I don't want you to get the wrong impression from my posts. I think highly of you, and I have read many of your posts on other topics with interest and appreciation. And I think at bottom you want what's best for all concerned in Kosovo and around the world, which is a real point of agreement.
But I do think you've got blinders on when it comes to the Kosovo situation. It seems like you've decided that the bombing is OK because its doing something to help the Kosovars, and now you're going to stick to your guns, dammit.
Needless to say, I think you're on the wrong side of this one. So be it. I suppose we're merely covering ground we were over a couple of weeks ago. Have a good weekend.
Brett
>In the abstract, this is a good argument for international law
>(IL). IL would be a good thing. But it does not necessarily
>follow that any violation of IL should be condemned, just as a
>cop breaking a law to protect an innocent person's life might be
>excused, depending on the particulars.
>
>In this case, atrocities are happening in real time and can't
>wait for the machinery of IL to prevent them. Even worse, if we
>take the UN as the embodiment of IL, members of the Security
>Council have an inherent interest in vetoing certain acts in
>defense of innocent life. For instance, China and Russia have an
>interest in squelching any support for the self-determination of
>oppressed nationalities, in light of the situations of Tibet and
>Chechnya. On some matters, the U.S. is no saint either. Trying
>to improve this state of affairs is a worthy undertaking.
>
>Meanwhile there will be situations that can't and should not wait
>for IL. I agree that usually might will not make for right in
>the absence of effective IL. In the specific case of Kosova, a
>serious effort to rescue Kosvars that entailed serious resistance
>from Serbia would still be right.
>
>mbs