Hi Sam (and others), (FYI, I agree with Sam's argument and conclusions in the quoted text, below).
A quick glance at the map and a review of economic developments between Austria-Germany and Slovenia-Croatia will shed a lot of light into why Germany and Austria were so quick to recognize Slovenia and Croatia as independent, sovereign states. At that point in time, there was no obvious humanitarian crisis in the Balkans. You might also be interested in doing a web search on *Corridor X* and the *Albania, Macedonia, and Bulgaria Oil Company* (AMBO). Take that info and cross reference it to the map. Voila, a handy trans-European route that bypasses both Greece and Turkey (and remains in American control). Hmmm. Some would argue that the humanitarian response in Bosnia and Kosovo (and Macedonia) was just a cover for more sinister plans. If so, the European governments were just as greedy and selfish as the USA. If not, then the *humanitarian mandate* remains valid and is applicable to Iraq (where Saddam has killed more of his citizens than Milosevic ever did). In either case, it's a little late in the neo-colonial game for any party (on either side of the Atlantic) to claim the moral imperative. Governments, by virtue of their status as sovereign states within the UN structure, have a mandate to maintain the current system. The alternative would be the recognition of governments based upon social groupings (and not geography). Since NO current sovereign state is willing to endorse that type of government, any discussion about *good and bad* is a moot point. Every sovereign state determines their own actions to be *good* and necessary for the protection of its citizens, and their is no supreme authority to declare those actions illegal. Thus, *good and bad* is relative, and determined ultimately by brute force. We all like to think that this determination is by the majority consensus in the UN, but (as we've recently seen) this, too, is only wishful thinking. Therefore, I argue that all the criticism (of any state) is misplaced. Since we are all a citizen of a sovereign state, we all are de facto supporters of the system and have no moral position to criticize the morality of another state. Austria and Germany schemed as much in Croatia as the USA is in Iraq. France is just as guilty in Africa as America is in the Middle East. In short, we are all equally innocent or equally guilty. As a former American President once said (although about a different subject), ... "It's about the economy, stupid". Every government does whatever is necessary for its continuance and prosperity. Always has and probably always will. Certain wars are inevitable because certain sovereign states have differing objectives that are mutually exclusive. We should either accept that reality or change the system. In the interim, how can we collectively pick up the pieces (of the current crisis) and make friendships with those who (some would say) are our enemies? For those who say this is impossible, I suggest some research into British-American historical relationships (over, say, the last 400 years). Regards to all, Bob Dohse On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: (in response to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) ... <snipped> > When Slobodan Milosevic and the Serbs were conducting their "ethnic > cleansing" campaigns in Kososvo, the US went to war against the > Serbs. > The US went to war against the Serbs just because their leader, > Milosevic, was being seen as a very evil man in world opinion > because > he was committing genocide. Although he was doing very evil > things, > he wasn't threatening the US or any of those European nations which > teamed up in a military coalition to stop his genocide campaign and > to overthrow him. During the Kosovo-Bosnia war we were not hearing > from the countries of our NATO allies any protests about US > "aggression" against Milosevic. It was considered perfectly OK to > go > after Milosevic and put him out him out of business. This was seen > as > ly OK simply on the grounds that Milosevic is an evil man and > that the world would be a lot better off without his genocide > campaigns. > Nearly all Europeans know that Saddam Hussein also is a very evil > man. > He can be compared to Milosevic. Saddam Hussein commits genocide > campaigns against the Kurds living in Iraq. It is very well known > that > he has killed thousands of Kurds by attacking them with chemical > agents. > These Kurds whom he kills are his own people. If Saddam remains in > power he will kill more Kurds, and he will likely use chemical > agents > against them again. Even if he doesn't have any more weapons of > mass > destruction to kill them with, I am sure he has other means of > killing > them. > > Why are so many people making such a fuss about US threats to > conduct > a war of alleged aggression against Saddam Hussein? If it is OK to > attack Milosevic to stop genocide, then why isn't it OK to attack > Saddam Hussein for the same reason? The issue isn't really about > aggression or weapons of mass destruction. It is about genocide > and > the need to get rid of a ruthless and evil dictator. > > Sam Heywood > -- > This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: > http://browser.arachne.cz/ > > > ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com
