is on you to show this. Lets have some reasons. I take it as a starting point (i.e.self-evident) that peace is everywhere and always preferable to war. I've acknowledged that those who command the bombers are not acting out of moral precepts. Neither you nor I have anything to do with this, however. The bombing will persist regardless of what we do, especially if we hold more to your view of U.S. democracy than mine. The more pertinent question for us is what should we do? To me the greater human emergency is the Muslims, not the Serbs. Muslims are suffering more in aggregate and individually than Serbs. My starting point and priority is how to effect the rescue of Muslims. I further think that such a rescue would preclude most of the current threat to innocent Serbs. How to do it? Not, I would say, by focusing protest against NATO bombing, which on this list and LBO often entails "pogrom-denial," and in the real world is typically wound up with isolationism. The case for the Muslims argues against ineffectual bombing (which incidentally is destroying the land to which the Muslims would like to return), and for peace-keeping via ground troops. The no bombing/no genocide line has the merit of foregoing callousness towards Muslims, but otherwise the 'no genocide' component is meaningless. Pacifism here is meaningless as well. Sometimes you have to pick a side. People who send bombers can be. Anybody can be immoral. What theory of morality are you working with? What the hell, lets get into some philosophy. I'd really rather not. I tried to read Hegel a few times and always dozed off after about 20 pages. What is it for an agent to be moral? Acting in accordance with a categorical imperative(i.e. rules or maxims)? Acting so as to maximize the total amount of happiness in a given society? Acting rationally? Acting out of self-interest (any libertarians out there?) Pacifists argue that any initiation of the use of force is immoral because it violates someone elses property right of self-ownership. Self-ownership is thorny issue for Marxists, but that's another story. Some Marxists use it defend abortion ( anti-abortion laws are wrong because they violate self-ownership) while they must abandon self-ownership to defend a certain interpretation of capitalist exploitation. I'll leave the abstract construction to others with the expertise and inclination. I'd rather simplify: HOW TO PROTECT INNOCENT MUSLIMS IN KOSOVA? That's my preferred moral question of the day. Presently the people in question are immoral because they are using bombing as a political substitute for action that the NATO governments, especially the U.S., are too timid to propose and promote. In and of itself, bombing does not accomplish anything. From context, it should be clear I meant 'anything positive.' Bombing does a lot of things like destroy economies and property, kill people, destroy lives and destroy ecosystems. In econospeak, NATO views these ,as well as the hundreds of thousands of *Muslims* in Iraq starving to death because of US policy, as negative externalities. A price worth paying. Human life is simply an externality. That's Nato. I'm not Nato, and neither is Nathan. Whether it makes things worse for Kosovars depends on what you think is actually going on in the province. If you think there is nothing but "normal" counter-insurgency, then the bombing makes things worse. If there is mass murder, then things can't get much worse. There was no mass murder before the bombing and ,what evidence there is, shows no mass murder after the bombing. This is total bullshit, as some informed anti-bombers have attested. Since Louis didn't answer, I'll throw his question to you: if no independent journalists are permitted to investigate atrocities in Kosova, and since both refugees and Serbs are biased, from what source would you
[PEN-L:5627] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Young Democratic Socialists position onKosovo
The more pertinent question for us is what should we do? To me the greater human emergency is the Muslims, not the Serbs. Muslims are suffering more in aggregate and individually than Serbs. My starting point and priority is how to effect the rescue of Muslims. I further think that such a rescue would preclude most of the current threat to innocent Serbs. How to do it? Not, I would say, by focusing protest against NATO bombing, which on this list and LBO often entails "pogrom-denial," and in the real world is typically wound up with isolationism. The case for the Muslims argues against ineffectual bombing (which incidentally is destroying the land to which the Muslims would like to return), and for peace-keeping via ground troops. The no bombing/no genocide line has the merit of foregoing callousness towards Muslims, but otherwise the 'no genocide' component is meaningless. Pacifism here is meaningless as well. Sometimes you have to pick a side. I'd really rather not. I tried to read Hegel a few times and always dozed off after about 20 pages. Don't blame you. There are many other philosophers besides Hegel. Any sort of political argument presupposes a moral view of the world or some sort of moral viewpoint.The clearer your moral viewpoint is and the better you defend it, your case will be all the much stronger. I'll leave the abstract construction to others with the expertise and inclination. I'd rather simplify: HOW TO PROTECT INNOCENT MUSLIMS IN KOSOVA? That's my preferred moral question of the day. Acceptance of Serbian government's peace plan and offer of ceasefire. U.N.and/or E.U. monitoring team to make sure the plan is being implemented and enforced. What other options are there? This is total bullshit, as some informed anti-bombers have attested. Saying so doesn't make it so. Since Louis didn't answer, I'll throw his question to you: if no independent journalists are permitted to investigate atrocities in Kosova, and since both refugees and Serbs are biased, from what source would you accept as legitimate a report of