bobming: mulitple & long-term functionality

Colleagues,

let me put aside in this msg various ethical,political and historical 
issues (probably next time i'll address to them); i'll treat here the 
bombing of Yougoslavia as a serious event of current history, an 
self-conscious action of many various decision-makers which must have 
not less serious reasons

my doubts of proclaimed pure humanitarian purposes are not original 
(see the TTF's views recently appeared both in PHILOFHI and WSN and 
the citation in the bottom);  the hypothesis of purely or dominant 
humanitarian reasons of the current West's and NATO's action can be 
rejected by a simple rule modus tollens: we saw no or almost no 
activity of the West and NATO in many other similar cases with much 
more victims (see the abundant TTF's list); the second arguement is 
even more simple: it is well known that NATO does not plan land 
intervention to Yougoslavia (mainly because of fear of many victims): 
but it is absolutely evident that after bombing Serbs will not get 
more kind feelings, sympathy or tolerance to Albanians; land 
conflicts there will be likely even more bloody, it tells once more 
that te humanitarian reason is just a manipulative brain-cleaning 
technology and one can only wonder why sophisticated intellectuals 
(philosophers, geopolitics, historians etc) can be so vulnerable 
to this mass propagation

i dare to pose another hypothesis of polifunctionality of this 
bombing  and i would be grateful for comments and especially 
counter-arguments

the bombing is considered as a providing activity which serves for 
supporting (serving to) the following homeastatic variables or 
functions:

1) legitimation and apologia of presence of NATO and USA in Europe;
2) encreasing financing of NATO and new warfare technologies
3) testing new weaponary systems (4-5 years of innovation cycle)
4) encreasing demand for weaponary in the world, with further 
marketing benefits fo weapon exporters
5) legitimization of current ruling elite in Washington and 
encreasing chanced for future presidential elections


from this viewpoint all tears that bombing is unreasonable because 
will not reach the goal (stopping interethnic conflict etc) but will 
lead to new disasters seem very naive

yes, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine will consolidate in encreasing war 
power in Europe; but it will be a great benefit for the functions 1 
and 2

yes, Yougoslavia, being defeated now will inevitably encrease warfare 
systems, but it will be extremely profitable from the viewpoints of 
1,2,3; NATO provides a lovely field for new weaponary test for 
further decades, why not?

yes, in the whole world the insecurity enxiety will encrease, but it 
will lead to the rise of demand and grand export benefits (point 4)

yes, the anti-US tensions and prewar anxiety maybe probable after the 
aperation, but it will serve for sustaining 'strong rule'  - 
reelecting a new president from the same team (point 5) with benefits 
to all the rest homeostatic variables

a real hypothesis must be falsificable; what arguements can be seen 
as major falsifyers?  it would be necessary to prove that the givent 
points 1-5 really are not main homeostatic variables that were taken 
into account by US and NATO decision makers; any declarations mean 
nothing. I wonder if anyone can present real political actions of 
NATO and US elits that were or are directed to

1) decrease of presence of NATO in Europe and its legitimation
2) decrease financing of NATO
3) contracting possibilities for new weaponary testing
4) decreasing demand on world weaponary market
5) weakening positions and chances of current ruling group in White 
House


sure, the given hypothesis and any other may occur wrong,
but give real arguements!

best regards and peace

Nikolai Rozov


 Ben et fils nets <foisy@total.net>
'
March 24, 1999
 NATO's Humanitarian Trigger
 By Diana Johnstone
>From James Rubin to Christiane Amanpour, the broad range of
>government
and media opinion is totally united in demanding that NATO bomb
Serbia. This is necessary, we are told, in order to "avert a
humanitarian catastrophe", and because, "the only language Milosevic
understands is force"... which happens to be the language the U.S.
wants to speak.

Kosovo is presented as the problem, and NATO as the solution.
In reality, NATO is the problem, and Kosovo is the solution.

 After the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO needed a new excuse for
pumping resources into the military-industrial complex. Thanks to
Kosovo, NATO can celebrate its 50th anniversary next month by
consecration of its new global mission: to intervene anywhere in the
world on humanitarian grounds. The recipe is easy: arm a group of
radical secessionists to shoot policemen, describe the inevitable
police retaliation as "ethnic cleansing", promise the rebels that NATO
will bomb their enemy if the fighting goes on, and then interpret the
resulting mayhem as a challenge to NATO's "resolve" which must be met
by military action.

Thanks to Kosovo, national sovereignty will be a thing of the past --
not of course for Great Powers like the U.S. and China, but for weaker
States that really need it. National boundaries will be no obstacle to
NATO intervention.
******************************************************
Nikolai S. Rozov, PhD, Dr.Sc. Professor of Philosophy   
E-MAIL: rozov@nsu.ru   FAX: 7-3832-397101
ADDRESS: Philosophy Dept. Novosibirsk State University     
630090, Novosibirsk, Pirogova 2, RUSSIA

Welcome to PHILOFHI (the mailing list for PHILosophy OF HIstory and 
theoretical history) 
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe/philofhi.html
and 
Philosophy of History Archive (PHA)
http://www.nsu.ru/filf/pha/
*********************************************************************