Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | The philosophy, work & influences of Noam Chomsky |
Date: | Tue, 14 Dec 1999 20:12:49 -0800 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
on 12/14/99 7:00 PM, Bergesons at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Here we get into serious misrepresentations of facts that NATO apologists
> rely on regularly.
Hitchens is a NATO apologist? How quaint.
> The idea that the US was not "intervening" in East Timor
> is reprehensible, in addition to being patently false.
I see nothing in the quote that suggests he was implying otherwise.
> However, this argument does not address the basic issue up for
> discussion by Tresy-- namely that the NATO bombing was a moral intervention.
To my knowledge I have never said it was a moral intervention, especially in
the sense that you mean it. I may have said it was a just war, but that's
not the same thing. In a post a few minutes ago, I reiterated my agreement
with Chomsky that nations never act selflessly, but I disagree with his
implied assumption that that makes their actions automatically bad. Kosovo
is one such case. I agree with the action taken, and I think the outcome is
about as good as could be expected, given the various constraints on the
actors in it. It certainly was infinitely preferable to the status quo
ante--except to the Serbs, who were (and remain) unrepentant aggressors.
|
|
|