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 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. People get
very suspicious when they think that you are overstating a defense.
So why do it?
More of the same here.....
<Our antiwar movement will never grow unless organizers go to the people
and expose the lies told about the Serbs because the key to NATO's
ability to attack Yugoslavia is Serb-baiting. It's as simple as that.
The key to the Vietnam war was anti-communism - but now the key is
racism against Serbs.>
First of all, Yugoslavia does not occupy the total centrality to the
movement that Vietnam did. 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.
The 'key' to all of this is not 'racism against Serbs'. You have
gone and seriously overstated your case again. There is a lot of
racism flowing in all directions in the US, but racism against Serbs is
so unprevalent, as to be almost non-measurable.
I say that, fully realizing that there is a tiny group of
liberal-radicals that have become phobic on The Balkan issue. They
see Serb racism everywhere, and their phobia about it almost borders on
being anti-Serb racism. But the general population harbors no racist
ill-will against Serbs.
I mentioned in my last email about 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. And I mentioned the
negative role of Nader and the trade union leadership, as well as the Z
crowd, in hindering building an antiwar consciousness.
It is wrong to go mislabelling the cause of inaction on the antiwar
front, as being Americans moved by anti-Serb racism. The reason that
The Movement is doing so little to mobilize against all the US wars, is
the lack of desire of US marxist and socialist groups to do their duty,
and defend the international working class from the backwardness of
their own native US working class.
Instead, a program of US trade union building is counterposed to
actively working to build international solidarity to defend Third World
self-determination.
Tony Abdo
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
