> I've tried to beat you over the head with this argument for the last few
> weeks, but it isn't sinking in. Maybe you just think I'm some radical
> nutcase who doesn't deserve a response since you haven't even attempted to
Not a bit. I can be accused of many things, but under-posting is not one of them. You'll just have to take a number and wait. I still have to do a counter-treatise to the load Chaz dropped on me yesterday. The only nutcase candidate I know is an amusing, irrepressible fellow on PEN-L who is cross-posting Art Bell stuff, though the late, unlamented, and unamusing "NM" ran a close second here.
> meet the challenge I and others have put to you re: responsibility for the
> Kosovo situation since you continue to argue in the same vein.
> To recap that challenge: the Serbian gov't is responsible for the
> humanitarian tragedy in Kosovo, NATO (and to a large extent the US) is
> responsible for the loss of life caused by the bombing, and since we are
> responsible for our own actions, the best we can hope to do is oppose the
> criminal policy of our own gov't, and try to get it to implement a policy
> of pushing for non-violent solutions in Kosovo. Now, before making any
> similar statements, please answer this challenge. I feel like a broken
I've said more than once that non-violence vis-a-vis Serb civilian targets is my preference. Non-violence towards Serb military, especially inside Kosovo, is acquiesence to their crimes. I believe the Serbs' crimes grossly outweigh the harm to civilians wrought by Nato, so I will not condemn bombing in general. I condemn in particular Clinton/NATO's dithering, which is partly reflected in the bankrupt, immoral reliance on air power against civilians, in supplying effective aid to the Kosovars.
> >I'd be happy to see a diplomatic solution if . . .
> What about the latest Serb offer? Why was this dismissed out of hand?
> Basically the only thing NATO will "consider" is total capitulation of
> Milosevic to NATO's demands. Of course Milosevic has no reason to
> negotiate if the terms he has already rejected are the only terms
> NATO will accept.
How would a cease-fire inside Kosovo be enforced, things being what they are now? If there was a way of doing it that protected Kosovars inside Kosovo I'd be interested.
> I have the opposite opinion - that bombing the Serbs is actually blocking
> with Milosevic. Let's just agree to disagree on this one, OK?
Maybe we could agree on this: immediate insertion of ground forces to enforce a UN protectorate for Kosovo. Who? You tell me who could do it. A Russo-Swede force. Find. I don't give a shit who it is, as long as it works. Then there is no justification or need for bombing Serbia, and no need for the use of force if there are no Serbians running amuck inside Kosovo.
Presumably many anti-bombers would support the idea of peace-keepers inside Kosovo. But the implication of this is to negate Serb sovreignty and supercede Serb force by some higher rule of law and order. It entails imagining the outcome of an invasion and glossing over how such an outcome would come about. I fear the only way the outcome of an invasion can be achieved is by exactly that means.