Re: Hitchens, he is a quasi-mole many have long decided.  Recall his
disgraceful behavior at the time of the Clinton-Oval escapade.  AND
he stands in as a major supporter of the proven mole G. Orwell (who
ratted on his socialist friends to the British secret police).
wcm
>
> 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.
>
> > 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. 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. 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. It certainly was infinitely preferable to the status quo
> ante--except to the Serbs, who were (and remain) unrepentant aggressors.
>