atrocities? If none, haven't you precluded such information on spurious, a priori grounds? Well there are problems all around. Its the same problem that occurred in Cambodia in the 1970's when refugees were the only source of information. Some of their stories were true, others false and some exaggerated. Refugees can be a good source but one has to take extreme care because refugees are not neutral actors. If sending in troops to protect Muslims and secure Kosova is escalation, that's what we need. That is a pretty big IF. Evidence and the way the situation is going so far suggests that sending in troops would have the opposite effect of what you say above. Would you be in favor of a U.N. peacekeeping mission? Nor do I see any big regional threat. Russia's hostility is premised on Nato taking over Serbia, but it is not necessary to take over Serbia to secure Kosova. If ground troops are send in, the invasion will have to be staged from a neutral country like Romania, Macedonia, Hungary or Bosnia. Various pundits have even suggested that staging may occur in Montenegro. The Serbian government and people will view this as a declaration of war on it, which will destabilize the region for many decades to come. I thought you were some kind of Leninist. What's your problem with death and destruction? Ha. Guilt by association, ad hominem and fallacy of composition all in one. Which is it? The effect of NATO's actions over the past few weeks has been the exact opposite of what it intended. (assuming that NATO intended to do good viz. save Kosovo, its people, ensure stability in the region and weaken Milosevic). Quite true. It follows that if NATO does the exact opposite of what it is doing now ( i.e. stops bombing and starts fair negotiations) it will have the effect that NATO intended when it first started the bombing. Give peace a chance! No, that doesn't follow one tiny bit. Yes it does by modus todus. If P then Q. ~P so ~ Q. If bombing leads to the destruction of Kosovo then not bombing will lead to not destroying Kosovo. A cessation of all bombing and an invitation to negotiation simply affords Milo Co. the opportunity to do what they like with Kosova at their leisure. *Bombing* has lead Milosevic to do whatever he likes with Kosovo. Without the war, there were constraints on what he could do. I'm not sure what those constraints were, but you agree that bombing has made the situation worse. If bombing leads to the destruction of Kosovo and not bombing leads to the destruction of Kosovo we have a Catch-22. In which case I propose: 1) minimization of all suffering by: 2) Immediate acceptance of the Serbian government's peace plan. If they are to be held at their word, this entails a high degree of autonomy and self-government for Kosovo. The problem is the implementation
[PEN-L:5628] [Fwd: Fwd: Interview with Noam Chomsky]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. name="nsmail44.TMP" filename="nsmail44.TMP" Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] by pop.uniserve.com with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #4) for jmusselm_rpa-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:29:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: l0310280eb34277cd47a1@[172.16.10.202] Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:28:44 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Phil Gasper [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fwd: Interview with Noam Chomsky Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] INTERVIEW by Mary Lou Findlay (MLF) with NOAM CHOMSKY (NC) As It Happens, CBC RADIO April 16, 1999 MLF: Do you think that, by in large, you and we are getting a reasonably accurate picture of what is going on in this war? NC: Ithink the reporters on the ground, many of them, are producing quite accurate stories: the way the framework and the interpretation is another question, I mean inaccurate isn't the word for it, it is ludicrous. MLF: Well tell us about that. NC: This is presented, well I haven't read the Canadian media, but in the United States and what I've seen of Europe, its presented as an humanitarian endeavor, and that is repeated over and over. Well, if anything is obvious, it's the opposite, it cannot possibly be considered by a rational person as having humanitarian motives. MLF: You don't believe that the reason for the NATO action was to rescue the Kosovo Albanians from oppression? NC: It is virtually inconceivable on rational grounds and there are simple reasons for that. One reason is simply Kosovo itself. Up until the US NATO bombing March 24th, there had been, according to NATO, 2000 people killed on all sides, and a couple of hundred thousand refugees. Well, that's bad, that's an humanitarian crises, unfortunately it's the kind you can find all over the world. For example, it happens to be almost identical in numbers to what the state department describes as the last year in Colombia: 300,000 refugees, 2 or 3 thousand people killed, overwhelming by the military forces and the para military associates, who the US arms, in fact arms are going up. That' s the way the US, Britain and other countries act when there are humanitarian crises, namely they escalate them. Now, what happened in Kosovo, well in fact the same thing. There were options on March 23rd, they chose an option which, predictably, changed the situation from a Colombia style crisis to maybe approaching a disaster, and that was a conscious choice. The effects ? Let me quote the US NATO commanding General, Wesley Clark: two days after the bombing he said it was "entirely predictable" that the reaction of the Serb army on the ground would be exactly as it was. MLF: I must interject here and say that our own foreign Minister has said nobody foresaw the scale of Milosevic response. NC: That's ridiculous, maybe they didn't foresee the exact scale, but when you bomb people they don't throw flowers at you. They react MLF: Let me ask you what you think the motive was the. NC: One thing is that