En relaci�n a [CrashList] Re: Is Chomsky The Problem?,
el 10 Sep 00, a las 16:28, Tony Abdo dijo:
> In answer to several comments by Jared-
>
> <Aabdo everyone is brutal in war. That's true by definition, so isn't
> it irrelevant?>
>
> How can it be irrelevant when people are trying to judge the relative
> brutality of Milosevic versus Clinton and Blair and others?
The question, Tony, is WHAT people are doing that. No revolutionary
should even think of such a question. Clinton, Blair, Jospin, they
are all BY DEFINITION more brutal than any head of a non-imperialist
state. It is not a matter of personal moral contexture, it is a
matter of concrete historic standing. The United States, Britain,
France and Germany are (and will always be while imperialism exists)
"more brutal" than Qadaffi, Hussein, Khomeini, or Milosevic. Even
that this son of a bitch Putin. Even than Menem (and this is a long
way into brutality).
This is just the ABC for a Marxist. Of the revolutionary brand, I
mean.
>
> The big lie is that Milosevic is the big thug, whereas the leaders of
> the imperialist countries are just a group of do-gooders with no axe
> to grind. So many want to accept this B.S., and your site has done
> an excellent job of giving some real perspective in the debate.
>
> But Milosevic has been behind some very brutal programs, and trying to
> deny this is a case of overstating Yugoslavia's defense.
This is what you cannot see: it is impossible, absolutely impossible,
to "overstate" Yugoslavia's defense. All the tremendous crimes that
have apparently set the Serbs apart of humankind have been, to my
knowledge, demonstrated to be lies. Their opponents have been shown
to be at least equally brutal, and generally more criminal than them.
This is not a moment for careful sifting, dear Tony, this is a moment
for embattled warfare. Yugoslavia is under an operation to overthrow
Milosevic in the next elections. This is also WAR. We are witnessing
the second phase of the bombings.
> People
> get very suspicious when they think that you are overstating a
> defense. So why do it?
I get very suspicious myself when an imperialist campaign of slander
is downplayed. You know very well the ways of imperialism in Latin
America, dear Tony. Please think of it twice.
[...]
I agree with you, Tony, in that
>
> What differentiates our world from the
> world of the Vietnam era, is just the shear numbers of low-intensity
> conflicts that the US is engaged in, all at one time. The US is
> truly now at war with the entire Third World, from Colombia to Russia
> to Iraq to Palestine to Yugoslavia to China to the South Pacific to
> throughout Africa.
Anyway, I believe it can be shown that many of those places were also
attacked, though by different means, by the imperialist nations. I
however agree that the panorama is still more murderous today. But
even thus, I cannot see how is it that you do not grasp the
importance of this attack on Yugoslavia. If the USA succeed in
overthrowing Milo, then they will be strengthened the world over, AND
THEY HAVE GOOD CHANCES TO OVERTHROW HIM THIS TIME. Each one of us
counts this time.
[...]
I find your position most amazing, then, when I see that you can
watch
>
> how the Black community had become
> convinced that US interventionism in Africa is a positive. And how
> the Tex-Mex and other US Hispanics also saw most US interventionism in
> Latin America in a positive light, too.
How can't you see, then, that the idea is to convince the Serbs that
US interventionism (by a middleman, this opponent to Milo) will be
positive?
N�stor Miguel Gorojovsky
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
