In article <22APR199300374349@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes: >>>I must say I was appalled by the American Jewish Council's open letter. >>>America is not the world's policeman.  We cannot and should not take it upon >>>ourselves to solve the problems of the entire world.  America's young men and >>>women should not be sent to Yugoslavia, period.  If people feel strongly >>>enough, let them go as individuals to fight alongside the butchers of their >>>choice.  >>We have a volunteer army.  The argument you gave only applies if we have a >>draft.   >Huh?    Sorry, I misread your remark about young men and women.  (Though I am now unsure what that sentence does mean.)  >>Furthermore, people do not become butchers by _being_ "ethnic >>cleansed".  Or do you automatically call them butchers because they are Muslim? >I am disappointed in your logic, especially coming from a stalwart of >sci.skeptic.  You implied that anyone who wants to send troops to Bosnia wants to do so to help the "butchers of their choice".  Since the primary targets of help are Muslim victims of "ethnic cleansing", you imply that such Muslim victims are butchers.  >1) People become butchers by butchering.  There have been atrocities on all >sides.  This implies both sides are equal.  True, it may sometimes be difficult or impossible to determine which side is the victim, but that does not mean that victims do not exist.  Would you, in WWII have said that there were atrocities on the sides of both the Jews and the Germans?  >These people have been butchering each other for centuries.  When one >side wins and gets what it wants, it will stop.  Yes, but both sides want different things.  The Muslims chiefly want to not be "ethnic cleansed".  The Serbians want to "ethnic cleanse" the Muslims.  It is indeed true that each side will stop when it gets what it wants, but the things that the two sides want are not equivalent.  >2) Quite an impressive leap of reasoning to assume that I am so racist as to >call someone a butcher because they are Muslim.  In fact, I think on the >contrary, the media fixation on this war, as opposed to the dozens upon dozens >of civil wars which have been fought in the recent past is because these are >white people, in Europe.  When atrocities occur in the Third World, there is >not as much news coverage, and not nearly the same level of outrage.   I recall, before we did anything for Somalia, (apparent) left-wingers saying that the reason everyone was more willing to send troops to Bosnia than to Somalia was because the Somalis are third-worlders who Americans consider unworthy of help.  They suddenly shut up when the US decided to send troops to the opposite place than that predicted by the theory.  For that matter, this theory of yours suggests that Americans should want to help the Serbs.  After all, they're Christian, and the Muslims are not.  If the desire to intervene in Bosnia is based on racism against people that are less like us, why does everyone _want_ to help the side that _is_ less like us? Especially if both of the sides are equal as you seem to think? -- "On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey! On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole     that she made from Leftover Turkey. [days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...    -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)