posted 05-26-99 10:58 PM ET        

In 1960 the Serbs were estimated 70-75% of Kosovo, now, in 1999, the Albanians outnumber the Serbs 9 to 1, Serbs are a minoirty in their own country.

But that doesn't give them the reason to "kill" Ethnic Albanians..

There is a terrorist organization known as the "Kosovo Liberation Army" (KLA) which is composed of Separist Albanians who are working to make Kosovo a part of Albania, they want Kosovo for Albanians only- no Serbs.
The KLA has performed many illegal operations, murders of Serbs (women and children too) in order to spread thier message of hate.

Since Kosovo is part of Serbia, and belongs to the Serbs (who are still in power), president Milosevic sent out to stop the uprising of the KLA Albanians before they wrekced major damage to the country.
(And ONLY the KLA, not the innocent Albanians)

When Clinton (yes I really do hate this guy) saw that Milosevic was attacking Albanians (Who were also attacking Serbs) he was determined to bomb Kosovo into surrendering.
When the bombings began, that is when the large numbers of Albanians fled the country, and only when the bombings began.
It was not the Serbs who were pushing them from their homes, it was the bombings by the murderous president of the USA.
( I cant believe he's still in office after lying to his own country! )
And it's not only Albanians who are fleeing, even Serbs and Moslims are fleeing to escape death.
Animals, birds, and all other wildlife are in search of new homes after their habitat is destroyed by Clinton.

The Serbs had proposed a peace treaty and said they would allow all Albanians to return to their homes, and they would allow a UN peacekeeping force in Kosovo.
However, even though Clinton should be jumping up and down at the signs of peace, he decdies to keep bombing Kosovo.
The reason the Serbs do not want NATO peacekeepers in their country is because these NATO peacekeeprs will be heavily armed, tanks in Kosovo, and these are the same people who are right now murdering men, women and children in Kosovo.

As of now the US is in debt billions and billions of dollars for all the deaths and bombings of Kosovo, who pays for this?
Why the good old USA citizens of course!

And if that's not enough, there are protests to NATO's aggression across the world (particularly in Russia, Greece, and China) some of which are even violent.
An example is the attack of the US embissay in Russia and China.
A russian protestor even tried to launch a grenade at the US embissay!

The Chinese are burning American flags and pictures of Clinton.
The Russians are doing the same, burning American flags and US dollars.

There are protests in Spain, Germany, France, Africa, US, UK, you name the country, there are protests.
(if you want to see some of the protest demonstrations or a list of protests throughout the world- you woudnt believe how many!, just send me an email)

I hope that some people can realize the truth now, what Clinton is doing, his murderous ways and putting American lives at risk for a conflict he has no right to be involved with.

What if the US does send in ground troops? Many men will lose thier lives, and the families will be weaping for them.
The Serb soldiers will be DEFENDING their country, protecting their homes and families, the US soldiers will be ATTACKING, just because their traitor president told them to. (and to get payed of course)
There will be heavy casaulties on both sides, all when president Milosevic AGREED to peace!

The US had a very dangerous repuation as of now, many countries hate the US, so US tourists heading to China or Russia, beware of the NATO protestors.. they just might be otu to kill some Americans!

posted 05-27-99 12:52 AM ET            

The latest target of NATO involved two children being killed and one injured. (pictures are shown on the site)

And why should the Serbs have to withdraw from their own country?

posted 05-27-99 04:28 AM ET            

One example:
"The invented "mass graves" as their main specialty in accusing the Serbs were not been successful so far. It turned out that in those mass graves in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia were only Serbian corpses."

This is the standard propaganda lie. Those mass graves have been examined by the international tribunal, by human rights experts and their teams, by the international UN sponsored authorities in Bosnia. In Srebrenica and Vukovar, for example, the serbs were definately not the victims. It reminds me of the standard neonazi lie that the victims in the concentration camps have been german POWs.

posted 05-27-99 04:36 AM ET            

"When the bombings began, that is when the large numbers of Albanians fled the country, and only when the bombings began."

Now this is avery skillful propaganda trick as the statement is true. Just some additional information would show:
- Before the bombing began, _small_ numbers fled Kosovo as the Serbs executed ethnic cleansing on a small scale to stay below the level wehre the West would intervene
- The statement says that two events occurred at the same time. It does not explicitly link them as cause/effect. The cause for the mass exodus is the carefully planned deportation, expulsion, torture and murder axecuted by the Serb Army, police and paramilitaries. They started this when the bombing began as they were no longer limited to the low scale ethnic cleansing. If you believe that they are fleeing the bombing, then why are there no serb refugees (from Kosovo or the rest of Serbia) among those going into Macedonia ? Are the Albanians as a result of their ethnicity more inclined to flee ?

posted 05-27-99 04:10 PM ET            

First of all...You are talking about Serbian propaganda? Well sit children let me give the subject of the day...all of the large western media are purely propaganda machineries, as an good example the states are able to change their public oppinion in whatever they feel comfortable with in matter of hours...CNN,BBC...come on...i haven't heard anything true on this channels since Zekharov first walked the planet...
Their editors have meetings with goverment officials so they can...well...equalize their public relatins...not saying that Serbia isn't doing that...but they are still learning, and the masters are kicking butts all over the globe...as seen in the example of the persona mentioned before...

Try this for a change.. www.MediaWar.com

And don't talk about albanians fleeing kosovo because of serbs hunting them like animals...anyone who's been there and done that will tell you that all you have to see are pictures of Pristina...Kosovo's largest city, mostly populated by Albanians...It's in ruins for christs sake...we can send the archeologists right now to their work..This compared to the bombing of Sarajevo is like comparing Klinton with your best friends sister...

This is genocide going on right now in Serbia and no-one is even feeling so much concerned to take a look at it...Hospitals beeing bombed...factories, bridges, civilian houses, and BOMBING A MARKET WITH CLUSTER BOMBS???? And please don't even try to say that i'm making this up...i've seen it...most of the foreign journalists have seen it...and all i can say that i feel sick when i think of the basterd Klinton+the psychodelic company and the oh-so-beloved shi'thead Blair...oh man i could just tear him apart for saying all this crap in public..

Well ok, i've seen serbs do crimes in the bosnian war, maybe in this one too...But the crimes NATO is making right now...the human kind has yet to find about..maybe in ten years or so...well damnit...who gives a crap anyway...children and pregnant women beeing killed in their own homes...no electricity even for the hospitals......it'll pass...no worries...

And as a final greeting to Roland...Take Care buddy...And take care all of you out there who are just watching this and thinking...well what's the problem with these Balkanians...they animals or somethin?

So welcome to the Animal Club kids.

If you just might get interested in more...go to this site:

www.homestead.com/ulinkme/dalinkz.html

and under the Serbia vs NATO section read the article *A fog that Descends from Above*
National review Publ. May 1999

Good night.

XenoMan

posted 05-27-99 04:21 PM ET            

Cheers

posted 05-27-99 04:55 PM ET            

Here's the info from Network Solutions:

Registrant:
        Yunet International (MEDIAWAR2-DOM)
           Obilicev venac 4
           Beograd, Yugoslavia 11000
           YU
           Domain Name: MEDIAWAR.COM
           Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
              Aleksic, Vladan  (VA593)  [email protected]
              +381 11 3282-708 (FAX) +381 11 3282-760
           Billing Contact:
              Aleksic, Vladan  (VA593)  [email protected]
              +381 11 3282-708 (FAX) +381 11 3282-760
           Record last updated on 02-Apr-99.
           Record created on 02-Apr-99.
           Database last updated on 26-May-99 12:17:59 EDT.
           Domain servers in listed order:
           NS.EUNET.YU                  194.247.192.1
           SOLAIR4.EUNET.YU             194.247.192.33
           NS.NET.YU                    212.200.40.130

posted 05-27-99 08:07 PM ET            

But k_shane sounds like the product of every other state media-controlled society.

