[PEN-L:5185] Re: Preventing Genocide v. Complaining about it Afterwards

[Ken Hanly <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nathan Newman wrote: -

>
>
> There are arguments that the NATO bombing allowed Milosevic to create a
> massive refugee crisis.  However, depending on what level of murder has
> occurred against Kosovans, we may end up with evidence that the bombing
> prevented Milosevic from launching a systematic genocide and instead forced
> him to quickly expel as many refugees as possible.
>

COMMENT: Let me get this straight. A systematic genocide was prevented because
Milosevic didnt have time for it. That is, it takes longer to slaughter people
than to round them up and transport them out of the country. Perhaps you could
explain why  this would be? We know that Milosevic expelled a considerable
number of people. IF we find no evidence of systematic genocide surely the
explanation would be that he had no intention of doing that but of defeating the
KLA as well as providing NATO with a great refugee headache. But since Milosevic
is such a nasty guy you just presuppose that he had genocide planned. Right?.

> The unfortunate thing about this debate (for me at least) is that the only
> way the pro-interventionists "win" the argument is if ground troops enter
> Kosovo and we find a few hundred thousand bodies in mass graves.
>

COMMENT: Just why do the interventionists win the argument if mass graves are
found? This isthe nonsensical moral argument all over again. If there are a
hundred thousand bodies in mass graves then it could be argued that the bombing
created the very conditions that allowed this. Do you think he could have done
it with international observers present and tv all over as was the case before
the bombing?
  Even if it was not the bombing that created conditions for mass slaughter ,the
argument is a non-sequitur because the bombing did not stop the slaughter and
intervention was useless.
  Maybe I am missing the logic behind your argument. Could you explain?

> Cheers, Ken Hanly