any kind of turbulence in the Balkans is what's called in technical terms a crisis, that means it can harm the interests of rich and powerful people. So if people are slaughtering each other in Sierra Leone, Colombia Turkey or where ever, that doesn't effect rich and powerful people very much, therefore they are glad either to just watch it, or even contribute to it, massively as in the case of Turkey or Colombia. But in the Balkans it's different, it can effect European interests and therefore US interest, so it becomes a crisis, any kind of turbulence. Then you want to quiet it down. Well, how do you do it? The US flatly refuses to allow the institutions of international order to be involved, so no UN, and that's pretty explicit. So they have to turn to NATO. Well, NATO, the US dominates, so turn to force. So, why force? Well, several reasons, and here I think Clinton, Blair and others have been pretty honest about it. The point that they reiterate over and over is that it is necessary to establish the credibility of NATO. Now all we have to do is translate from Newspeak, what does credibility of NATO mean? I mean, are they concerned with the credibility of Italy, or the credibility of Belgium, obviously not. They are concerned with the credibility of the United States. Now what does the credibility of the United States mean?. Well, you know, ask any Mafia don, he'll explain it. So, suppose some Mafia don is running some area in Chicago, what does he mean by credibility? He means that you have got to show people that they better be obedient or else, that's credibility. MLF: I want to ask you, to go back to the United Nations for a moment though, because..., and if I may bring up the Canadian arguments again, because Canada has long been a supporter, in fact, of UN, of international law, in every instance I can think of except this one. The argument our foreign minister and our Prime Minister give now, and in
[PEN-L:5620] Young Democratic Socialists position on Kosovo
Max: This is total bullshit, as some informed anti-bombers have attested. Since Louis didn't answer, I'll throw his question to you: if no independent journalists are permitted to investigate atrocities in Kosova, and since both refugees and Serbs are biased, from what source would you accept as legitimate a report of atrocities? If none, haven't you precluded such information on spurious, a priori grounds? Actually, the very best we can hope for is that the barbaric US can raise itself up to the level of Serbia. We are among the greatest masters of atrocities in the 20th century. In the Russian Civil War, American troops fought alongside Wrangel who killed more innocent Jews than anybody in modern history and probably was Hitler's main inspiration. In the 1930s, US Marines backed vicious dictatorships in Cuba, Haiti and the Dominican Republic that routinely killed, raped and tortured their own citizens. General Smedley Butler recalls his experiences: "I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of raceteering is long. I helped purify Nicaragus for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested." In WWII, we bombed Dresden which had no military value. This atrocity was dramatized in Vonnegut's "Slaugherhouse Five". We firebombed Tokyo to spread terror among the Japanese civilian population. We then topped that off by dropping A-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when the Japanese had already given signals that they were ready to make peace. Why? As Stimson put it, we wanted to teach the Russians a "lesson". This is the kind of lesson we are trying to teach them today, by the way. The US rules the world. During the Korean War, we experimented with biological weapons according to the authors of a book reviewed in the current Nation Magazine: "Now two historians at York University in Toronto, Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman, have produced the most impressive, expertly researched and, as far as the official files allow, the best-documented case for the prosecution yet made. Still lacking a smoking biological bomblet, the authors nevertheless conclude from the circumstantial evidence that the United States is guilty--not of waging a prolonged biological attack on North Korea and China but more likely of conducting a limited covert action, a kind of experimental foray with biological weapons to test the kind of war Washington would have waged had the Korean conflict led to World War III." There is also strong evidence that the US has used biological warfare against the Cuban people, including yellow fever and dengue. In addition, the US has refused to stop producing such weapons and chemical weapons as well, violating international treaties. During the Vietnam war, the United States launched Operation Phoenix which resulted in the murders of at least 40 thousand NLF sympathizers. We also encouraged GI's to burn down villages which were suspected of being friendly to the enemy. Most people realize that Lt. Calley was the fall guy for Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and other war criminals. Their actions were deemed criminal by the World Court among other bodies. During the contra war in Nicaragua, we trained our thugs to terrorize noncombatants and even published a CIA manual to tell them how to do it. The contras routinely raped women, burned down schools and health care centers and murdered captives. And we trained them to do this. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:5616] Re: RE: Re: How the Left repeats simplistic analogies (How the Serbs became fascists
