Nathan Newman wrote:
Come on, Jim. Those of us who have supported intervention have been
denounced as "imperialists" while folks like LM have been praised for being
"anti-imperialist."
1) The U.S. government and NATO are two of the most important
institutions of imperialism in existence.
2)
It is hard to believe that anyone here would still want to defend the
Clinton/NATO policy any more. We have been through that many times now.
If we want to see the depths of US humanitarianism, I suggest that we look in
the direction of Baghdad.
Doug Henwood wrote:
Nathan Newman wrote:
I wrote: also, despite its faults, LM deserves credit for breaking with
the imperialist consensus in favor of the US/NATO war against Yugoslavia in
Kosova/o.
Nathan writes:
What imperialist "consensus"? Large parts of the establishment in Europe
and the US resisted any kind of serious
On Behalf Of Jim Devine
For that reason, we should all be a bit less ready to denounce allies as
enemies over such issues, and a bit more cautious in embracing
traditional
enemies just because of short-term convergence on policy
who was embracing whom? and who was denounced, and by
Michael Keaney wrote:
I recall correctly Louis Proyect has already highlighted the dubious
activities of LM to PEN-L; in fact, didn't Doug Henwood get some stick for
having an article published there?
Yes, and so what? "Dubious activities" are not enough of a
justification to put a magazine
By the way, this outcome undermines the argument that LM is some
sinister tool of British capital, doesn't it?
Doug
LM is/was a bizarre libertarian magazine that had cut its ties to the left
some time ago. Doug decided to publish in their pages fully knowing this.
Meanwhile he derides Alex