On the KLA: Yes, the KLA is a terrorist organization, and it would be a mistake for the West to give them aid. But some of them really want freedom from Serbia, and I believe that they have a right to self-determination. This would be such a problem if Milosevic didn't revoke their autonomy.

On the putting down of an "Uprising": To soem degree you are correct in saying that Serbia has a right to put down insurgents. In the US we put millitant militias out of business. But this operation has gone too far. The Yugoslav police and army are carrying out a campaign of forced expulsion. There have been numerous reports of Albanians being thrown out of their homes at gunpoint. A common story is that Serbs drop tear gass into houses, take all that come out, herd them into cattle cars and take them to the border. This has nothing to do with putting down an uprising.

On the bombing: When the US saw thousands of Albanians streaming across the borders to neighboring state, we began to serve warnings and ultimatums to Milosevic to no avail. Only when he ignored internation pressure to stop this, did NATO begin to bomb Serbia. Clinton didn't wake up one day and decide to bomb Yugoslavia into a pile of rubble. And no, most Albanians aren't fleeing the bombing, they are fleeing from the Serb forces that are forcing them out who happen to be in the line of fire.

The Serbs had proposed a peace treaty and said they would allow all Albanians to return to their homes, and they would allow a UN peacekeeping force in Kosovo.
However, even though Clinton should be jumping up and down at the signs of peace, he decdies to keep bombing Kosovo.
The reason the Serbs do not want NATO peacekeepers in their country is because these NATO peacekeeprs will be heavily armed, tanks in Kosovo, and these are the same people who are right now murdering men, women and children in Kosovo.

The reason we didn't accept any treaty from Milosevic is because it would have returned the situation to the status quo with no punishment at all. And frankly, the reason Milosevic doesn't want NATO peacekeepers in Kosovo is because he knows that it would be the beginning of the end for him. I'm sure if he lost the site of The Field of Blackbirds (I think that's the name) he would be out of power shortly.

As of now the US is in debt billions and billions of dollars for all the deaths and bombings of Kosovo, who pays for this?
Why the good old USA citizens of course!

The US isn't in debt because of the campaign. The whole operation just cut into the 98-99 surplus. As for rebuilding, once this is over the West will have a "Marshall Plan" style rebuilding of Kosovo and Yugoslavia.

I hope that some people can realize the truth now, what Clinton is doing, his murderous ways and putting American lives at risk for a conflict he has no right to be involved with.

What if the US does send in ground troops? Many men will lose thier lives, and the families will be weaping for them.
The Serb soldiers will be DEFENDING their country, protecting their homes and families, the US soldiers will be ATTACKING, just because their traitor president told them to. (and to get payed of course)
There will be heavy casaulties on both sides, all when president Milosevic AGREED to peace!

The US had a very dangerous repuation as of now, many countries hate the US, so US tourists heading to China or Russia, beware of the NATO protestors.. they just might be otu to kill some Americans!

Sure some people disapprove of the bombing campaign. But most agree with it and emphasize with the refugee's plight.

And if NATO sends in ground troops? Of course servicemen will die. It's war, goddamit, and that happens. Of couse a lot more Yugoslav soldiers will die than Western Servicemen, gauranteed. Forgive my jingoistic attitudes here, but pretty much every crackerjack third-world country that has come up against the US (post-Vietnam) has buckled easily. Yugoslav soldiers talk tough now, but when an Abrahams tank rolls up to their trench, their smiles will be wiped right off their face.

As for a dangerous repuatation among certain countried, that's life. It's tough being the world's superpower.

posted 05-27-99 11:55 PM ET            

Hmmm...And just a bit of a correction here...

I think Timexwatch mistyped the last paragraph where it sad about the Abrahams(and just what kind of a name is that for a tank??)

I think he ment....when an Abrahams tank rolls over to their trench...

Sorry...

posted 05-28-99 12:16 AM ET         

At least he hates Clinton almost as much as I do, but for different reasons I think.

posted 05-28-99 01:42 AM ET            

2) "That can be seen in the info on the Main page"
I beg to differ. Nowhere on their main page is this stated. When I looked at the page, saw no mention of their location and with the style of their "reporting", I looked up their registration info to see just where they are. Even on the "who?" page you only get the names of the staff. In American journalism it is a common practice to identify any affiliation you have with one of the parties you are reporting on; Mediawar does not.

3) The yellow journalistic slant in favor of the Serbs is quite apparent. On of their main "news" stories explains the US is attacking Serbia because is controls world narcotics production and needs a new stepping stone for exports to Europe as their previous pansy, Turkey, is becoming too unstable. Just go into "Kosovo: the Story", and go to "New politics on narcotics" and you'll find such unsubstantiated statements as:
"The primary reason[that there haven't been any mention 'of any type of actions in the Latin American countries' by the US in the 'couple years'] is that the U.S. Administration has managed to subject the entire drug production to its own control."

"Since the production of narcotics is under the U.S. control, they now need new markets where they can promote and sell these profitable products."

"The attempt of Bosnia to take over Turkey's place[as the US governments primary narcotic pipeline into Europe] failed due to the reaction of Serbs to form the Republika Srpska (its own separate entity) and also due to the internal disunity within the Federation of Bosnian Muslims and Croats."

and

"In 1997 came another attempt to find a new location[for the narcotics pipeline] this time in Albania. The events were staged[the collapse of their economy due to everybody falling for a Ponzi scheme] to destabilize the country, but due to the poor evaluation of the whole situation and poor understanding of the local mentality, this action also failed."

Hardly what I'd call a decent source of information. Even giving the reports I quoted (IMHO) undue credence, anytime you want such an accusation taken seriously you must back it up, not just throw it out there.

posted 05-28-99 03:36 AM ET            

Xeno:

...all of the large western media are purely propaganda machineries, as an good example the states are able to change their public oppinion in whatever they feel comfortable with in matter of hours... Their editors have meetings with goverment officials so they can...well...equalize their public relatins...

One question: If those media are a) so powerful and b) government controlled, then why can it happen that sitting governments are voted out of office ? The public opinion towards the government should only be "the drones love you..."

not saying that Serbia isn't doing that...but they are still learning, and the masters are kicking butts all over the globe...as seen in the example of the persona mentioned before...

Persona ? Referring to me there ?
Now, I've been explicitly referring to NATO propaganda. I don't know what channel you're watching, but on CNN, Sky, NTV, the german and austrian networks, they are reporting the things you mention:

Hospitals beeing bombed...factories, bridges, civilian houses, and BOMBING A MARKET WITH CLUSTER BOMBS???? And please don't even try to say that i'm making this up...i've seen it...most of the foreign journalists have seen it...

The question is just: deliberate strategy or accidents ? Let's see... 6000 or 7000 attack sorties ... if the strategy were to go for terror attacks (which badly backfired in WWII), casualties would be in the 10s or 100s of thousends - figures even the Serb claims don't come close to.

They are also letting representatives of the Serbs state the most blatant and absurd lies, and namely on CNN, the questioning the journalists do is pathetic.

And don't talk about albanians fleeing kosovo because of serbs hunting them like animals...anyone who's been there and done that...

Done what ? Hunting Albanians like animals ?

This is genocide going on right now in Serbia and no-one is even feeling so much concerned to take a look at it...and all i can say that i feel sick when i think of the basterd Klinton+the psychodelic company and the oh-so-beloved shi'thead Blair...oh man i could just tear him apart for saying all this crap in public..

This is a good description of my feelings toward representatives of the Serb stance. But a free society most be able to stand up to the most annoying forms of speech, so let them rant... seen any NATO representatives allowed to make their case on the serb media ?

Well ok, i've seen serbs do crimes in the bosnian war, maybe in this one too...But the crimes NATO is making right now...the human kind has yet to find about..maybe in ten years or so...well damnit...who gives a crap anyway...children and pregnant women beeing killed in their own homes...no electricity even for the hospitals......it'll pass...no worries...

Maybe. And it will be horror when the world finds out what the Serbs are doing now in Kosovo.

And as a final greeting to Roland...Take Care buddy...And take care all of you out there who are just watching this and thinking...well what's the problem with these Balkanians...they animals or somethin?

No, this is the desease of nationalism which affected or affects most nations at some point in their history. And sometimes, it erupts into genocides.

Andrew:

What amuse me most - and I think this is the main difference between west and east point of view - is the habit of all you western people to believe, that in any situation there are only two colors - black and white - and only two sides - yours and wrong.

If this point is referring to me, I can't see where I said that. To me it is clear that the Milosevic position is wrong, ok. NATO isn't the white knight, more a lot of shades of gray there. The shades of gray also apply to Serbia itself as the country is not identical with the regime.

Roland, when you said, that all, that Serbs said about NATO 'evidence' is propaganda, please try to reverse this statement and tell me - why I had to believe another side propaganda?

Hmm... are you sure you read what I actually said ? Maybe it's been clearer in this post - the bit about NATO propaganda and the media...

I think, long life under mighty propaganda machine of former SU give to us here some immunity to standard goverment lie, when you simply listen to both sides, than to some independant evidence, than to some 'evil tonques' and then turn on you own reason and try mix all that in reasonable picture.

What I'm trying to do. Just that the result of my mix may not be the same that you get, that doesn't mean I'm not trying to get a reasonable picture. Also, though not seeing it in action, I've studied the way Nazi propaganda worked a lot, and I think even the SU guys have been no match for Goebbles.

Some evidence for NATO lovers: not so long ago in Russia south returns adygeya people, who live in Kosovo. And they said, that there was NO any cleansing in Kosovo where they had live, and people began to leave region only AFTER bombing had began. That is only another fact to consider, nothing more.

This may be true, though I'm not sure where those "adygeya" belong ethnically etc... As I've said: "Before the bombing began, small numbers fled Kosovo as the Serbs executed ethnic cleansing on a small scale to stay below the level where the West would intervene." So their area may have been spared.

Milosevich really is not evil and ruthless leader.

Oh well... there are people who consider Stalin and Hitler nice guys.... he used nationalism to get to power, installed an apartheid system in Kosovo, destroyed the balance of power in Yugoslavia which lead to its brake-up, and started four wars (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo). Started - under the old yugoslav constitution, those three Republics and maybe even Kosovo had the _right_ to leave the federation. The way those wars went (both ways) is well known. Oh, and now he's indicted for war crimes by the UN tribunal.

Regarding the things he doesn't do against NATO, do you really believe because he's just a nice guy ? This would escalate the conflict further and make NATO target him personally. He's a psychopath, but a very clever one.

Btw, AFAIK, on Geneva convention, attack of military object AND military people on the enemy territory is NOT a terrorism, but usual practice.

Only by combattants, ie people carrying their weapons unconcelaed and having the insignia of the side for which they fight. The thing you describe would be terrorism under international law. Also I thiunk you get a bit carried away there... "nuclear bombs" ? The result would be the end of Serbia. "mother, which kill YOUR children in school because you kill her children?" - how are children in school a military target ?

And another moment to consider - now serbs still have something to lose. But after some time, when there nothing left... Well, we are far from there, but Europe then can get million terrorists in her heart.

Unlikely. After WWII, there haven't been millions of Nazi terrorists... operation "Werwolf" was an almost 100 % flop...

posted 05-28-99 04:03 PM ET            

> A guy driving a Yugo pulls up at a stoplight next to a Rolls-Royce.
> The driver of the Yugo rolls down his window and shouts to the driver
> of the Rolls, "Hey, buddy, that's a nice car. You got a phone in your
> Rolls? I've got one in my Yugo!"
> The driver of Rolls looks over and says simply, "Yes I have a phone."
> The driver of the Yugo says, "Cool! Hey, you got a fridge in there
> too? I've got a fridge in the back seat of my Yugo!"
> The driver of the Rolls, looking annoyed, says, "Yes, I have a
> refrigerator."
> The driver of the Yugo says, "That's great, man! Hey, you got a TV in
> there, too? You know, I got a TV in the back seat of my Yugo!"
> The driver of the Rolls, looking very annoyed by now, says, "Of
> course I have a television. A Rolls-Royce is the finest luxury car in
> the world!"
> The driver of the Yugo says, "Very cool car! Hey, you got a bed in
> there, too? I got a bed in the back of my Yugo!"
> Upset that he did not have a bed, the driver of the Rolls-Royce sped
> away, and went straight to the dealer, where he promptly ordered that
> a bed be installed in the back of the Rolls. The next morning, the
> driver of the Rolls picked up the car, and the bed looked superb,
> complete with silk sheets and brass trim. It was clearly a bed fit
> for a Rolls Royce.
> So the driver of the Rolls begins searching for the Yugo, and he
> drove all day. Finally, late at night, he finds the Yugo parked, with
> all the windows fogged up from the inside. The driver of the Rolls got
> out and knocked on the Yugo. When there wasn't any answer, he knocked
> and knocked, and eventually the owner stuck his head out, soaking wet.
> "I now have a bed in the back of my Rolls-Royce," the driver of the
> Rolls stated arrogantly.
> The driver of the Yugo looked at him and said, "You got me out of the
> shower for that??"

posted 05-28-99 04:30 PM ET         

Please explain.

posted 05-28-99 05:52 PM ET            

And yes...i have joined the army...i'm stationed and working at the command center of the air defence SAM site near Pancevo.
Luckily they had SMAC installed on all of their comps here before i came

Cheers

posted 05-28-99 06:35 PM ET            

I do not agree with NATO armed peacekeepers in Kosovo- for NATO is working with the Albanian terrorists of the KLA.
The KLA have given NATO information, they have even captured a Serb soldier and turned him over to NATO- but before they turned him over they held him for about a week and must have tortured him into saying that Serb troops are raping Albanian women and all this other ****ing**** that they are lying about.

And about negotations, there were NONE.
Milosevic didn't have the chance to work out a peace agreement before the bombings start because there were no negotatians to begin with. (This is taken straight from the words of President Milosevic himself, and he is not the evil person you all view him as)

Well I'm not in the mood to enlighten the slower thinkers (roland), so if you believe in the lies the media is telling you, then you won't get far in life.
The media has never told us about the KLA- they only tell you about how the Serbs are supposedly killing Albanians- they dont bother to tell you that the KLA is killing Serbs in the name of making Kosovo their own country.

Let's see what's bombed next, a school perhaps? How about seeing a few dozen Serbian children killed?

posted 05-28-99 10:09 PM ET            

And the reason Milosevic proposed this is because he wants the world to see that no harm is being directed towards Ethnic Albanians, he wants you to see the truth, that the only ones doing any harm in Kosovo are the murderous KLA.

posted 05-28-99 10:43 PM ET            

XenoMan: I agree, this bombing is hurting civilians too much.(The UN did indict him as one) The Serbian people are not war criminals, so we should stop targeting them and do a ground invasion and take Kosovo.

BTW, I really doubt you are a serbian soldier, since we embargoed you when SMAC came out. Is there any way to tell where Xenoman is posting from?

k_shane: without tanks and guns, Serbian Police with guns would be able to very easily harass inspectors, which is what Iraq did to our inspectors.

posted 05-28-99 11:02 PM ET            

The minority in Kosovo are the Serbs themselves- outnumbered by Albanians 9 to 1.
Of course it's changed now, now that aggressive NATO is bombing the hell out of Kosovo, there are a great number of refugees.

And the only thing that is keeping the refugees from returning to their homes is NATO's bombardment.
Source: www.serbia-info.com

posted 05-29-99 12:30 AM ET            

Muhahahahahahah. You think that the U.S. tortures prisoners? I don't think so. The captured soldier was almost immediatly visited by 3rd party organizations as stipulated by the rules of the Geneva convention. Milosevic didn't permit aid workers to visit the captured GIs for a month or more.

As for the GIs, I remember reading that they were beaten, tortured to some degree, kept blindfolded and made to sleep in seperate bunkers each night.

And about negotations, there were NONE.
Milosevic didn't have the chance to work out a peace agreement before the bombings start because there were no negotatians to begin with. (This is taken straight from the words of President Milosevic himself, and he is not the evil person you all view him as)

No negotiations? What do you call Ramboulliet? What do you call the documents that were signed by the Ethnic Albanian Reps, but not the Serbian ones? Answer me that.

Milosevic released the 3 POWs who invaded his country, (the reason he took them is because they were laying siege on his land) and the he later released them.
This just shows you how aggressive and violent Milosevic is that he would release them! (even while NATO is STILL bombing his country and destroying everything in site)

Milosevic didn't release the US soldiers out of the kindness of his heart. It was a timed political move meant to embarass the US and help try to split the NATO coalition. And to a small degree, it worked.

posted 05-29-99 12:36 AM ET            

Yes, we know this is the Serbian propaganda line. We've pretty well already established that serbia-info is a mouthpiece for Milosevic, as far as most in this group are concerned. This is the correct stance to take on an organization that does not hide that it is a Serbian Ministry of Information site and levels unfounded claims, based on such 'indicative' evidence as the presence of Christianne Amanpour in Albania, that NATO is planning of faking Serbian atrocities via the use of Croatian planes in Serbian markings.
Ignoring the reports of Western European and US media outlets, it simply makes more sense to me that the Kosovar Albanians are primarily afraid of Serbian reprisals. With the Serbian track record on ethnic relations, it's a pretty open and shut case to me.

----

posted 05-29-99 12:37 AM ET            

how about this:
you're all using information spun differently.

three types of "truth" exist.
my side, your side, and the truth.

in this case, we can replace "my side" with the western view of black or white, with americans and nato being good and crusading for the cause of the kosovars.
we can replace "your side" with those who think that nato is harming more than it's helping.
but, we can't replace "the truth" with anything, because nobody on these forums, save Maya, has been there. Nobody has seen what devastation has been wrought. All of you are arguing about which source is more trustworthy. All of you are debating whether one is more controlled and more gullible.

Well, when one of you comes back, and gives me hard data on your personal experiences with the pilots of the Nato airforces, life with the fleeing refugees, and the plight of those Serbs who don't know what to do, maybe i'll listen to you more.

posted 05-29-99 10:43 AM ET            

Which does not mean I side with Milosevic. He's a Fascist Dictator of the worst kind. He's been the bane of the balkans since he took power. Oh, pro serb people: how can you explain the lack of free speech and freedom of the press in Serbia? Surely if what you say is right, then the government needn't control the Media...

posted 05-29-99 10:51 AM ET            

Yes, NATO is primarily a defensive ogranization. But the closest the charter comes to prohibiting offensive military actions is the following, from Article I of the North Atlantic Treaty, "to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.". It could be plausibly argued that NATO undertook this to fufill the "purposes of the United Nations" when, due to the veto power of Russia, they perceived that the UN would do nothing.

"Why not charge Janet Reno with a war crime for flaming(literally) near a hundred civilians who's only appearent crime was having a different religious view?"

Because this, rightly or wrongly, has been determined to be an accidental and unforseen side effect of introducing tear gas into the compound in the course of a lawful(if badly handled) arrest attempt, whereas(to NATO eyes) Milosevic's purpose was to simply persecute and terrorize the Albanians. Contrary to a vocal minority, this explanation is widely accepted. A differing religious view does not permit violating fire-arms regulations, etc, which is what Waco was about.

posted 05-29-99 10:54 AM ET            

Everybody knows the media is lying. The pro-Serb media is pretty blunt about it (and therefore utterly untrustworthy), while Western media is more devious (and perhaps more dangerous) by almost always telling the truth. In any case, you can never be sure any piece of information they offer you is truthful - there is no truth here or anywhere else, only points of view.

Obviously, k_shane and the others are right when they say the NATO bombs also harm civilians - anyone that believes in an extensive bombing campaign without civilian casualties is just plain ignorant. Depending on your personal opinion, that might in itself be sufficient reason to oppose the NATO campaign - it's entirely possible that the Kosovars would be better off today (according to some definition of 'better') had NATO not chosen to intervene.

To me, this 'easiest way' approach seems dubious. By analogy, countries that chose to offer little resistence against the Germans in WWII (such as Denmark and Norway) certainly got better off than others - does this mean compliance is a good idea? No way. Still, whether or not the NATO campaign has achieved anything of importance - or was indeed likely to do so from the beginning - is quite debatable. To me it seems far too early to argue either case - we still haven't seen what long-term effects it will have.

"You think that the U.S. tortures prisoners?
Of course the US tortures prisoners, if that serves their purpose. Get real. That doesn't mean, of course, that those Serb prisoners were tortured. Torturing some random POW with a lot of media visibility would be both pointless and stupid.

"Milosevich really is not evil and ruthless leader. For example, he doesn't use some interesting strategy, which could bring war on NATO territory."
Just because Slobo does not embark on every utterly mad scheme imaginable does not mean he's not evil and ruthless.

Finally, IMHO, the most interesting aspect of this campaign is not whether it helps the Kosovars, but the precedent it sets for international politics. At last we see an attempt to act in the interest of the people rather than in the interest of the state...

posted 05-29-99 11:34 AM ET         

On the second point of the NATO charter your quote is interesting in that "purposes of the United Nations" is rather an ambiguous statement. As your reading it to mean that as long as NATO is following the principles of the UN, or their spirit, any offensive action is permitted. But could it not also be interpreted as needing an expressed "purpose" of the UN given by resolution? If not you are giving NATO a carte blanche to act anytime it perceives the UN as not doing what it wants but falling within the parameters of what NATO(and in actuality the US)wants or believes needs to be done. IF that's the case why don't we just get rid of the UN(Imagine the monetary savings!)and let NATO or similar orginaztions decide what military operations to undertake and where. Pare down the UN to just the health organization part and send all the countries home and say "Sorry, your voices and votes don't count the US decides what our 'purposes' will be". I know that sounds a bit brazen but for all practical intents and purposes that seems to be what's happening in Kosovo.
About Russia blocking something in the UN, why is that necessarily a bad idea? Much of the carnage, cleansing, and refugee problems started after the bombing. Would a UN brokered diplomatic solution been more probable before all the shooting started? We don't know but if the UN is to be what it's founders envisioned we can't simply dismiss the forum simply because it doesn't always work the way we(meaning the US) want it to.

posted 05-29-99 11:49 AM ET            

Of course it could. I was merely giving what appears to be the NATO interpretation.

"IF that's the case why don't we just get rid of the UN(Imagine the monetary savings!)"

Well maybe, if we(the US) ever actually paid our UN bills.

"Quite frankly a better US President could have gotten the Russians on board for a UN intervention and planned a better strategic scenario to force compliance with the Rambolliet(Sorry about the spelling) accords."

posted 05-29-99 11:57 AM ET            

Do you have proof of this? It has become our word vs their word, when our media is independent, while their media is state-controlled, and the United Nations has declared Slobo a war criminal. I know, our media is not the most trustworthy(They are practically a campaigning machine for the Democrat party), but they are far more trustworthy than their Serbian counterparts.

BTW, If Slobo cared any about his own people, he would have given up by now. HIs country is being knocked back into the stone age, and his infrastructure is pretty much completley dead. Even if he thinks he is right, he would have given in to NATO just to stop his people's suffering.

posted 05-29-99 12:04 PM ET            

The Current Bombings by Noam Chomsky

posted 05-29-99 01:30 PM ET            

Anyway, Slobo was in fact elected, though I'd agree that Serbia is less than a perfect democracy.

Hugo: "I think everyone agrees that The bombings were a mistake to begin with." - Not necessarily. The Kosovo crisis did not offer easy solutions, and the chosen path - bombings - was only as flawed as the other options. I inherently disagree with Chomsky's idea that "First, do no harm. If you can think of no way to adhere to that elementary principle, then do nothing." Remember Chamberlain and the politics of appeasment in the late 30s? Faced with no options to stop Hitler save the one that would indeed do much harm (war), Chamberlain did nothing. Sometimes, the 'do nothing' approach is the one that harms the most.

Another of Chomsky's points is that the bombing campaign was initiated knowing that it would escalate the conflict. Indeed. This goes back to what I said in my last post - the easiest way is not always the best. The approach that would have caused the least harm - in the short run - in Kosovo would probably have been to let Slobo do as he pleased. Similarly, whenever an aging dictatorship is turning to democracy, the easist way will probably be to let the dictator have a nice estate on the French Mediterranean coast. And, when conquered by an oppressor, an organized resistence movement will escalate the conflict and cause grief to the people. IMHO, if an escalation is what it takes, an escalation is what they'll get.

By mentioning conflicts in Colombia, Turkey, Laos and whatnot, Chomsky tries to argue that the attempts of the West to 'act morally' in the Kosovo situation is pathetic. I'll agree with him that each example he mentions shows the tendency of our fine Western nations to act 'immorally' in the interest of the state. I'll also agree that there most certainly are ulterior motives to the current campaign, such as confirming NATO's right to life in the new world order (sans communism). IMHO, however, these do not in themselves disqualify the bombing campaign as a 'moral' option - just because our attempts to make peace in the past have been misguided does not mean we should not try to do so again.

Of course, my own views here could arguably be seen to embrace the idea that 'an honest war is better than a dishonest peace'. If you choose to favor peace at any cost (which is certainly a valid choice - in the long run, who cares whether Pinochet dies in prison - as he deserves - or as a free man?), my argument will make little sense.

posted 05-29-99 08:50 PM ET            

I'm not saying appeasement is always a bad idea, but it's definitely not always a good idea. I very much doubt that we will see Yugoslavia attacking any surrounding countries, but if 'we' hadn't stopped Slobo in Kosovo, maybe Montenegro would be next? Maybe if someone had decided to initiate a bombing campaign during the Bosnia crisis, Kosovo would be a peaceful place today?

"If so a declaration of war and the intervention of UN ground forces would certainly fall within Chomsky's parameters of internationally legally justified actions."
Chomsky makes a major point out of this 'world order' - "The (UN) Charter bans force violating state sovereignty". To me, these 'rights of the state' (The State, the coldest of all cold monsters) seem fairly out-dated in our global community, and they certainly pale compared to the far more important rights of the people. Anyway, as we have seen in Vietnam, Laos, Nicaragua and what have you, the rights of the state are disregarded in the face of the interests of (some other, more powerful) state.

"What is being destroyed here(in the Kosovo crisis) is the principled framework for abolishing hostile activities by nations of the world."
Well, it's a framework that needs being destroyed. It achieves nothing (powerful nations do as they please, framework or no framework), and it apparently makes our task of intervening for the rights of the people more difficult. Nations with hostile intent don't really need a 'humanitarian crisis excuse' to do their stuff.

"Given the level of atrocities prior to the campaign starting a tactic which had low probability of achieving the desired ends(ie. stopping ethnic cleansing)and a high probability of increasing(causing greater harm)the atrocities, along with the "collateral damage", it would have been better to do nothing."
I'm going to have to argue with you on a philosophical level here. You're presenting a utilitarian perspective - the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of NATOs bombing is determined by the 'goodness' or 'badness' of its outcome. This has been the basis of Western behavior in the Balkans since the early 90s - guessing the consequences of this action or that, and choosing the one that seems 'best', or least risky. It didn't work particularly well, and I'd say, in a situation as complex as this, it couldn't work very well. You might be able to guess the immediate effects of your action, but beyond that you're clueless: the level of complexity is too high.

So, given that you can't predict the effects of what you'll do, I'll suggest using Kant's categorical imperative instead - "act as if the maxim from which you act were to become a universal law". In other words, do whatever's right, and deal with the consequences as they arise. The West chose to intervene. Did it turn out very well? No. Would I still want them to intervene the next time some crazy fvckhead decides to get rid of some ethnic / religious / whatever group? Yes.

'diplomatic means or pressures'
In Yugoslavia, diplomatic pressure without military backing has repeatedly proven itself to be no more than a very unamusing joke. Diplomatic pressure is just a more polite phrase for doing nothing.

posted 05-29-99 11:57 PM ET         

Regarding the WWII analogy. I don't think Chamberlain was all that confident he could win a war at that time.(Any doubt we could beat Serbia if we wanted to?) Given the lack of confidence his subsequent actions are at least understandable. Frankly I don't think appeasement is a good idea, then or now. The west should certainly have been more forceful with Hitler. There are many reasons why they weren't but ultimately it came down to the fact they simple underestimated Hitler and his potential. I think part of the problem in Kosovo is that we are overestimating Slobo and painting ourselves into a corner on what actions we can or cannot take.
I thought NATO did bomb during the Bosnian crisis, didn't we use airstrikes to help the Croats and Slovenes drive Yugoslavian troops out of the area and finalize the Dayton accords?(my memory is a little weak here so I could be mistaken)

Doesn't the state exist to protect the rights of its citizens? Isn't the USA a government "Of the People, By the People and for the Prople"? We ain't perfect that's for sure but our governemtn is at least supposed to represent the "will of the people". I don't really believe Chomsky's version of the "New world order" either but I do feel there is need for some kind of international framework for resolving conflicts between sovereign nations. It is an interesting question, the rights of the people vs. the interests of the state. But that REALLY needs to be a discussion for an entirely different thread.

As far the international framework goes I was only trying to argue that a military intervention was possible within our currently existing one. Our unilateralism is the danger. Aren't we supposed to be the good guys here? Shouldn't we set the example of acting lawfully?

posted 05-30-99 12:22 PM ET            

"Shouldn't we set the example of acting lawfully?"
Certainly, the best way to handle a crisis would be through the UN. However, given the Russian and Chinese power in the Security Council, I very much doubt that anything of significance could be achieved - at least not without years and years of negotiations. And, of course, by that time it would all basically be over anyway. So, to some extent, the question becomes whether to act lawfully (meaning, not acting at all), or to bend the rules in the attempt of actually doing something. Personally, I don't have too much respect for rules and regulations, but I can certainly see your point.

I guess I come across as a strong supporter of the current bombing campaign here, which I'm really not. It was really a bad policy - its only redeeming factor is the fact that there aren't any good policies available...

posted 05-30-99 11:03 PM ET            

www.protest.net Check it out if you want to see some of the protests of NATO's aggression.

And I just read that if the US decides to send in ground troops, that Italy will seperate from NATO/US.

Shoudn't Clinton be negotiating with Milosevic instead of bombing his country?
Of course everyone hates Americans, because the US are bullies, dropping bombs in foreign countries just because they dont like a certain group of people. (in this Serbs
But know that not ALL americans support Clinton's murderous ways, in fact, even part of the congress is urging Clinton stop the bombings for 3 days to try and work out a peaceful negotation, remember that Milosevic has agreed for Albanians to return to their homes, (if they have anything left by the time NATO is done with Kosovo) but instead Clinton wastes money killing the Serbs (including women and children), and also now we have to worry about the refugee Albanians coming into our countries.

posted 05-30-99 11:15 PM ET            

-------------------------------------------

The Fatal Flaws Underlying NATO'S Intervention in Yugoslavia

USI, New Delhi

April 6, 1999

By Lt Gen Satish Nambiar (Retd.)

My year long experience as the Force Commander and Head of Mission of
the United Nations Forces deployed in the former Yugoslavia has given me
an understanding of the fatal flaws of US/NATO policies in the troubled
region. It was obvious to most people following events in the Balkans
since the beginning of the decade, and particularly after the fighting
that resulted in the emergence of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina
and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, that Kosovo was a 'powder
keg' waiting to explode. The West appears to have learnt all the wrong
lessons from the previous wars and applied it to Kosovo.

(1) Portraying the Serbs as evil and everybody else as good was not only
counterproductive but also dishonest. According to my experience all
sides were guilty but only the Serbs would admit that they were no
angels while the others would insist that they were. With 28, 000 forces
under me and with constant contacts with UNHCR and the International Red
Cross officials, we did not witness any genocide beyond killings and
massacres on all sides that are typical of such conflict conditions. I
believe none of my successors and their forces saw anything on the scale
claimed by the media.

(2) It was obvious to me that if Slovenians, Croatians and Bosniaks had
the right to secede from Yugoslavia, then the Serbs of Croatia and
Bosnia had an equal right to secede. The experience of partitions in
Ireland and India has not be pleasant but in the Yugoslavia case, the
state had already been taken apart anyway. It made little sense to me
that if multiethnic Yugoslavia was not tenable that multiethnic Bosnia
could be made tenable. The former internal boundaries of Yugoslavia
which had no validity under international law should have been redrawn
when it was taken apart by the West, just as it was in the case of
Ireland in 1921 and Punjab and Bengal in India in 1947. Failure to
acknowledge this has led to the problem of Kosovo as an integral part of
Serbia.

(3) It is ironic that the Dayton Agreement on Bosnia was not
fundamentally different from the Lisbon Plan drawn up by Portuguese
Foreign Minister Cuteliero and British representative Lord Carrington to
which all three sides had agreed before any killings had taken place, or
even the Vance-Owen Plan which Karadzic was willing to sign.

One of the main problems was that there was an unwillingness on the part
of the American administration to concede that Serbs had legitimate
grievances and rights. I recall State Department official George Kenny
turning up like all other American officials, spewing condemnations of
the Serbs for aggression and genocide. I offered to give him an escort
and to go see for himself that none of what he proclaimed was true. He
accepted my offer and thereafter he made a radical turnaround.. Other
Americans continued to see and hear what they wanted to see and hear
from one side, while ignoring the other side. Such behaviour does not
produce peace but more conflict.

(4) I felt that Yugoslavia was a media-generated tragedy. The Western
media sees international crises in black and white, sensationalizing
incidents for public consumption. From what I can see now, all Serbs
have been driven out of Croatia and the Muslim-Croat Federation, I
believe almost 850,000 of them. And yet the focus is on 500,000
Albanians (at last count) who have been driven out of Kosovo. Western
policies have led to an ethnically pure Greater Croatia, and an
ethnically pure Muslim statelet in Bosnia. Therefore, why not an
ethnically pure Serbia? Failure to address these double standards has
led to the current one.

As I watched the ugly tragedy unfold in the case of Kosovo while
visiting the US in early to mid March 1999, I could see the same pattern
emerging. In my experience with similar situations in India in such
places as Kashmir, Punjab, Assam, Nagaland, and elsewhere, it is the
essential strategy of those ethnic groups who wish to secede to provoke
the state authorities. Killings of policemen is usually a standard
operating procedure by terrorists since that usually invites
overwhelming state retaliation, just as I am sure it does in the United
States.

I do not believe the Belgrade government had prior intention of driving
out all Albanians from Kosovo. It may have decided to implement
Washington's own "Krajina Plan" only if NATO bombed, or these expulsions
could be spontaneous acts of revenge and retaliation by Serb forces in
the field because of the bombing. The OSCE Monitors were not doing too
badly, and the Yugoslav Government had, after all, indicated its
willings to abide by nearly all the provisions of the Rambouillet
"Agreement" on aspects like cease-fire, greater autonomy to the
Albanians, and so on. But they insisted that the status of Kosovo as
part of Serbia was not negotiable, and they would not agree to
stationing NATO forces on the soil of Yugoslavia. This is precisely what
India would have done under the same circumstances. It was the West that
proceeded to escalate the situation into the current senseless bombing
campaign that smacks more of hurt egos, and revenge and retaliation.

NATO's massive bombing intended to terrorize Serbia into submission
appears no differrent from the morality of actions of Serb forces in
Kosovo. Ultimatums were issued to Yugoslavia that unless the terms of an
agreement drawn up at Rambouillet were signed, NATO would undertake
bombing. Ultimatums do not constitute diplomacy. They are acts of war.
The Albanians of Kosovo who want independence, were coaxed and cajoled
into putting their signatures to a document motivated with the hope of
NATO bombing of Serbs and independence later. With this signature, NATO
assumed all the legal and moral authority to undertake military
operations against a country that had, at worst, been harsh on its own
people. On 24th March 1999, NATO launched attacks with cruise missiles
and bombs, on Yugoslavia, a sovereign state, a founding member of the
United Nations and the Non Aligned Movement; and against a people who
were at the forefront of the fight against Nazi Germany and other
fascist forces during World War Two. I consider these current actions
unbecoming of great powers.

It is appropriate to touch on the humanitarian dimension for it is the
innocent who are being subjected to displacement, pain and misery.
Unfortunately, this is the tragic and inevitable outcome of all such
situations of civil war, insurgencies, rebel movements, and terrorist
activity. History is replete with examples of such suffering; whether it
be the American Civil War, Northern Ireland, the Basque movement in
Spain, Chechnya, Angola, Cambodia, and so many other cases; the
indiscriminate bombing of civilian centres during World War Two;
Hiroshima and Nagasaki; Vietnam. The list is endless. I feel that this
tragedy could have been prevented if NATO's ego and credibility had not
been given the highest priority instead of the genuine grievances of
Serbs in addition to Albanians.

Notwithstanding all that one hears and sees on CNN and BBC, and
other Western agencies, and in the daily briefings of the NATO
authorities, the blame for the humanitarian crisis that has arisen
cannot be placed at the door of the Yugoslav authorities alone. The
responsibility rests mainly at NATO's doors. In fact, if I am to go by
my own experience as the First Force Commander and Head of Mission of
the United Nations forces in the former Yugoslavia, from March 1992 to
March 1993, handling operations in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and
Macedonia, I would say that reports put out in the electronic media are
largely responsible for provoking this tragedy. Where does all this
leave the international community which for the record does not comprise
of the US, the West and its newfound Muslim allies ? The portents for
the future, at least in the short term, are bleak indeed.

The United Nations has been made totally redundant, ineffective, and
impotent. The Western world, led by the USA, will lay down the moral
values that the rest of the world must adhere to; it does not matter
that they themselves do not adhere to the same values when it does not
suit them. National sovereignty and territorial integrity have no
sanctity. And finally, secessionist movements, which often start wit
terrorist activity, will get greater encouragement. One can only hope
that good sense will prevail, hopefully sooner rather than later.

First Force Commander and Head of Mission of the United Nations Forces
deployed in the former Yugoslavia 03 Mar 92 to 02 Mar 93. Former Deputy
Chief of Staff, Indian Army. Currently, Director of the United Services
Institution of India.

posted 05-31-99 04:26 AM ET            

I do not agree with NATO armed peacekeepers in Kosovo- for NATO is working with the Albanian terrorists of the KLA.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. So ?

The KLA have given NATO information, they have even captured a Serb soldier and turned him over to NATO- but before they turned him over they held him for about a week and must have tortured him into saying that Serb troops are raping Albanian women and all this other ****ing**** that they are lying about.

This soldier has, unlike the three americans captured by the serbs, never been displayed on TV at all. The reports about serb atrocities are from the refugees.

And about negotations, there were NONE. Milosevic didn't have the chance to work out a peace agreement before the bombings start because there were no negotatians to begin with. (This is taken straight from the words of President Milosevic himself, and he is not the evil person you all view him as)
Well I'm not in the mood to enlighten the slower thinkers (roland), so if you believe in the lies the media is telling you, then you won't get far in life.

