Replies

Well, as a conservative Jew, I like to grab any opportunity possible to show others there are actually non-liberal Jews like myself out there (although I don't think many!). Granted, Boteach was very wrong about "The Passion" (as were most Jews, except for myself who actually liked it). However, he hits the issue right on the head in this article about Clinton and his administration's actions to ensure that as many Rwandans died as possible.

I took a Western Civilization class this past semester, and was extremely surprised when the FRENCH teacher assistant expressed how pissed off she was over Clinton's inaction over this very crisis. She's the one French person I like!

=== Well, as a conservative Jew, I like to grab any opportunity possible to show others there are actually non-liberal Jews like myself out there (although I don't think many!).

lol, cheers ...

The U.S. did actually address Rwanda. We termed it a "civil conflict into which we could not intervene" and we sent some APCs over there which ended up sitting on a runway in Uganda as we dickered with the UN on the proper stenciling to be applied.

One thing that Boteach and you might want to understand, however, is the very subjective approach the US takes to addressing the problems of other nations with US funding, US military, US bonds, and US lives.

Two links in particular help underscore the reason that Rwanda (and Sudan -- where Chicoms do not appreciate interference in their continued clearcutting of humans along their pipeline) are not Priority items in the same way that illumined Muslims or Pallie terrorists might be.

First is our 1974 national defense memorandum NSSM-200 (signed by Kissinger for Nixon and, as NSDM-314, signed for Ford by Scowcroft). If you read the actual document, it states quite plainly and succinctly that it is in the interest of the US to remove (depopulate, even, as necessary) those humans which clog our access to vital natural resources. Although this document was declassified in 1990 or so, it's generated criticism only from the third world nations -- African and Phillipinino, particularly -- actually targeted by the policies along with certain Catholics who would like to see the policies disavowed in word and deed.

This underlying policy (much like the GOP's very stark support for abortion, birth control and state-directed eugenics and manufacture of more perfect specimens for the labor pool which so concerned them) help one to understand how it is that the likes of Brzerzinski could so succinctly address our intervention in Serbia/Kosovo.

Which intervention -- like the latest in the War on a Noun series -- shares certain hallmarks of the "microcosm" Ziggy cites ... particularly where the plight of Christians in each of these target nations is concerned. (Not so surprising, of course, given the ongoing march against Christianity in this nation ... where the only public, prime-time mentions of Scripture and Christ which pass muster are those wherein the Lord's name is taken in vain to condone unjust war or the use of human lives like mulch for state-funded "humanitarian" experiments.)

CHARLIE ROSE: What are the implications for the future in terms of those who say, ``If you go to Kosovo with your bombs, then you have to be prepared for every other moral issue to take a position and be willing to use and employ your treasure and your men and women in the armed forces''?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: That's a very troublesome question. And it's a very good question, and one to which there is no easy answer. But there is, nonetheless, an answer. Just because we cannot stop a crime everywhere we should not fail to stop a crime where we can stop it. The fact is we are in Europe. We have an alliance in Europe, therefore we can do something about what is happening in Kosovo. We can't go into Tibet without starting a massive, huge war with China. We are not present in other parts of the world with our forces and with allies and so forth. And then, last but not least, even a self-serving argument. What happens in Europe impacts on us much more. so, in that sense, yes, we cannot do it across the board. We cannot have a moral imperative on a universal scale. But it doesn't excuse us from the obligation of doing it where we can do it.

CHARLIE ROSE: So, we say to the Tibetans, ``You know, we can't do it because we don't want to get into a big deal with China, a fight with China.''

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: That's right.

CHARLIE ROSE: ``They're too big and strong.''

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: That's right.

CHARLIE ROSE: We said with Chechnya, ``We can't do it because morality plays no issue here because, you know, we don't want to get into a big conflict with the Russians.''

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: That's right. That is unfortunately--

CHARLIE ROSE: And we say to the Africans, ``We don't have a big stake here. It's Africa. It's not Europe, and so -- therefore -- we can't get involved.''

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: And we can support the African states doing-- You're absolutely right, Charlie. That's exactly the reality.

CHARLIE ROSE: It's not very tidy, is it?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: It isn't tidy. And reality isn't tidy.

....

CHARLIE ROSE: We cannot, if I hear you correctly, fail here. Too much is at stake in terms of America's-- beyond the morality of the issue, but in terms of America's prestige and reputation and the credibility we have in the future. We cannot let this pass, and we cannot lose.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: You're absolutely right.

I think this is the first really complex challenge to American global leadership. And, if we falter here, the consequences would be devastating -- in the first instance, for Europe; secondly, for the American-European relationship; thirdly, for our position in the world; and then, in a sense, more generally for the kind of world that we will be living in the next few years.

So, in a microcosm, this is a real test case of what the world is about to be.

"Events in Kosovo" BRZEZINSKI SCOWCROFT LAVROV Interviews of 3/25/99

bttt