KJ Khoo wrote:
"I'm just a lurker ignoramus shooting off his mouth -- but surely,
given that this is the foucault list, the issue isn't about
addressing every situation at once or none at all, but why some are
addressed and others not? Who chooses who to address, or to bomb, or
not at all..."
Actually, this is about the Kosovo crisis and what to do given the limited
options available. Its about nearly 1.5 million people being driven into
exile in around 60 days. And if one percent of the refugees die, its also
about the systematic murder of 15,000 people. Your: "Who chooses who to
address, or to bomb, or not at all...", is a philosophical discussion about
global morality, about good versus evil, its also about who has the right
to create a just world, essentially its about human "redemption" and
"salvation" above a landscape of "despair".
I think the enlightenment and utopian projects are generally worthy topics
for discussion. But its a logical absurdity and an insult to mix esoteric
coffee table rhetoric with the human misery in Kosovo. And to clarify your
comment: "when Chinese students demonstrate in China against US-Nato, the
media casts it as orchestrated", I humbly suggest that any student protest
in China which does not involve tanks crushing students is orchestrated
however the media cast it.
Instead of ruminating on the morality of the "bomb", the "bomber", and the
"bombed", work from the problem at a practical level. If 15,000 Kosovors
die in a 60 day purge at a rate of 250 deaths per day, what do we do? The
issues are really about Serbian intentions, the effectiveness of
negotiations, what are the alternatives to bombing, is it even worth
intervening? Its about the Serbian commitment to both negotiation and
incremental cleansing, its about Serbia's ten year drive for purity, its
about the lessons from Bosnian.
Why do the proto-fascist left insist on preaching to the world about the
morality of imperialism as though only they possess this sacred knowledge?
Why do you keep telling me about other examples of evil treatment? I do
have this knowledge. And I agree that NATO is amoral and does not have the
right to cast the first stone.
But to argue that the American and European efforts at enforcement should
stop because they and NATO are illegitimate is as futile as suggesting that
Americal and European efforts at negotiation cease because the western
negotiators belong to imperialist capitalist war-mongering nations.
To the linear left, think about your obtuse and obscene logic and please
avoid applying it to the actual crisis in Kosovo, its doing enough damage
in rhetoric.
Tony
"I'm just a lurker ignoramus shooting off his mouth -- but surely,
given that this is the foucault list, the issue isn't about
addressing every situation at once or none at all, but why some are
addressed and others not? Who chooses who to address, or to bomb, or
not at all..."
Actually, this is about the Kosovo crisis and what to do given the limited
options available. Its about nearly 1.5 million people being driven into
exile in around 60 days. And if one percent of the refugees die, its also
about the systematic murder of 15,000 people. Your: "Who chooses who to
address, or to bomb, or not at all...", is a philosophical discussion about
global morality, about good versus evil, its also about who has the right
to create a just world, essentially its about human "redemption" and
"salvation" above a landscape of "despair".
I think the enlightenment and utopian projects are generally worthy topics
for discussion. But its a logical absurdity and an insult to mix esoteric
coffee table rhetoric with the human misery in Kosovo. And to clarify your
comment: "when Chinese students demonstrate in China against US-Nato, the
media casts it as orchestrated", I humbly suggest that any student protest
in China which does not involve tanks crushing students is orchestrated
however the media cast it.
Instead of ruminating on the morality of the "bomb", the "bomber", and the
"bombed", work from the problem at a practical level. If 15,000 Kosovors
die in a 60 day purge at a rate of 250 deaths per day, what do we do? The
issues are really about Serbian intentions, the effectiveness of
negotiations, what are the alternatives to bombing, is it even worth
intervening? Its about the Serbian commitment to both negotiation and
incremental cleansing, its about Serbia's ten year drive for purity, its
about the lessons from Bosnian.
Why do the proto-fascist left insist on preaching to the world about the
morality of imperialism as though only they possess this sacred knowledge?
Why do you keep telling me about other examples of evil treatment? I do
have this knowledge. And I agree that NATO is amoral and does not have the
right to cast the first stone.
But to argue that the American and European efforts at enforcement should
stop because they and NATO are illegitimate is as futile as suggesting that
Americal and European efforts at negotiation cease because the western
negotiators belong to imperialist capitalist war-mongering nations.
To the linear left, think about your obtuse and obscene logic and please
avoid applying it to the actual crisis in Kosovo, its doing enough damage
in rhetoric.
Tony