Alister, I agree with you on one comment you made earlier.     The world
does not revolve around the NATO interventionism in Yugoslavia.
Much of The Left in Europe and the US has seemed to think so in varying
degrees, at one time or another.      That's probably due to the focus
on inter-imperialist relations that was brought to the fore.

<How does the US profit by having "stability" in the Balkans? They were
already stable before the US started bombing.>

The answer to this, illustrates why the US offered an out to the Serbs,
and none to the people of Iraq.     The US severely strained relations
with its Euopean allies when it became cear that the US supported
destabilizing the region to gain its own entry into determining Balkan
affairs.     Now, it has to make amends by sponsoring some sort of
stabilization in the near future.

A festering war in Europe is too close to home for the allies of US
imperialism.    They have no such concerns in the Persian Gulf region.
The US wants an official demon in place in Iraq, but wants someone more
like a Yugoslav Yeltsin in place in Belgrade.

<What I've been getting at is that after the bombing stopped and the
sanctions started, the army profited. The army was also supporting
Milosevic. Why do you think they changed sides?>

I don't see how you can feel that the Yugoslav army has profited?
They are terrorfied of a renewed outbreak of the hot war.      That's
why they changed sides.    Plus, economic sanctions do not lead to
living the good life for any Yugoslav, civilian or military.

The key reasons why theYugoslavia situation is different than Iraq is
#1--- imperialism offered a semi- negociated surrender of this sort to
the Yugoslavs, whereas it didn't in Iraq......... and
#2---- Milosevic headed a 'parlimentary democracy' and was not a
'dictator' of the Saddam Hussein variety.

<*Silent* Leftists would have been condoning NATO actions. Had they been
silent, they would not have been ideologically attacking Milosevic. I
don't agree that attacking Milosevic by definition means supporting
NATO.   The *primary* focus of Left action should have been
anti-bombing, but this does not rule out a critique of the regime.>

Let me elaborate what I mean by using the word SILENT to describe the
band of intellectuals that Chomsky heads up in the imperialist
countries.      Because their silence, in fact, was very noisy.
This confuses many.

The noisy portion of the silence, was the constant 'analysis' of
Milosevic, occasionally seasoned with a pinch of criticism of what NATO
actions were producing.

The SILENCE, was the refusal to build or participate in street protest
actions against the war, or protest against the omnipresent US military
structure.

Shouldn't the Left hold its 'leaders' to a higher standard than just
worshipping their biting 'analyses'?     Both Ralph Nader and Noam
Chomsky have very pretty programs on paper, and in their constant
critiques of the power structure from distant armchairs.      But they
are not exactly Eugene Debs or Martin Luther King in involvement.
They are SILENT.

And what is even worse, they represent a Left that is SILENT.

Critiquing the Milosevic regime was the favored method of being silent,
by those that were.

Tony Abdo