I don't have Nathan's email address, but I would urge Michael P. to express to Nathan that at least some of us regret his departure, despite our disagreements. Heck, if all the pro-bombing people leave the list, I'll have to make their arguments for them, even though I oppose the bombing, ugh! This is a very serious and difficult issue and it is understandable that people are getting worked up about it. There are strong arguments on each side, as the labels "pro-imperialist" and "pro-genocide" suggest. I would not like to see this list become a love-in fest for the anti-bomb crowd, even though there are some who might prefer that for the purposes of spending our time in figuring out "how to oppose imperialism." BTW, even though I am sometimes viewed as some kind of "voice of reason" (except when I'm not, :-)) I just lost it in my Principles of Economics classes today and ended up screaming at the top of my lungs and nearly breaking lecterns while denouncing the bombing. This thing is now out of control and has become totally unpredictable and very dangerous (or maybe that description just applies to me, :-)). The big joke is that in one section I got applauded by a rightwing Republican. Oh well... In any case, I would hope that Nathan returns and that we all try to be somewhat more reasonable with each other as we attempt to explore the evolving issues and situation that confronts us all, whatever our views are. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Bohmer, Pete [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, April 19, 1999 8:03 PM Subject: [PEN-L:5559] RE: Re: How the Left repeats simplistic analogies (How the Serbs became fascists I just sent Nathan Newman a note telling him that while I am totally against the U.S./NATO war against Yugoslavia, the self-righteousness of some of the people on this list who are against the War and their ad-hominem attacks also bothers me, e.g., a few of the many posts of Proyect and Henwood fall into this category. Because of the difficulty of anti-war people in putting forth a position that protects the rights of the Albanian Kosovans, I can understand (although not agree with) why some progressive people do not have a clear position against the U.S. war. I have done a fair amount of leafleting and speaking against the war since March 24th and find myself continually being confronted by honest people with points of view and arguments similar to what Max Sawicky and Nathan Newman have been raising. I urge members on this list to challenge as strongly as they can the arguments of members of Pen-l who support the War but to respect the individual and to not attack their motives. Peter Bohmer -- Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 19, 1999 2:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:5542] Re: How the Left repeats simplistic analogies (How the Serbs became fascists I wrote: It's interesting (and sad) that the DSA seems to be reverting to its roots [i.e., of cold-war liberalism], or more correctly, to some its worst traditions. When will they ever learn? My lord, the intellectual intolerance building on this issue by the "pro-Serbian genocide" forces (as opposed to us "cruise missile liberals") is getting quite incredible. You folks seem to refuse to deal with the fact that there are a large chunk of folks who have marched in anti-war marches for decades (or only for their short adult lifetimes) but who just see the alternatives in this situation differently. Look, I am NOT (repeat: NOT) "pro-Serbian genocide" at all; I've repeated that so many times you'd think you'd get it. You labelled yourself a "cruise missile liberal" or something like that and it seems to fit. Since you never have replied to my arguments against your arguments in favor of "cruising" the Serbs, I assume you have no reasonable reply except emotional cant about "'we' had to do _something_ about Kosovo/a" (as in the YDSA position paper). Instead, you respond in an ad hominem style with accusations of "intellectual intolerance." I am not responsible for what Milosevic or the Serbian government or the Serbs as a whole do, since I don't pay taxes to them and they don't act in my name. On the other hand, the US government takes my taxes and blows people away again and again. And as I've argued again and again -- and you've ignored and ignored -- the US/NATO is not making things better in Serbia, Kosova/o, Montenegro, Macedonia, or Albania. They are f*cking things up much more. It doesn't make sense tactically, strategically, politically, or morally. As for the "large chunk of folks who have marched in anti-war marches for decades" before deciding that imperialism was great, it's important to remember that the folks who turned the old SP-USA into a pro-war force in the late 1960s and early 1970s _also_ had their credentials as activists. And also that just because someone
[PEN-L:5612] Divining Devine
I got tired of seeing my name in subject lines, so I changed the title. Max ripostes: Silly shit indeed. . . . That's assuming that the critics of the US/NATO war against Serbia all side with Serbian ethnic chauvinism, an assumption I've criticized again and again. Max, have you ever read Chomsky? a) You cut out the part where I noted that others could wrap bandages or drive an ambulance. b) Yes I've read the dude and like him a lot. In a separate missive, I wrote: No, you're no "social fascist" . . . Max responds: I was not indulging in self-pity, at least not in this post. My reference was not to Manicheanism, but to a specific political posture promoted by Joe Stalin during his leftward-lurch and mirrored in the notion that liberals are as bad as or worse than conservatives from a socialist standpoint. I haven't seen anyone put forth the "social fascism" thesis (i.e., the view that the folks immediately to the right of us on the political spectrum are as bad as or worse than the fascists or Nazis), See most any post (other than reprints from the media) from Louis, Carroll, Yoshie, Valis, or, periodically, Henwood. I agree that some of Nathan's stuff on socialism and Nato was a little scrambled, but that's his cross to bear. BTW, I don't read Stalin's third period of "ultra-leftism" as really being leftist (whatever that means). Rather than using the simplistic "left" vs. "right" political spectrum, I would see that period as a matter of the tightening of bureaucratic control of the COMINTERN . . . Yes