At 04:49 PM 10/18/2000, Tony Abdo wrote:

>This seems to be a comparison between US style 'democracy' and what,
>Alister?    Communist dictatorship? (the phrase the Right always loves
>to use)...

Ah, you zany Americans always think of yourselves.  It's not a "US" style
democracy that they've got in Yugoslavia.  The President doesn't have
anywhere near the same level of control - in theory - as in the US.  It's
closer to the French style, with power primarily residing in the
Parliament.  Anyway...

>Can we call imperialist countries pumping money into
>influencing the Yugoslav election, 'parlimentary democracy'?

Of course.  The nature of the government has nothing to do with what that
government does outside its borders.  All it takes to be a parliamentary
democracy is to have an elected parliament that sets the legislative
agenda.  The US fits this description, although its electoral system is
easily able to be abused and is not representative.  Yet another reason why
parliamentary democracy is not true democracy, because time and time again
you'll find the citizens of these countries do not support their government
interfering in another country.

>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.

Why?  Why only NATO-ally citizens?  I mean, in that case I'm set, because
Australia's not part of NATO.  I opposed US/UN bombing of Iraq at the same
time as opposing Hussein's rule in Iraq, and I don't see this as being
inconsistent.

>Of the same mode, why is it your business or mine, whether Montenegro
>should or should not be able to secede from Yugoslavia?

That'd be pretty much my point.  Apparently the US opposes this, though,
and so I was curious to see whether you would be in favour of it or oppose
it.

>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.

Its aim is to destroy - I don't disagree here.  I was trying to describe
two different situations, rather than reduce the definition of war.  One is
during the bombing phase - a strictly military action.  I meant "when the
bombs are falling" literally.  This took attention away from attempts to
topple Milosevic by Yugoslavians.  The economic warfare is a different
phase, which does not necessarily take attention away from the domestic
opposition.  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?

>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.

Never said they were, in spite of what their actions resulted in (it might
have been different had they actually killed him).  However:

>      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.

This point is different - the two are not in opposition.  *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.

>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.

Nationalist differences were always part of the Yugoslavian
Federation.  I've heard it argued that Communist rule in the former USSR
did a lot for stamping out nationalist differences, but apparently it
didn't stamp hard enough.  If we're talking about the KLA, they armed
themselves by trafficking drugs.  Did this have CIA support?  If so, it
wouldn't be the first time.

>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.

Yes, I know NATO's expanding to the very borders of Russia.  The conflict
in the Balkans has been used to justify this.  This is different to US
antagonism to Milosevic - by this argument the US should have kept him as
an official enemy (much in the same way they kept Hussein) which would have
allowed arguments to expand NATO to continue.  It's not as if any profits
from Yugoslavia would be a patch on the profits arms dealers will make from
an enlarged NATO.

>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.

I'll take your word for the actions of Clark and Bourgeois (that's got to
be an assumed name!) as compared to Chomsky.  I don't see a lot of what US
commentators are doing from over here.

>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.

He makes a good "official" enemy.  Support for Hussein is probably because
his Baath party represents a minority of Iraqis.  The majority of Muslims
in Iraq are Shi'ites, and they represent the opposition.  Should they take
power, they're likely to look to the only other nation that Shi'ites hold
power in.  That'd be Iran, and we can't have that, can we?

I think you're missing my point about Iraq, but don't feel the need to
articulate it further.  I think it's safe to say that we disagree on the
effect bombing has (which was where I was going with talk about Iraq).

>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.

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

Alister