>
> 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.
>
I admit that I did imply that Hitchens is a NATO apologist.  However, what I
meant, and actually said was that he is using a lie that is regularly
bandied about by NATO apologists to make a point.  WHat point do you see
Hitchens making here?

> > 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.

You're right, I see your point here.  You do contend that the effects of the
strikes were beneficial to the region-- that they mitigated the humanitarian
crisis, etc... correct?

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.

In fact, Chomsky not only does not imply this assumption, he explicitly
contradicts it.  He generally sees the US entry in to WWII as motivated by
selfish reasons but beneficial in spite of this.  THere are other examples,
I believe.

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.

Again, if you consider the outcome of massive destruction of infrastructure,
exponential increase of refugees, elimination of on-the-ground monitors, an
increased Yugoslav army presence in Kosova, decimation of internal
democratic dissent during the cleansing operations, and the commission of
war crimes to be as good as could be expected, I think you set your sights a
bit too low. Surely the bombing created the ideal atmosphere in which
Milosevic and the paramilitaries could have a free hand to carry out
whatever they might on the ground.  Also, commission of war crimes is not
acceptable under any circumstances.

It certainly was infinitely preferable to the status quo
> ante--except to the Serbs, who were (and remain) unrepentant aggressors.
I can understand your point here. However, we might want to look at other
parties closer to home who were also complicit in aggression.  THat would be
our first responsibility as moral actors.  First condemn and resist immoral
acts in which you are implicated, and which you have the power to influence.

Because self-defence was not an issue, and because the US refused to even
submit their actions to the security council, NATO and the US airforce was
also guilty of aggression.  Are you repentant?  Striking out at innocents in
the midst of a crackdown on terrorism is exactly what Milo was doing.

Soren