Alister wrote....
<.....Milosevic - he was clearly not a democrat of any sort. I have a
great deal of antipathy to what we term parliamentary democracy, but
would suggest that it's preferable to no democracy at all.>

This seems to be a comparison between US style 'democracy' and what,
Alister?    Communist dictatorship? (the phrase the Right always loves
to use)...      Can we call imperialist countries pumping money into
influencing the Yugoslav election, 'parlimentary democracy'?

More.....
<I want to point out that I think neither NATO's actions nor Milosevic's
methods were good things. I realise that it's not as simple as
opposition to NATO = support for Milosevic, but that seems to be where
you're coming from (correct me if I'm wrong). By the way, what's your
take on the apparent desire for Montenegro to secede from Yugoslavia?>

No... opposition to NATO does not mean we have to support Milosevic.
That is not where I'm coming from.      However, Left opposition to
Milosevic from citizens of the US and it's NATO allies should be seen as
giving ideological support to NATO during its attack on Yugoslavia.
Of the same mode, why is it your business or mine, whether Montenegro
should or should not be able to secede from Yugoslavia?

<However, the distinction between Iraq and Yugoslavia is not as great as
you might think in terms of the attacks - the issue is that when you're
focusing on bombs falling on your head, you don't necessarily have time
to organise a meaningful opposition.>   and again....
<Then take it up with him (Chomsky). Back up your words with some solid
research showing military action (not defeat - that's not the issue
Chomsky talks about) damaged the support for Milosevic. As best as I can
make it out, it's argued that while the bombs are falling there's little
or no possibility for an uprising. If this is incorrect, I would be
interested to find out.>

This reduction of war to being 'while the bombs are falling on your
head' is nonsense.     Neither you nor Chomsky believe that.    Both of
you understand the role of economic warfare.    Military action against
Yugoslavia (or Iraq) is NOT support for the current leader of the bombed
country.     It is an effort to destroy.

Saying that NATO bombing is indeed support for Milosevic, is twisting
words and meanings to distract from the ramifications of this opposition
to Milosevic from Leftists in the Imperialist Bloc.      It's not true
that Clinton, Blair , etc. were supporting Milosevic.     It's the truth
rather, that the silent Leftists of these countries were condoning NATO
actions by ideologically attacking Milosevic at the precise time their
own ruling classes decided to attack the country he governed.

Alister continues.....
<I was wondering how long it would take before Nicaragua would be
brought in. After all, there is an apparent similarity... if you don't
look very deeply. Where's the US-funded army of Yugoslavians blowing up
schools and hospitals?>

Who is not looking very deeply?    The US role in fomenting racial,
national, and cultural differences in Nicaragua is almost identical with
its role in the inforced Yugoslav disintegration.    The timing is a
little different.

The US IS funding police and military buildup in Bosnia, Croatia, and
Kosovo.     Have you not heard of the expansion of NATO?     The US
buildup of terrorism in The Balkans is on the same league as what was
done in Central America.

To my criticism of Chomsky not using his distinct authority to help
build a movement against war......
<What unique position is he in exactly? *That's* one of the key things
that comes through in his writings - everyone's in a position to act and
organise. In that respect, Chomsky's in no worse a position than anyone
else who's not actively building an antiwar movement.>

Ramsey Clark and Roy Bourgeois are two examples of people with much less
a following, doing much more to try to build and sustain a movement
against the US military.       The unique position that Chomsky occupies
is in being the most known of the Left intellectuals, while being the
one who is doing some of the least to build an alternative movement to
US foreign policy.     This was not always the case.

And last....
<There's an "out" open to Iraq - the appearance of meaningful change
without any actual change. What's the possibility of them taking it?>

This refusal to let go of the Iraq/ Yugoslavia analogy doesn't hold up.
The US has deliberately propped up Saddam Hussein for many years (before
and after breaking Iraq), for one reason or the other.      The same is
not true of Milosevic.

Of course, that will run against the line that Milosevic's electoral
defeat was an accident not wanted by the US.     It came as a surprise!
And one that has left NATO confused about what to do!     What
poppycock!

The truth is, that NATO didn't want Milosevic in office from some time
ago.    It went to war to push to have him removed, since he was rather
popular.     NATO doesn't want continued chaos in The Balkans, though it
favors just that in Iraq, since it splits the Arab world.

The US wants to stabilize The Balkans.     And Milosevic is not part of
that picture.    The US wants to destabilize and split its Persian Gulf
opposition.     Saddam in power fits the game plan.


Tony Abdo