Fwd (GLW): Did the East Timor intervention kill off `Vietnam syndrome'?

c9803780@SPAMtopaz.cqu.edu.au c9803780
Wed Jan 31 00:54:20 MST 2001


Well Macca you may just find it all a bit pointless, that's because you do
not get the point, and perhaps never will.

I subscribed to this list because I am currently working in a towm 1/10
that of Alan B's current address - you get very little discussion involving
class politics out here.  And have remained subscribed for a number of
reasons, some outlined by Alan.  But what has become increasingly
disapointing to me is the lack of constructive debate by a number of
contributors and just shallow political point scoring.

Perhaps it's not this list perhaps it's the medium of email but I believe
the cons are outweighing the pros.

Good bye all
Comradely
Brett
At 01:31 PM 1/30/01 -0800, you wrote:
>
>
>> Why not explain your position to those East Timorese that were not killed,
>> maimed, raped etc.
>
>Although I'd like to thank Alan for expressing the pointlessness of this
type of
>"polemic" against my position (or perhaps this one was directed at Nestor
or Phil-
>and the other one is at me, who knows), I've noticed this is a good
indicator of the
>dowen time on this subject. When the debate gets into who is objectively
trying to
>wipe out the East Timorese most efficiently, it isn't going anywhere
useful. I'm done
>on the matter- perhaps we should revisit this after the facts are clearer,
say, in
>three years. As a more general point, I have been called a nut by both
local and
>internet comrades since the Yugo war, when I came up with my basic point
that it
>appears that Imperialism's long term strategy is to Balkanize us all into
small
>statelets that are too small to resist. Now already over a week ago, I
posted several
>different things here and on L-I regarding Congo. The link is fairly clear,
>particularly now with the major American media talking about how the
legacy of Congo
>has been one of antagonized nations within the state. That is ironic,
considering how
>little they cared for that at the turn of the last century. Now it is a
"concern"so
>big DR Congo can be split. I believe it is in our utmost interests to stop
that from
>happening in whatever way we are able. The same basic thrust is being
attempted all
>over the third world, and the First World left cheers it on in some cases!
How would
>it be should "we" decide that we weren't civilised enough for solutions
based on
>unified states, and instead demanded occupation of Spain to form mini
republics,
>occupied Corsica "cause it has never worked"...sent the UN to Canada to "help
>organise a new Quebec, free and democratic". Such a thing would be
obviously an
>attack on sovereignty. Allow our minds to defend the sovereignty of the
3rd world
>struggles first, where sovereignty is needed most.
>
>Macdonald
>
>
>






More information about the Marxism mailing list