[Nettime-bold] RE:[ot] [!nt] \n2+0\ NATO - social swarms of western serfs

["Sveta B" <sbanki@hotmail.com>]

Hello,

>Damn, Clinton and Cook both wanted him out? Perhaps he should be in
after all..

That is very  "critical " approach to your own governments, but isn't it
an over simplified
Pro et Contra approach. How about :  perhaps he SHOULDN'T stay in
because  he's missing some votes to stay in,

>Let's just remember that the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia were
much less than  those in other areas of the world where the turmoil is
funded by the US *until*  NATO (==US) moved in.

Is that suppose to mean that atrocities should be "measured by numbers"?
Atrocities are atrocities and that's all to it. Besides, turmoils in
former Yugoslavia have made about 20 millions former yugoslavs 
miserable. and some 6 million people  (in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo)
suffering heavily. Is that a "number" big enough?

I would say to him:
>
>"No mate, we understand; it's just that we also understand capitalism,
your
>new
>goal, and we don't like it."
 

I understand your view or disapproval of some things and I could
possibly agree there are some things you shouldn't  LIKE, but I would
say to you:

Yes, we understand you, it's just that we also understand  socialist
heaven turned to tyranny,
and we can't stand it!

>A U.S. aircraft carrier in the  Adriatic Sea has moved closer to
Montenegro.

>Hmm, now at whom is this propaganda aimed? Probably at the voters, as
you
>insinuate.

Yes and the voters are so poorly trained in propaganda issues, after 55
years of it , that they just couldn't see through it,  if there weren't
for some NYC based diligentia to explain. Thank you very much righteous
dudes

>Like I said, Clinton and Cook both want him out. To me, this suggests
that
>we
>should re-examine the events since I wouldn't trust either of those
>b*stards

So, would you vote for someone Sadam or Slobodan  find suitable for your
government or you vote for your interests and according to your
attitudes?

>Actually, I would guess that Yugoslavia is relatively unimportant on the

>world stage, since so much media attention is/has been focussed upon
it. As I
>say, there are other countries in the world, fuelled by arms from the
US, that
>are practicing far greater atrocities on their populace *today*. As
Chomsky
>says, all we (all the West) need to do to stop these atrocities
happening is to
>stop participating..

Sure, be selective, choose another topic, pick some more exotic
location. Europe is like oh-so-boring and "relatively unimportant" and I
wonder why Chomsky is even bothering to analyse what the west should do.
He should perhaps just stop participating in the discussion. He should
follow his ideas.

>the massive intervention and intimidation by imperialism.

>Blimmin 'eck.... 'imperialism' is such an old-fashioned word. Any such
>utterance is bound to induce cynicism thereof. Even the more
appropriate
>term 'capitalism' suffers from this type of interpretation. Perhaps
it's time
>for a new description; perhaps "power-elitism"

I agree it's way too old fashioned, and excuse my "induced cynicism",
but could one struggle against it  by supporting another
"power-elitism". Should one struggle at all, or just be fashionably
against? It's sure time for some new descriptions, perhaps common sense.
Is that fashionable anymore?
Check out the reality.

S.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.


_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold