It's often hard to find time for more than passing shots. However, I think my analogy between the increased efficiency of Nazi death camps and ethnic cleansing, once it became clear that defeat was imminent, deserved a response. Maybe it was, in your venacular, "limp," but I'd certainly like to know why.
> [1] The 1.3 million "displaced refugees" from Kosovo fled from
> the NATO bombing, and the majority of them by a bit were
> Serbs.
I find the latter point nearly impossible to believe, but perhaps your source is better than mine (which I stumbled across after a cursory search): http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9906/22/clinton.02/
> [2] There may have been "a lack of concern on the left for
> atrocities in the former Yugoslavia," but what I heard was a
> concern for an accurate assessment of who was responsible for
> atrocities, rather than an easy acceptance of US/NATO
> propaganda, which quickly installed Milosevic in the role of new
> Hitler, recently vacated by Saddam Hussein.
(My favorite obiter dicta of the day: haven't some people been unfortunately criticized for their pleas merely for a more "accurate assessment" of atrocities in Cambodia than that provided by US propagandists?)
(And another: Really? I don't recall Clinton, Albright, Jennings et al. equating Milosevic with Hitler.)
I have no problem if you ignore the immediately preceding. I'd be remiss if I didn't note that I typed it primarily for my own amusement. However, I have one unrelated charge that I've never heard an adequate rebuttal to from the anti-intervention crowd: if a NATO campaign was such a brilliant piece of imperialism, it sure is odd that "realists" like Dr. K failed to see its significance and indeed railed against it. Or, perhaps, Kissinger, Buckley, Lott, Delay, Bush et al. experienced startling conversions to leftist humanism unbeknownst to me. Stranger things have happened.
-- Luke