Anyone who dismisses or downplays the fact that the Serbs have done terrible things to the Kosovars deserves a rebuke. I'm sure the Serb atrocities have been awful. And nobody has a solid tally on the number of casualties of the various parties or an accounting of who is responsible for what. This is important information, but right now I doubt anyone knows the full situation.
The point of disagreement between those of us who oppose the bombing and your position is that we don't feel the (acknowledged) atrocities of the Serbs merit the response NATO has chosen. The reasons each individual has for opposing the bombing are no doubt different, but mostly include the following ones:
1) Diplomatic channels were not exhausted 2) The bombing has prompted the Serbs to accelerate their atrocities against the Kosovars 3) NATO's motivations are not humanitarian in nature, so that even if the bombing campaign succeeds in the sense that Milosevic agrees to a NATO protectorate in Kosovo, this may not be in the long term interest of the Kosovars or the local Serb population (although it would stop the killing). 4) The bombing has threatened the stability of the region and our relations with Russia and China. 5) NATO has flaunted international law, the set of guidelines and rules which the international community has agreed should govern international relations. In so doing, NATO is merely upholding the priciple of "might makes right."
Also, with regard to various sources, it is true that most people on this list oppose the bombing and have posted articles and comments which support that view. But, at least for me, this is the ONLY outlet where I've seen any such critiques of NATO and the bombing. What I've heard in the mainstream media has been just as biased, in fact more so, in favor of NATO and hostile towards the Serbs. So I view the bias on list list as a welcome contrast to the daily barrage of my local newspaper and nightly newscast.
Brett
>>Here is one Human Rights Watch report (I know, I know, a much
>>less reliable source than Milosevic's puppet media
>
>-By the way, I don't think anyone on this list has cited or forwarded
>-anything from "Milosevic's puppet media."
>
>The 220 civilian dead figure comes from Milosevic's regime, not from NATO
>sources. To repeat the line from your original draft:
>
>"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."(Emphasis added)
>
>And my slur was not really against your post, but a slur against the attacks
>a number of people have made against Human Rights Watch as a source, even
>while Serbian propaganda has been reposted as gospel.
>
>--Nathan Newman