but the control manifested itself as prescriptions of different political lines at different times. There was one period when the prescription was to eschew all political alliances with non-communists and focus on building separate mass organizations, particularly the 'red unions' of the 1920's. There was also the brief period when the CP line re: Hitler was 'revolutionary defeatism,' conforming to isolationism. The strain of thinking to which I refer seems to have a lot in common with those approaches. To this has been added the new, even more retrograde, anti-Marxist, monochromatic historical view that capitalist was no advance over feudalism, or that within capitalism no meaningful progress has ever taken place. I haven't seen that perspective put forth. To whose opinions are you referring? Louis in particular, some of the others (excluding Henwood) more faintly. The foreign policy extension of this view is revolutionary defeatism. . . I'm sure someone has that perspective on pen-l. But I've also noticed a large number of other arguments put forth against that war. Quite true. . . . However, the DSA-types are not likely to do this is a radical way; they're gradualists (and mostly careerists). Unless you've taken a census of all DSAers and read their minds, I don't think you should apply blanket characterizations like this. There are academic marxist careerists, policy wonk careerists, journalistic careerists, etc. etc. Reference to others' motives is not really the point, more often than not. BTW, Max my spell-checker told me to replace your last name with "seasick." Note that I didn't do so. You could have done worse. mbs
[PEN-L:5611] Re: A personal note from a Philadelphia Democrat
At 11:51 AM 4/20/99 -0400, Tom Lehman wrote: "Another concern is that the Republicans will successfully elect a new national team in this country next year, partly by playing off against the perceived failure of the Democratic administration's Kosovo policy. In this, they will follow the lead of Eisenhower, who successfully argued in 1952 that he would clean up the Democratic mess in Korea." The above was written to me by a prominent Philadelphia area Democrat this morning. Democrats fully deserve it. They had a chance to remove the louse from the office - and they refused to do so. They will pay the price of they short-sightedness at the next election. I can almost hear those champaigne corks already popping up in GOP quarters. Kosovo is their deux-ex-machina solution of the Lewinsky affair fallout. Wojtek
[PEN-L:5604] Michael the Moderator Responds
I agree with Rob all the way. I think that this list, as well as a few related lists, have done wonderful work in getting the word out about the war. I wish I could find information as valuable from the corporate media. My wish would be that the 380 subscribers that merely lurk would contribute more. I know some of you are doing valuable work. Especially with the war, I think some of our far flung members outside of the Anglo Saxon regions would have a lot to teach us about what is happening. Rob Schaap wrote: Michael The Moderator occasionally lets us know this list ain't always what it could be - but it could be a lot worse than it could be better. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:5600] A progressives' war? (From Salon)
The "progressives' war" Nothing shows how outdated our concepts of "left" and "right" are more than the confusing politics behind NATO's war in Yugoslavia. - - - - - - - - - - - - BY JOE CONASON April 20, 1999 | For those of us who grew up during the Vietnam war and its ideological aftermath, the idea that what's happening over Kosovo is a "progressives' war" sounds like an Orwellian oxymoron. Opponents of NATO's action in Yugoslavia point out the obvious irony of former anti-war activists Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroeder joining forces to drop bombs on a backward country in the name of peace and humanitarianism. Yet that phrase -- "progressives' war" -- is precisely the one lately used by Tony Blair to describe NATO operations against the Milosevic regime. As the most outspoken leader of the center-left coalition that now runs the most powerful nations in the Western alliance, the British prime minister clearly intends to send the message that military force can indeed serve humane purposes. At the same time, Blair is explicitly challenging the long-standing anti-war assumptions of the modern left. Opposition to war as well as outright pacifism have been powerful themes among left-wing movements for more than a century. Although leftist ideology deemed revolutionary violence to be honorable, organized violence by the capitalist state was assumed to conceal darker motives like imperialism, profiteering and genocide. Armies conscripted from the ranks of the working class were viewed as tools of these hidden schemes, dispatched abroad to kill and die in causes that served the interests of the ruling class. The great American socialist Eugene Debs, to cite one example, went to prison because he openly agitated against the World War I draft. A similar impulse propelled Norman Thomas, who during the 1930s headed the remnant of the party once led by Debs, into a strange coalition known as the America First movement organized mainly by right-wingers opposed to U.S. involvement in World War II. Besides Thomas, who later changed his mind, many leftists in that era insisted that there was no principled choice between the totalitarian Axis and the capitalist-imperialist Allies, right up until 1939, when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Echoes of the old America First rallies can be heard today in the motley domestic movement against NATO, which draws together the likes of Patrick Buchanan and Noam Chomsky. From the right, Buchanan is, in fact, the proper heir of the fascist sympathizers whose isolationism defined itself as America First, a term he proudly uses in his current presidential campaign. From the left, Chomsky, of