Jim writes: "why does Robert insist on name-calling?"
I don't insist on name calling. I do insist that there should be a consistent standard. I don't see you reproaching anyone who attacks me personally. Why do you reproach only me, leaving the many personal attacks on me remarked? On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > Carrol Cox <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Incidentally, one source of considerable intellectual confusion is the > continuing Myth that there exists a separate political current called "The > Neocons." But no real change in policy (real being defined as saving lives) > has occurred in the last 20 years.<< > > this doesn't make sense. In the post-Cold War era, there has been a > clear division between those US jingoists who believe that the US > should intervene unilaterally in other countries (the neocons) and > those who think that the US power elite must bring in allies to > legitimate US interventions. The debate between these two may not > exist at an extremely high (Olympian) level of abstraction, since they > unite to back US imperialism to the hilt, but it's a lower level > abstraction that helps explain the twists and turns of US foreign > policy.[*] BTW, the distinction can't be "measured" by looking at the > number of people who died due to US interventions (or saved by their > absence), since that also depends on the situations that interventions > faced. > > Robert Naiman wrote: > > It's funny how little intellectual development has taken place in > orthodox > > Marxism since 1933. It's like Dorian Gray, frozen in time. > > why does Robert insist on name-calling? > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your > own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > > [*] The split between two similar schools (exemplified by Walter > Cronkite's decision to air his view that the war couldn't be won) > helped change the nature of the US war against Vietnam. Maybe not for > the better for the Vietnamese people, but in the end, strategic > bombing without ground troops doesn't work well at all, so that the > Nixonian strategic shift almost inevitably implied that the NLF and > North Vietnam would win (at least on paper). > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected]
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