And I get that from a person who believes a dictator and his propaganda machine ? Who says: "I can't believe that people believe whatever their president tells them." ? I don't give Clinton high credibility - but a foreign dictator will always tell the truth ? To return the favor, where have you had your brain for the last months ? On vacation in googooland ?

The media has never told us about the KLA- they only tell you about how the Serbs are supposedly killing Albanians- they dont bother to tell you that the KLA is killing Serbs in the name of making Kosovo their own country.

They have never told us about the KLA, Albanians who are working to cleanse Kosovo of all Serbs!

I have no idea what you are watching, but there have been reports about KLA atrocities. Also, with its lack of a clear command structure, the various KLA leaders have different objectives, from moderate to criminal.

Milosevic released the 3 POWs who invaded his country, (the reason he took them is because they were laying siege on his land) and the he later released them.
This just shows you how aggressive and violent Milosevic is that he would release them! (even while NATO is STILL bombing his country and destroying everything in site)

Well, if you can't tell the difference between humanitarian concerns and a very clever political move, learn politics 101.

And the reason Milosevic proposed this is because he wants the world to see that no harm is being directed towards Ethnic Albanians, he wants you to see the truth, that the only ones doing any harm in Kosovo are the murderous KLA.

Ah, see the truth! Milosevic is the great prophet, maybe even the Messiah ?

I suppose you are doing this for the provocation... I refuse to think that you really believe this crap.

Andrew:

Another matter to consider - how large is estimate of killed albanian? 2000? And how much is KLA forces? I give you simple picture - kill some band, which terrorize local people, then find that all of them are albanian - voila! Etnic cleansing on stage!

How many Albanians have been displaced ? 1,5 million ? Are they all in the KLA ?

Please, take in view, we here remember Chechnya yet...

Chechenya is a quite different matter. First, Russia (after the break-up of the USSR) did not oppress Chechenya (simply for the reason that they didn't have control over it). Also, the leader of the old soviet style parliament was chechen IIRC, though I've forgotten his name. Is there an albanian in any high ranking yugoslav government post ?

western press began to speak about our atrocities, city bombing, russian invaders...

... and about the way the chechens fought that war and their atrocities.

Considering Geneva convention... I remember there was some adding - 'depends on situation'. Are all english/american in WWII on Germany territory, who decide to blow up some bridge, or some pub with hitlerian army soldiers relaxing was in military clothes?

If those are commandos wearing uniform, yes. Otherwise, it was illegal, just like the bombing campaigns against civilians - though Hitler started this one; just as the deportation of 15 million ethnic germans from eastern europe where 2-3 million of them died - though again Hitler was the first to deport and kill...

Do you really think, that you would have some moral rights to blame them?

If they deliberately target civilians, yes.

...it would be another war - close and bloody.

Yes, it would be an escalation with a lot more victims than we see now.

And Miloshevich is not dictator, btw, he is democratic president, who REALLY had his people support.

Rigged elections, media and economy largely controlled by his and his wife's parties, killing of opposition leaders... no, definately not a democratic president.

NATO bombs not Miloshevich, it bombs serbs - do you REALLY believe they would turn against him?! They would turn against NATO.

That's one of the worst side-effects of that campaign. But the opposition failed to change things, so this was no alternative to stop the atrocities in Kosovo.

The implications for future world politics are worrying - absolutely right.

After (if) NATO intervention in Kosovo world will see etnic cleansing of serbs by albanian - maybe world will very long to find out that, but nevertheless - and NATO will find itself in very interesting position of atrocity defender.

Do you really think so ? In Bosnia, the international authorities are trying to reverse the ethnic cleansing (of all three sides), and though this hasn't gone very far yet, they definately do not support further displacements.

It was obvious to me that if Slovenians, Croatians and Bosniaks had the right to secede from Yugoslavia, then the Serbs of Croatia and Bosnia had an equal right to secede.

Oh... so would the albanians in Kosovo, right ?

The experience of partitions in Ireland and India has not be pleasant but in the Yugoslavia case, the state had already been taken apart anyway. It made little sense to me that if multiethnic Yugoslavia was not tenable that multiethnic Bosnia could be made tenable. The former internal boundaries of Yugoslavia which had no validity under international law should have been redrawn when it was taken apart by the West...

First, such internal borders do have validity. What about the former internal borders of the USSR ? If you follow this argument, Chechenya and other subjects of the federation like Tatarstan would also have the right to secede...

One of the main problems was that there was an unwillingness on the part of the American administration to concede that Serbs had legitimate grievances and rights.

Yes, the US administration has been identifying a black/white scheme with one villain. This position is utterly ill-informed (or stupid, to be more blunt).

From what I can see now, all Serbs have been driven out of Croatia and the Muslim-Croat Federation, I believe almost 850,000 of them. And yet the focus is on 500,000 Albanians (at last count) who have been driven out of Kosovo. Western policies have led to an ethnically pure Greater Croatia, and an ethnically pure Muslim statelet in Bosnia. Therefore, why not an ethnically pure Serbia?

Why not an ethnically pure albanian Kosovo, then ? Also, do not forget about 1 million Bosnians and some hundred thousend croatians displaced. Also, "western policies" ? The start to the "ethnically pure" crap were Milosevic's policies in 1989.

I do not believe the Belgrade government had prior intention of driving out all Albanians from Kosovo.

Milosevic needed another conflict to stay in power, and after his apartheid policies in Kosovo, this was the next likely step.

National sovereignty and territorial integrity have no sanctity. And finally, secessionist movements, which often start wit terrorist activity, will get greater encouragement.

Under international law past 1945, there is no such sancticy. Also, with muslim separatists in Kashmir, Mr Nambiar has a clear agenda in this issue. But again, the situation in Kashmir is different from that in Ksosvo.

posted 05-31-99 07:47 PM ET            

You stick to western POW as far as I can see. That is - there are Law, there are Power to enforce Law, and let state be broken, but Law remain. I can understand this POW - you had very long tradition to resolve crisis through court system, this system is so mighty, that in some countries (let us NOT speak about USA ) it has more power than any goverment structure. When you had such rigid framework, you can allow yourself some freedom in politic - democracy, free market economy and the same thing. When problems are arisen you go to court and use law to decide them.

But let me tell you one thing - in Russia there never, NEVER was any good court system. From times before mongol invasion, through times of Orda, through all Tzars ruling, through Communists epoch - such thing as Just Court is unheard of here. Court and Law Enforcment System is ALWAYS is instrument of opression - sometime it will protect some little man from another little man - but never - from ANY power - be it some policeman, statesman or mafioso. As far as I know it is the same thing in almost all eastern countries - can someone from India or Middle East or China confirm or refute that?
Where you would use Law we use Custom. That is what I mean, when I spoke about 'problem solving' - there are situation, there are different methods to resolve it - but Law stand in their list somewhere near bottom.

Situation in Kosovo is very interesting - both sides are eastern type people - neither serbs, nor albanians NEVER had good western Law system. They have habit to use force, lie - anything handy - to get result. The albanian use lie more often - remember our discussion in another topic about muslim ideology? For example, some 'evidence' of Serbs atrocities said that serbs drive albanian and demands 1000DM from person to not kill them - but another source that average YEAR income in Serbia is about 500DM - and you can believe me, it is very good estimate. For example, my monthly pay now is $150 (this is above average for Russia), and my wife had the same salary, and all we can accumulate in month (minus two children) is about $40 - 120DM, AFAIK. Another source said, that KLA compel all refuges to speak about atrocities - this is also very possible, as Commander Satish Nambiar said this is standard practice for ALL conflicts. For example here we saw interview from Albania - refuge, who was robbed by local mafia said with great heat - 'Serbs don't rob us, but our brethern do!'
Mark you - I don't try to blame albanians - I simply try to persuade you, that your standard western procedure - 'Hey, you, you, you, and you - you are guilty. Why? Because our books say so!' - has no power in situation. Yes, KLA will use all NATO help - but to their own means, and - believe me - they will make it with great adroit! Maybe you even don't understand what hit you!

posted 05-31-99 11:21 PM ET            

Actually, most of the thing about Kosovo had already been argued to death in the past. Not that such a thread should not be repeated but I just don't know what else to write.