course, represents a different ideological perspective, developed during the Cold War when the horrific conflict in Vietnam and other Third World countries depleted the legitimacy of the struggle against communism. Under the strain of those bloodbaths, the Western alliance cracked but never quite split apart. And the young activists who took to the streets here and in Europe during that era learned to be deeply suspicious of military force as an instrument of foreign policy. So it is strange today to find many of those same people -- now middle-aged and no longer radical -- leading Western political parties and governments into war. In their new roles, Clinton, Blair and Schroeder bear responsibilities for defense and national security they could not have imagined in their youth. At the same time, they have inherited a politically chaotic, multipolar world of increasing regional violence, where the failure to intervene militarily can be just as morally questionable as the decision to fight once seemed. It is a world in which the outdated preconceptions of both right and left are dangerously irrelevant. That is why, inevitably, the ancient question of what constitutes a "just war" has reappeared in modern paraphrase, as what makes a war "progressive." Blair tells us that he and the other NATO leaders -- a "new generation" who "hail from the progressive side of politics" -- are "fighting not for territory but for values," for a "new internationalism where the brutal repression of whole ethnic groups will no longer be tolerated." Those are fine objectives I happen to share, although I believe the utopian rhetoric should be tempered with a stronger dose of pragmatism. I also agree that much of the carping about NATO policy toward Yugoslavia has been wrong. If there is such a thing as progressive war-making, it must be preceded by every possible diplomatic approach to the avoidance of war. It must be accompanied by the informed consent of the nations whose children and resources may be lost. It must be conducted with the maximum feasible regard for sparing innocent lives, including those of soldiers in the field. All these preconditions tend to place at an initial disadvantage any democracy fighting against a dictatorship, but in the long run they make the democracies
[PEN-L:5596] BLS Daily Report
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--_=_NextPart_000_01BE8B33.1446B300
BLS DAILY REPORT, MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1999
The unemployment rate was relatively stable throughout much of the United
States in March, with 43 states and Washington, D.C., reporting shifts of
0.3 percentage point or less, BLS reports. ... In March, seven states --
Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Ohio --
registered the lowest rates in their series. ... (Daily Labor Report, page
D-5).
Construction of privately owned housing fell 1.3 percent in March, the
second consecutive monthly drop, the Commerce Department announces. ...
Starts peaked at 1.82 million units in January, the highest level since
December 1986. But economists say there still is plenty of strength in the
housing sector. ... (Daily Labor Report, page D-1).
Industrial production edged ahead just 0.1 percent in March, and factory use
rates continued to slide, falling to their lowest level in nearly seven
years, the Federal Reserve says. ... (Daily Labor Report, page D-13).
Output at the nation's factories, mines, and utilities posted a slight
increase in March, despite a decline in production at automobile plants.
Construction of new homes and apartments fell for the second consecutive
month. The strength in industrial output came from a big jump in energy
production at utility plants. The advance was far below an advance of 0.3
in February, and reflected declines in production of autos and appliances.
In a separate report, the Commerce Department said housing construction
fell. ... (New York Times, April 17, page B3).
While manufacturing output at America's factories was flat in March, they
operated at only 79.3 percent of capacity-- the lowest monthly level in
nearly 7 years, the Federal Reserve Board reported. With so much spare
capacity, analysts say manufacturers probably will have to back off from the
current levels of capital spending during the second quarter and for the
remainder of the year. Separately, the Commerce Department said March
housing starts fell. Construction of single-family units slipped 0.1
percent in March, while multifamily starts were down about 6 percent. ...
(Wall Street Journal, page A4).
Finally, it's the workers' turn. Earlier in this decade, profits rose
sharply and wages didn't. Now profits are slumping and wages are rising,
says David Wessel in the Wall Street Journal ("The Outlook" feature, page
A1). ... A few years ago, much was made of charts that showed that labor's
slice of the national pie was shrinking. ... Though it's puzzling that
wages haven't risen faster as the jobless rate has fallen to a 29-year low,
labor's share of the pie stopped shrinking 2 years ago. Weekly paychecks
for a typical full-time male worker, the $32,000-a-year fellow who lost
ground to inflation form 1987 to 1994, are now rising faster than inflation.
Even the worst-paid workers, the ones who suffered most over the past 20
years, are enjoying a raise. ... What's going on? Full employment helps;
productivity growth is improving; workers' purchasing power is climbing
because prices aren't; and workers' skills are rising. ...
Many manufacturing executives at the board meeting of the National
Association of Manufacturers said that, while the worst of the global
economic crisis that pummeled many companies appears to be behind them,
profits might actually weaken in the months ahead before making a rebound.
Some pointed to nascent signs of life in their orders from battered Asia.
But few suggested that international demand for their goods would be
springing back with much gusto anytime soon. ... (Wall Street Journal, page
A2).
