At 17:14 08/05/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>>So far NATO blunders, which the Alliance claims are few in comparison to
>>the number of raids its had carried out, have claimed at least 220 lives
>>among the civilian population, according to a Serbian tally unconfirmed by
>>NATO. NATO insists that it is trying to keep civilian deaths to a minimum
>>in its operations.
>
>
>(I've been avoiding Kosovo discussions, but a quick step into the fray).
>
>220 killed. One person killed is a tragedy but this is an incredibly low
>civilian death rate given how much bombing has been done. That is one-tenth
>the number of Kosovars killed last year (by the lowest estimate available)
>that many on the left have said was too insignificant to justify
>intervention.
>
>Why don't people change to the channel showing civilians killed by the Serbs
>in Kosovo? Oh right, I forgot, all the Kosovar journalists are either dead
>or fled the country. Tough luck for them.
>
>--Nathan Newman
>
>
>
>Excuse-me, but there is a trouble about the calculation of victims from
NATO bombings:
1-There is no proof that the total number of victims is "only" 220
2-Modern warfare, with "intelligents bombs" causes a relatively small
number of victims, but a very high number of late casualties due to the
destruction of the economic infrastructure of the society. If you destroy
energy generation plants, bridges, water treatment stations, hospital
and another civilian targets, then you will kill people. If the defeated
country is not allowed to rebuild its structure as happened with Iraq,
then we have a humanitarian catastrophe of genocidal level. We must have
no illusion about the "humanitarian aspects of modern warfare. Laser gui-
ded bombs and cruise missiles are effective means of avoiding casualties
on the agressor's side and are not intended to be used to minimize da-
mage among civilians (this really happens, but is a "collateral effect" if
those weapons didn't help to avoid losses of aircraft an pilots they wouldn't
be used)
3-We must think however, that there is also the risk of long term ecological
damage, like the increase of cases of chilhood cancer in Iraq due to conta-
mination with Uranium.
4-All right, we must not support Milosevic's ethnic cleansing, but I wonder
if it justifies the destruction of an already poor economy, with all of its
consequences.We must remember also that the NATO strikes didn't help to alle-
viate human suffering in Kosovo.
5-At last, I'm quite increased with the fact that some leftists believe that
NATO intentions are humanitarian. Here in Latin America we don't have any
illusion about the humanitarian character of US imperialism. Do you have?
Alexandre Fenelon
>