[PEN-L:6072] RE: Re: Re: (Fwd) NATO STARTED BOMBING TO HELP MILOSEVIC

[sawicky@xxxxxxxxxx (Max Sawicky)]

Lear:

> Actually, as has been pointed out with no apparent effect on you, the
> bombing has solidified Milosevic's support in the country, as anyone
> could have predicted.  An end to the bombing and serious negotiations
> based upon different premises than yours (that is, accept our offer or
> we will bomb you) could very well return the country to normalcy of
> some sort or another.  Milosevic, like all ugly rulers, abhors any
> whiff of normalcy.

"could very well" is not very compelling.  With the benefit of hindsight,
it's not difficult to wish that the bombing had never begun.  Things could
not be much worse.

> . . . This is only correct if the choices available have nothing to do
with
> what is available now, which is flatly untrue.  The Serbs have made
> offers that were credible and we ignored them.  We need to be aware of
> this so we can determine when the offers are simply being rejected
> again.  History matters, Max.

Fair enough, but how remains the question.

> >All the more reason for the independence of Kosova from Serbia.
>
> And what is independence worth if the KLA, officially described as a
> "terrorist" organization, winds up in power, as is likely to happen?

I don't buy the terrorist rap on the KLA.  I would not be surprized to see
proven that the KLA has committed terrorist acts.  That doesn't make it a
terrorist organization (like, say, the PFLP).  As has been pointed out here,
the Allies committed some acts in WWII that could be construed as terrorist.
That doesn't make them terrorists in my book.  Same could be said about the
NLF in Vietnam.

> >> In short, very few of us opposed the principle of Kosovar
> >'autonomy'/'independence' (although I, for one - & mebbe Rugova for
> >two ->
> >
> >That is not obvious to me.  I recall very little expressed
> >support for Kosova from those opposed to Nato.  There has been
> >more about Nato's nefarious plans to stoke nationalism and
> >splinter the Balkans, as if the region wasn't a patchwork
> >already.
>
> This is a nice ploy, Max.  Willingly recall little of those who have
> said over and over that independence is very important but should be
> achieved in a different way than destroying a country, as you favor.

I was just being polite, saying I don't recall.  To be more blunt, the
anti-bombing sentiment has simply not been strong on Kosovo
self-determination.  It has ranged from skeptical to utterly hostile, with a
few good wishes sprinkled over.

> This whole courageous pose in support of "the people of Kosova",
> ignoring the immense destruction caused by the arrogant bombing to the
> country, to the people, to the prospects for a just and safe future
> for all people there reminds me of dear old Thucydides:

It would have been hard for me to ignore the bombing of Serbia, since it is
the foremost concern of most of the vocal people on this list.  Your ancient
Greek quote is completely undescriptive of anything I've said.  I've never
characterized my view as courageous or the contrary one as 'unmanly'.
Really.

> >A difference that crops up here is your equation or parity
> >between the 'cause' of Serbians and Kosovans.  They are not
> >equivalent.  The Serbian regime is the aggressor and oppressor.
> >Serbian independence is not in question.  Kosova is the aggrieved
> >party.  A bombing halt to me signals a halt to any commitment to
> >put pressure on Milo, though the bombing itself has not been
> >successful in this regard thus far.  Thus the real significance
> >of simple anti-bombing politics is anti-Kosovan.
>
> More Manichean handwaving, Max.  The only way to put pressure "on Milo"
> (cute --- we're not destroying a country, we're simply slapping around
> a very naughty man) is not simply to bomb the country.  Tyrants fear

Here again you're conjuring rhetoric out of thin air, not from anything I've
written.

> democracy, and were we guided by better principles than a thoughtless
> use of force, we might be able to help foster that; but then that
> might require us to look at our past and try to figure out a way to
> pressure our government to do something different, but as this is
> unpalatable to you, that option is out.  Also note that "anti-Kosovan"

This isn't an option.  It's a Jimmy Stewart movie.

> , , ,
>
> So, you are saying you are pro-invasion and anti-bombing?  Or you are
> pro-bombing *and* pro-invasion?  If the desire to liberate
> Kosova is equated with the desire for an invasion, what of the
> bombs-away only crowd?

I've talked about this ad nauseum.  The questions suggest you didn't pay
attention.  I can't blame anyone for not reading my posts, only for
criticizing them without reading them.

> >As I mentioned above, my perception of anti-bombing is not that
> >it was motivated by or associated with support for Kosova.  ...
>
> Oh, nothing that, say, Noam Chomsky has been saying since the start
> of this mess could be construed as "support for Kosova"?  He only

First, Chomsky is not on this list.  Second, excellent as most of his
commentary is, I still think the "no bombing/no genocide" slogan is fatally
flawed as politics, if not as moral statement.

> . . .

> Apparently you believe that expressing concern about issues of
> national sovereignty is mere hand-wringing.

In the face of possible genocide, most definitely.

> But, to me, international
> law is something that we should try to preserve, and to strengthen,
> not dismiss contemptuously when it doesn't fit our needs.

Strengthen it if you can, but don't hold the lives of people hostage to its
weaknesses.

> >There was and is continual effort to discount reports of Serb
> >atrocities (by condemning all conceivable sources for such
> >reports).  ...
>
> In other words, there has been an effort to determine what is truth
> and what is fantasy plastered on the foreheads of a compliant media?

No, the way I said it.

cheers,

mbs