--_=_NextPart_000_01BE8B33.1446B300
b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQWAAwAOzwcEABQACQAmAB4AAgA9AQEggAMADgAAAM8HBAAU
AAkAJgAfAAIAPgEBCYABACExNkE3OUI2RjAzRjdEMjExODg4RTAwQzA0RjhDNzgzMQAWBwEE
gAEAEQAAAEJMUyBEYWlseSBSZXBvcnQAkAUBDYAEAAICAAIAAQOQBgDICwAAHEAAOQAg
OxwUM4u+AR4AcAABEQAAAEJMUyBEYWlseSBSZXBvcnQAAgFxAAEWAb6LMxKQ
b5unIvcDEdKIjgDAT4x4MQAAHgAxQAENUklDSEFSRFNPTl9EAAMAGkAAHgAw
QAENUklDSEFSRFNPTl9EAAMAGUAAAgEJEAEfCQAAGwkAAH0PAABMWkZ1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[PEN-L:5595] U.S. Jets Hit Iraqi Targets
AP Headlines Monday April 19 12:48 PM ET U.S. Jets Hit Iraqi Targets ANKARA, Turkey (AP) - U.S. fighter planes attacked Iraqi defense sites in northern Iraq today after being targeted by Iraqi radar, U.S. officials said. It was the second confrontation in the northern no-fly zone in about a month. U.S. Air Force F-15Es dropped laser-guided bombs on radar sites in the vicinity of Mosul, according to a statement from the Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey where American jets are based. The statement said damage was being assessed. All coalition aircraft left the area safely. On Saturday, the Iraqi armed forces said four civilians died and another was injured when U.S. jets struck Iraqi military sites in the area. British and U.S. planes have targeted Iraqi defense sites in northern and southern Iraq since Iraq started challenging allied planes enforcing the no-fly zones in mid-December. The northern and southern zones were set up after the 1991 Gulf War to prevent Iraqi warplanes from threatening rebel groups in the north and south. Earlier Stories U.S. Planes Strike Iraqi Targets (April 17) Search News Stories Search News Photos Apr 19 | Apr 18 | Apr 17 | Apr 16 | Apr 15 | Apr 14 | Apr 13 | Apr 12 | Apr 11 | Apr 10
[PEN-L:5588] (Fwd) FALLOUT FEARED FROM URANIUM SHELLS
--- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date sent: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 12:35:28 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Sid Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:FALLOUT FEARED FROM URANIUM SHELLS The ProvinceMonday, April 19, 1999 FALLOUT FEARED FROM URANIUM SHELLS LONDON Depleted uranium, which is included in anti-tank weapons and other armaments available to the U.S. and Britain in the Kosovo conflict, could have long term health effects on soldiers and civilians. The U.S. has refused to say whether it has used the weapons but confirms it has them in the field and "picks the best weapons for the available target." The British defence ministry also has them in readiness for use on Harrier jet fighters. Weapons tipped or packed with depleted uranium were used extensively for the first time in the Gulf War and are blamed by some scientists for the phenomenon known as Gulf War syndrome and by the Iraqis for birth defects and cancers in southern Iraq. The uranium has been developed by NATO as an armour-piercim4 weapon because it is 2.5 times heavier than steel and 1.5 times heavier than lead and can be fired at high A-10 Warthog shoots uranium slugs at tanks. er velocity, which causes more destruction. Depleted uranium has been used as a nose cone on Tomahawk cruise missiles, which can also contain a rod of uranium for penetrating bomb-proof targets. It is not thought these have so far been used in this conflict but the American A-10 Warthog ground attack aircraft uses uranium bullets for knocking out tanks. The Apache helicopters. soon to be deployed, have the same guns. Tests on Gulf veterans last year by independent Canadian scientists show that some have uranium in their bloodstream. Henk van der Keur, a molecular biologist from the Document and Research Centre on Nuclear Energy in Amsterdam, said: `'lt is becoming more and more clear in independent studies that depleted uranium is the main candidate for causing so-called Gulf War syndrome. At first no-one took this matter seriously because it is not highly radioactive, but on impact uranium turns to dust and can be breathed in. "In our view it is a serious danger long term to soldiers returning from the battlefield and to the civilians remaining behind in the war zone when peace finally returns. We think these weapons should be banned." The Guardian
[PEN-L:5584] (Fwd) IN SERBIA, ORDINARY PEOPLE FEEL SUFFERING AND AGONY OF W
--- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date sent: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:15:33 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Sid Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:IN SERBIA, ORDINARY PEOPLE FEEL SUFFERING AND AGONY OF WAR http://www.independent.co.uk/stories/B1004902.html THE INDEPENDENT Saturday, 10 April 1999 IN SERBIA, TOO, THE ORDINARY PEOPLE FEEL THE SUFFERING AND AGONY OF WAR By Robert Fisk in Cuprija NATO's war is growing more brutal by the hour. I spent most of yesterday - the Orthodox Easter Good Friday - clambering through the rubble of pulverised Serb homes and broken water pipes and roof timbers and massive craters. At Cuprija, Nato jets have blasted away seven homes, two of them direct hits, during an attack on the local army