East Timor, Kosovo, and Kuwait

[Seth Ackerman]

Nathan wrote:
>  The point is that killing to stop repression is
> not the same as killing in the pursuit of that repression.
> 
> Of course, part of what is being debated is whether the Kosovars were
> being
> repressed, but to turn the question around, if you think NATO's raw body
> count is a sign of brutality, then you have to agree that the Serbs were
> involved in brutality and repression.
> 
> 
> 

	Yes. NATO acted brutally. *And* the Serbs were involved in brutality
and repression. Both are true. It is possible to see both. 

	But NATO was "killing to stop repression" only in the same sense
that Milosevic was killing to "fight terrorism." Both are hollow rhetorical
conceits. NATO killed simply to assert its own existence. A peaceful
resolution to the Kosovo crisis would have been a menace to the Alliance. As
a White House foreign policy advisor told the Washington Post on the eve of
the bombing:

	"There are massive bloodbaths all over the world and we're not
intervening in them. [The difference is] this one's in the heart of Europe.
I'd argue that the alliance itself is at risk because if it's unable to
address a major threat within Europe, it really loses its reason for being."

	You chose to support one hollow conceit but not the other, which is
what I am baffled by.

	Seth