Zepa falls, Britain paralyses UN

Louis N Proyect lnp3 at columbia.edu
Fri Jul 21 12:43:09 MDT 1995


Louis Proyect:

I hate to aggravate people any more than I have to, but I'm going to have
to chime in with Jeffrey on this one (Please don't get mad at me, Chris
Burford.)

I am for humanitarian military interventions but not by imperialist
armies. I think the Tanzanian intervention into Uganda to put a stop to
the murderer Idi Amin was quite supportable. I think the Vietnamese
intervention into Cambodia to put an end to Pol Pot's killing fields was
also supportable.

I'm just one of those old fogies who believe that imperialism is
incapable of acting in a neutral or humanitarian fashion, including WWII.
This is not to say that I'm a fan of the Serbs, just that putting US
troops or Nato troops into action would be like Malcolm X once said,
putting the wolf in charge of the chicken-coop.

On Fri, 21 Jul 1995, Jeffrey Booth wrote:

> 	
> 	You're just repeating the mistakes of the 2nd International at
> the beginning of World War I.
> 	I'll side with Lenin, Luxembourg, Liebnicht (sp?), MaCleane,
> Connolly, etc... .
> 	Also, how are you going to organize Serb workers after you've
> supported THEIR genocide at the hands of Imperialism.
> 	It's a shame that the basic arguments of Internationalism need to
> be re-stated again and again but it's obvious from the "theoriticians" on
> this list that they do.
> 	
> 				-- Jeff Booth
>
> p.s. I read your book.  Your thinking still reeks of the Healyites and
> you're just a liberal.  If you're so hot on starting world war three
> then join the fucking army.  Don't drag working class people and our
> families into your bullshit.
>
> On Fri, 21 Jul 1995 TimW333521 at aol.com wrote:
>
> > I have for several years now urged a more aggressive policy to resist the
> > Serbs.  I feel the major Western powers (imperialists) do not want to risk
> > any real form of action simply to defend a people from genocide.  They did
> > not fight Hitler because he killed Jews, but because he took over Europe.
> >  Since they don't want to act, they exaggerate what is needed militarily.
> >  The left, by and large, goes along with this approach, though with a cover
> > of denouncing "imperialism"  and demanding that these "imperialists" , who
> > have no intention of intervening, not intervene.  It is shameful and
> > hypocritical.
> >
> > Is there something which could be done at reasonable cost?  Actually Chirac's
> > plan is quite doable (Perhaps for that reason it is being rejected by U.S and
> > England.  Perhaps it was even offered knowing it would be rejected.)  Is it
> > such a big deal to send 1,000 or those reinforcements to Gorazde on American
> > copters and support these troops with air power?  Would the Serbs tackle a
> > well armed but small force with air power to counter the Serb's tanks?  Don't
> > you believe it!  They only like to take on women and children!
> >
> > The truth is that Clinton could rally support in this country for such a plan
> > IF he bothered to commit himself, fight for it in a TV speech, and campaign
> > for it.  He could force England  into line and call Chirac's bluff.
> >
> > It is my growiing opinion that the brilliant strategic minds in the West have
> > concluded that the only solution to the war now is a Serb victory!  They have
> > conceded privately the fall of all the Eastern enclaves and probably Bihac as
> > well.  The Muslims will be given a reservation in the center of the country!
> >
> > But does the left really care, I ask once again?  Has it bought into a
> > populist neo-isolationism?  We cannot criticize Clinton for lack of
> > leadership if we provide no answers ourselves!
> >
> >
> >      --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >
>
>
>      --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>


     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list