barracks. In Kragujevac, the workers at the massive Zastava car plant who so stubbornly told me just over a week ago that they would sleep on the factory floor to protect their workplace - they even sent e-mails to Clinton, Albright and Solana to this effect - were rewarded with an attack by cruise missiles that smashed into the car works and wounded 120 of the men. And at Aleksinac, it now turns out that up to 24 civilians may have been killed five days ago in the attack by a Nato jet - believed by the Yugoslav military to be an RAF Harrier. Workers still digging through the wreckage yesterday told me that they had recovered 18 bodies and that six more civilians were still missing. The 13th funeral was held yesterday morning - of Dragica Milodinovic, who died of her wounds three days after her husband, Dragan, and their daughter were blasted to pieces in the bombing. At the site yesterday, I found Svetlana Jovanovic standing beside a mechanical digger, unnoticed by the policemen, rescue workers and journalists walking over the wreckage. "Both my parents died just over there - where the bulldozer is moving the rubble," she said quietly. "I was staying in Nis for the night and this saved my life." Beside her was part of the torn casing of the Nato bomb that buried the couple in their cottage. There is a lot of palpable anger in Aleksinac - a Russian resident shouted abuse when he heard me speak in English. But there was not a word of malice from Svetlana, no rhetorical condemnation of the Nato attacks. When I said how sorry I was for her family, she replied in English: "Thank you for coming to see our suffering." Spyros Kyprianou, the speaker of the Cypriot parliament, turned up at the bomb sites during the day on a hopeless mission to secure the release of the three American soldiers captured by Serb forces last week - in anticipation, no doubt, of obtaining US support for a Greek Cypriot solution to the island's partition. He was given a loud and angry account of Nato's sins from Serbian government officials - nothing about the appalling suffering of Kosovo's Albanian civilians, of course - and never had a chance to hear the names of those who died in Aleksinac. Nato says the bomb that killed the people there may have suffered a "malfunction" which caused - that obscene phrase yet again - "collateral damage". The "damage" in this case includes Svetlana Jovanovic's parents, the Milodinovics and their daughter, Jovan Radojicic and his wife, Sofia, Grosdan Milivojevic and his wife, Dragica. Nor was it "collateral": one of the bombs landed square on the Jovanovic house. It was the same story - with mercifully no deaths - at Cuprija. A farming town of 20,000 a hundred miles south of Belgrade, its local barracks was attacked early on Thursday in a raid that left a square mile of devastation through dozens of homes. The Yugoslav army garrison had abandoned the place 10 days ago - "we're not fools," a policeman said - but the civilians stayed on and waited for the inevitable. When the first of seven bombs fell, they ran to their basements as their houses collapsed on top of them. I found one home that was simply blasted from its foundations and hurled across the road into a neighbour's field, the owner left crouching - miraculously untouched - in his basement. Another bomb had exploded in a lane opposite a school, breaking the local water mains and blasting down the walls of a bungalow. True, there is a military barracks at Cuprija - at least two bombs had torn off the roof of the empty Tito-era monstrosity half a mile away. And there is a military building 800m from the site of the Aleksinac slaughter. And yes, Nato believes - and Yugoslav sources confirm - that part of the Zastava car factory is used for weapons production. It is the fate of Yugoslav industry that, thanks to Tito, hundreds of its factories have dual production facilities. And the Kragujevac car plant management had pleaded with its workers to end their sit-in. But Nato's refusal to show restraint when it knew the workers had stayed in the
[PEN-L:5582] Re: RE: Re: Young Democratic Socialists position onKosovo
Max Sawicky wrote: In my romantic senility I'm maturing to the left. We welcome you Max. Now if you could only shake your infatuation with ordnance. Doug
[PEN-L:5580] RE: Re: Young Democratic Socialists position on Kosovo
Max Sawicky wrote: And anyone who thinks they will advance in the U.S. power elite by enlisting in the Democratic Socialists of America, pro-war or not, is too dumb to be a concern to anyone. Max, They could always serve their "socialist in my romantic youth" time in DSA, then have second thoughts and intellectually mature to the right. It's been done. Tom Walker True enough, but you lose valuable time selling newspapers and sitting through boring meetings when you could be networking and advancing up the corporate ladder. Plus you have less to explain away later. In the 1992 campaign, poor Bill Clinton was accused of being a Russian spy because he went to the USSR as a college student. To add insult to injury, he was probably a CIA stringer at the time. In my romantic senility I'm maturing to the left. mbs
