Ok, let's work within your framework. You disagree with (b) the implementation and (c) the chance of success, but you agree with (a) NATO's putative goals, which, as you put it, are "to meliorate the humanitarian crisis."

Since I don't want to be accused of making inferences again, let me ask you this: are you taking NATO's putative goals at face value, i.e., do you (1) believe that NATO's goal is indeed "to meliorate the humanitarian crisis" and thus agree with NATO or
(2) are you saying that you agree with the goal itself, independently of whether NATO is involved? If neither (1) nor (2) apply, please clarify.

I'll tell you why I ask. I obviously disagree with (b) and (c) as well, but I also disagree with the (a) because I don't believe NATO's intention is or has ever been to meliorate the humanitarian crisis (and that's where examples of US actions in dealing
with humanitarian crises are of value).

But if you were to decouple NATO's involvement, as in (2) above, I agree that that the crisis needs to be dealt with. But at the same time, I believe NATO (or at least the US/UK foreign policy controlling the NATO agenda)is part of the problem and a
large reason for the escalation in the crisis.


-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Hill [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 9:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] Znet: How to respond to NATO advocates

[snip]

They shed light, but does mentioning them bolster the argument that the NATO bombing is wrong?

I think comparisons to Turkey, Columbia, Indonesia, etc. are useful to prove how the US does not act for humanitarian reasons.  Many people think the US does act to preserve freedom and democracy, and they need to learn the hard truth.

On the Chomsky list and other leftist discussion boards, however, I don't see how this argument is useful.  We know what the US is about.  We know the US does not care about people getting killed.

We need to consider, specifically, what is it we are trying to argue in this forum.  It is easy (and correct) to say the US is evil.  That is irrelevant here.  We need to determine if the NATO action against Yugoslavia is something we should support or
denounce.   We need to consider (a) whether we agree with its putative goals; (b) whether we agree with its implementation so far; (c) what we think of its prospects for success.

I support NATO on (a), but not on (b) and (c).  Therefore I oppose this war for now, but could be persuaded otherwise if NATO changes its strategy.  The West's motives or underlying sympathies are a factor, but not a major factor.  What counts is whether
NATO can accomplish its putative goal: to meliorate the humanitarian crisis.  Presently, I think not, so I oppose the bombing.  I would think the same thing if Uncle Sam were really a saint.

> >
> > I am still opposed to the bombing, but since then I think I have developed more
> > credible arguments.    I encourage you to try to do the same.
> >
>
> Cheap shot. How can you judge the credibility of my arguments against the bombing when I have yet to get express them on this list?

You have defended arguments that I find implausible.  You attack Martin for making sensible criticisms of implausible arguments.  If you have better ones, please advance them.