>Agreed that bombing, by itself, will not stop the most
important part (and if they don't aim better than
they've been doing, it will actually make things worse)
But i decline to take the position, as a few (not you)
have done here, that by carrying out the bombing, NATO
are responsible for the stepped-up Serbian predations.
That's the same sort of warped thinking that an abuser
exhibits, who steps up the abuse after the cops leave.
Abusers and enablers try to claim that third parties
(the cops, the neighbors who called them, etc.) are
responsible for the increased abuse, but that's
psychopathic nonsense. Abusers are always responsible
for their own behavior.
Wonderful comparison -- anyone who opposes bombing is an enabler for abusers of women. Next time, why not bring in child abusers so you can push all right hot buttons? I've been giving you credit up till now for an honest disagreement ...
I think you are misrepresenting the positions of those who oppose the bombing on this ground. The responsibility of the Serbians for whatever massacres they commit does not reduce the responsibility of those who made this more likely.
Think of a hostage situation. The hostage taker is 100% responsible for any harm he or she does the hostages. But a police officer who starts shooting when there is still a chance of talking the hostages loose is also responsible for any deaths which occur.
I hate to appeal to abstract principles , but there is a fundamental point to make here: responsibility is not reduced when shared. And you are always responsible for the foreseeable results of your actions. You want to play tough guy and stop the bad guys? Then you are responsible for not increasing the number of innocents killed -- including those killed by the bad guys. (Mind you this analogy concedes a little too much to the pro-war position. The Serbian government may be "bad guys" but so is NATO. The KLA is as well, though to a much lesser extent than the Serbian government and NATO. )
So once again we have to look at the likely results of the path NATO is taking -- bombing followed by ground troops or not followed by ground troops. We seem to already have agreed that bombing without ground troops will end up worse than doing nothing would have. In case there is anyone out there who has missed the point, the Serbian government has stepped up it's murder rate, the number of refugees have increased drastically, and the NATO bombs are killing lots of people including Kosovar Albanians.
All right -- what about deploying ground troops?
First, it is by no means certain that NATO will deploy ground troops. though it looks more and more likely.
Secondly, if NATO does deploy ground troops, it appears probable that Milosovich will have killed or expelled all the ethnic Albanians he wished by the time they are deployed. (For those who take this as an argument as to why the bombing was a good idea, consider this. The rate of killing escalated after the threat of bombing and again after the actual bombing. Again comparable to escalating the pressure on the hostage taker in a hostage situation -- usually not a good idea.) Thirdly, if deployed, it is by no means certain that NATO forces will be able militarily defeat the Serbs.
Lastly if they are, past behavior suggest they are likely to leave the repressive and genocidal apparatus in place, while replacing unreliable individuals such Milosovich with obedient servants -- servents from whom a little genocide will be tolerated so long as it is carried out quietly, slowly, a little at a time.
I have seen on this list assertions that the past history and motives of NATO forces are irrelevant. But the argument here is whether NATO actions in the immediate future are more likely to save lives or cost them. Surely motives, intentions and past behavior are extremely important in predicting what actions someone will take in the future. (After all no one can dispute that NATO actions up till now have worsened the situation. Again, the fact the Serbian government is 100% responsible for any crimes it commits does not change the fact that NATO is responsible for jumping in with bombing runs when it was predicted that it would make the situation worse rather than better. )
One other point the pro-bombing/pro-ground-troops bunch (especially Max) have insisted on -- that we must support NATO because after all there is no alternative. I've got news for you bubula -- making things worse is not better than doing nothing. You often argue eloquently for lesser evils; why support *greater* evils.
In terms of alternatives: when you insist that diplomatic alternative had been completely exhausted, it is worth pointing out that the sticking point prior to the bombing was U.S. dominated NATO troops being stationed in Kosovo as peacekeepers. Before giving up might someone have at least suggested troops from some country not so dominated by U.S. -- Russian or Ukraine troops perhaps? Maybe run by the U.N. rather than NATO? Maybe Milosovich would have rejected this as strongly as he rejected NATO troops -- but would it have hurt to have asked? Apparently the "stop or I'll shoot" negotiating tactic did not work.
As to what we can do now -- Angela's suggestion of having NATO countries (including the U.S.) provide open borders to both Albanian and Serbian refugees from this horrible mess we have contributed is about the only positive short term thing to be done now, along with stopping the bombing. I'm open to any type of suggestion -- but I'm not open to suggestion which are almost certain to make things worse.
Oh, and BTW, before somebody point out that this is not a general argument that NATO interventions could never be supported under any circumstances -- quite right. I have never been one for absolute abstract rules of this nature. I can imagine the U.S. military wandering by circumstance into a situation where it is likely to make things better rather than worse. This just is pretty obviously not such a case. In general, while it can happen, it is not damn likely, and those insisting that a particular intervention is justified have the burden of proof. -- Gar W. Lipow 815 Dundee RD NW Olympia, WA 98502