<bold>dealt with in terms of a differentiated problem.
</bold>could you please explain? thanks
At 10:23 PM 5/15/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>The decisions made by the United States and a select few of other NATO
>nations in terms of Kosovo obviously aren't made in a vacuum,
independent of
>the complex biases, knowledges, motives and rationalities which go into
such
>choices. The strategy employed in Yugoslavia isn't simply a product of
an
>overall regime that can be uniformly spotted for a certain era. Nor is
it a
>new phenomenon. The situation is of course conditioned by time/place,
but
>is also a culmination of assumptions and political techniques which can
be
>traced back since nation-states have taken on the humanist notions of
>self-determination and post-enlightenment soveirgnty. I believe the
>appropriate action by way of criticism is to strip NATO's actions of
their
>legitimacy and glory--to retrieve whats lurking behind the banner of
"global
>security" and a "safe place for democracy." A good point was made as to
how
>Yugoslavia must first be otherized and seperated, then dealt with in
terms
>of a differentiated problem.
>
>Loren
>
>
>
>
>
>>This is a partial analysis. Why limit the analysis to the past ten
years.
>>We need to understand why the US is involved in the Kosovo region. The
US
>>did not step into
>>Mexico or Guatemala in the past 40 years of death squads. The US did
not
>>step into any of the many genocidal wars of Africa. The Iritrean and
Rwandan
>>atrocities stand out in my mind just as much as do Idi Amin's. We
never
>>considered for even an instant of stopping the Khmer Rouge. The only
reason
>>is the type of President we have.
>>
>>Fred Welfare
>>
>>
>
>"Animals consider man as a being like themselves that has lost in a
most
>dangerious way its sound animal common sense; they consider him the
insane
>animal, the laughing animal, the weeping animal, the miserable
animal."
> -Nietzsche, _The Gay Science_
>
>
>"[H]umanism...presents a certain form of our ethics as a universal model
for
>any kind of freedom...[T]here are more secrets, more possible freedoms,
and
>more inventions in our future than we can imagine in humanism as it is
>dogmatically represented on every side of the political rainbow: the
Left,
>the Center, the Right."
> -M.F., TECHNOLOGIES OF THE SELF, 1982
>
>
<bold><italic>The foucaldien ethos has already reached his/her eternal
utopia in the "present". No need for further move!
</italic></bold>
</bold>could you please explain? thanks
At 10:23 PM 5/15/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>The decisions made by the United States and a select few of other NATO
>nations in terms of Kosovo obviously aren't made in a vacuum,
independent of
>the complex biases, knowledges, motives and rationalities which go into
such
>choices. The strategy employed in Yugoslavia isn't simply a product of
an
>overall regime that can be uniformly spotted for a certain era. Nor is
it a
>new phenomenon. The situation is of course conditioned by time/place,
but
>is also a culmination of assumptions and political techniques which can
be
>traced back since nation-states have taken on the humanist notions of
>self-determination and post-enlightenment soveirgnty. I believe the
>appropriate action by way of criticism is to strip NATO's actions of
their
>legitimacy and glory--to retrieve whats lurking behind the banner of
"global
>security" and a "safe place for democracy." A good point was made as to
how
>Yugoslavia must first be otherized and seperated, then dealt with in
terms
>of a differentiated problem.
>
>Loren
>
>
>
>
>
>>This is a partial analysis. Why limit the analysis to the past ten
years.
>>We need to understand why the US is involved in the Kosovo region. The
US
>>did not step into
>>Mexico or Guatemala in the past 40 years of death squads. The US did
not
>>step into any of the many genocidal wars of Africa. The Iritrean and
Rwandan
>>atrocities stand out in my mind just as much as do Idi Amin's. We
never
>>considered for even an instant of stopping the Khmer Rouge. The only
reason
>>is the type of President we have.
>>
>>Fred Welfare
>>
>>
>
>"Animals consider man as a being like themselves that has lost in a
most
>dangerious way its sound animal common sense; they consider him the
insane
>animal, the laughing animal, the weeping animal, the miserable
animal."
> -Nietzsche, _The Gay Science_
>
>
>"[H]umanism...presents a certain form of our ethics as a universal model
for
>any kind of freedom...[T]here are more secrets, more possible freedoms,
and
>more inventions in our future than we can imagine in humanism as it is
>dogmatically represented on every side of the political rainbow: the
Left,
>the Center, the Right."
> -M.F., TECHNOLOGIES OF THE SELF, 1982
>
>
<bold><italic>The foucaldien ethos has already reached his/her eternal
utopia in the "present". No need for further move!
</italic></bold>