Since the beginning, I posted my views for the sake of giving a different viewpoint. Never thought of changing anyone's views. All the same, views like yours were nice to read.

By now, you would have realised the West Europeans mostly think in Good/Evil situations (usually they are 'good'). Actually, I gained a lot of insights of them in this forum. Where I come from, it is considered VERY improper to think in such terms.

My humble advice - don't try to argue things. It will give you heartbreak. Give your viewpoints however, to show such viewpoints do exist in this world.
*******************

As for this Nato/Kosovo/Serb thing, there are few viewpoints:
1. The Serbs are somewhat right
2. Whatever the Serbs are, Nato is wrong.
3. The Serbs are evil and Nato is right
4. Everyone is wrong.

View 1 is held by many people but they don't want to say it and they instead express view 2. I am an exception. Except for the rapes, I think the Serbs are doing the correct thing. This 'rape' thing is really an invalid act. It definitely happened in Bosnia and surely happens in Kosovo. This single factor makes people unwilling to admit their View 1.

FYI, most Indians hold View 1 & 2, as do most of Greece & Russia. Countries like Turkey, Malaysia and others does not necessarily support View 3 although they may be sympathetic to the Albanians in Kosovo. So, overall, the majority of educated/informed people of the free world basically hold view 1 & 2, and NOT View 3. As such, Kosovo reminds me of Bismark's view that the important questions of humanity is decided by blood and iron. WELCOME TO THE 21ST CENTURY POLITICS!!

The way I see it, the war is fully a western media creation. In fact, the talk of Kosovo was around some 3 years ago. Now, while Kosovo thing is on, the talk is on Vojvodina. Now, the Hungary govt. is telling Serbia not to induct its ethnic brethren in the military. I think this is very provocative talk. Nevertheless, I don't think anything will happen in that province. The Serb soldiers would never be able to bring themselves to commit such atrocities on the Magyar minority.

As for people talking about Krajina and Bosnia, what the Croats did in Krajina is correct. The Serbs in Krajina should have been grateful to 700 years of Croat hospitability. AFAIK, the Croats never ceded Krajina. As for Bosnia, it WAS a free-for-all since the begining. In fact, at times the Serbs and Croats were in a informal de-facto alliance destroying Muslims. Even now, the Croat-Muslim Federation is a joke. The Croats effectively control 25-30% of Bosnia, (While Serbs have 49%) leaving the Muslims with 20-25% of the land. There is still talk of incorporating these lands with Croatia once the world looks the other way. I really don't think the Muslims in Bosnia will prosper anytime soon.
************

In the 69th day of bombing Serbia, there does not seem to be any compromise. Milosovic (rightfully) stands indicted on war-crimes. Britain wants to put 50,000 troops. Clinton simply cannot been seen near this issue. It is June.

Milosovic needs the October chill to kill the Kosovo albans in the tents. It will be a masterpiece if it happens. 300,000+ Albanians die in refugee camps! No one can blame the Serbs directly.

On the other hand, a land offensive is possibly set for August. Some say the Serbs will crumble the same way as in 1941. Without an Erwin Rommel leading a determined, casualty-taking Reich army, you cannot be too sure. Still, the British usually have more willingness than Americans in getting the job done. Problem is, of the 50,000, only 20,000 are troops. Even they could win Kosovo but if American troops dis-engage halfway, British morale may drop.

Now, supposing Nato wins totally, what next? Certainly no Serb will stay back in Kosovo waiting for retribution. So, Kosovo would be 'pure'. For how long? I think until Russia becomes strong again, maybe 20-30 years. Most here does not seem to know Serb history. They have very high determination to survive and take back all that belongs to them.

To me, there seems only two options for theoritical long-term peace:
1. Kill all serbs.
2. Partition Kosovo.
**********

posted 06-01-99 12:17 AM ET            

At last someone who can understand! Thank for support.

Yes, I know, that West still think that there are Absolute Good and Absolute Evil in the world. It remind me some russian book, where in China Hell comes Satana and 'Lu Ci Fen' and said, that they are Incarnation of Absolute Evil and would be govern there from now on. Some local mandarin explain to them Yin/Yang conception, that in every white there is a black speckle, and in every black there is a white drop. So, if they would try to look harder, they eventually will find in them some good part. Very embarrased they left, but promise to return, if that search will fail...

posted 06-01-99 12:20 AM ET            

Mind if I add one?
5. Serbs are (mostly) wrong, NATO is right that something needed to be done, by them or someone else, but got the execution completely screwed.

As for the good/evil bit, it may be a Western view, but to me some acts are good by definition(Sister Theresa's work comes to mind), some are evil by definition(the Holocaust comes to mind). There are actions in a continuum between.
The Serbs avowed motivation is good(if a bit hypocritical; supporting Serbian movements to leave Croatia and Bosnia and not supporting an Albaninan movement to leave Serbia, where both used similar means(armed resistance)); their execution is not(commiting ethnic cleansing).
Similarly, NATO's stated intentions are good; their execution is debatable(and I think wrong).

k_shane:

You will note that I have never said that I believe either my President nor the Western media completely. I simply ask(perhaps implicitly instead of explicitly), "Why does Milosevic deserve to be taken as more truthful than these other sources?". Does he not potentially gain much by lying if Serbian atrocities in Kosovo are stipulated? All I did was point out that the sources you quote were potentially at least as biased as the Western media you criticise and point out certain unsubstantiated claims(claims that were neither common knowledge nor supported with _any_ evidence).

re armed peacekeepers:
Whether NATO or UN(my prefered option), it is not fair to the peacekeepers to ask them to stand between two armed parties(in this case the Serbian government forces and the KLA) without the means to protect themselves.

Roland:
"Yes, the US administration has been identifying a black/white scheme with one villain. This position is utterly ill-informed (or stupid, to be more blunt)."

Agreed. There are almost always legitmate grievances at the root of these situations.

Andrew:
"there are Law, there are Power to enforce Law, and let state be broken, but Law remain"

Yes, I can agree with you that this is close to the POV of most westerners. And I like the system so I think it a shame others haven't had the history to make such a POV valid. The only way(as I see it) to build such a history is to apply it in situtations like this and hopefully reach a just resolution. To teach people that the law _can_ be on their side against oppression. Basically, to help spread what I think a system that works at least reasonably well. Yes, I think it is very difficult to do, and I also think we screwed it royally in Kosovo so far.

But whatever value or dispute resolution system you use, situations like what is happening in Kosovo are difficult to resolve in a way satisfactory to all parties.

posted 06-01-99 01:44 AM ET            

Of all the people (in this forum) involved in these topics, I am perturbed by Roland's view of Serbs.

I had not seen any implicit acceptance by him of any possible rights of the Serb people. Considering his well, all-rounded knowledge and highly factual posts, it does trouble me.

Maybe I am overlooking something that Roland had known all along (but didn't express explicitly) or maybe Roland is controlled by some other emotions.

As an Austrian (possibly German speaking), he shares one thing with a Tamil like me: A history of atrocities committed in the name of others. Maybe he has a VERY high aversion to any kind of talk about race and totally hate anyone perceived to be doing anything in the name of their race.

Or (non-seriously) maybe subconsciously he is a Aryan-supremist who feels the Serbs were responsible for two German disasters.

I wish I know whether I am missing something or whether Roland is too sentimental about this 'race' thing.

posted 06-01-99 10:57 AM ET            

You freely admit that the Western view is different than what an Easterner would hold. However, you allow yourself understanding of this view, while not allowing a Westerner an understanding, however superficial, of yours.

I have held off speaking to your world-view because I have been unable to say much worthwhile about it. But I cannot see how your world-view will result in anything but evil actions begetting evil actions, an eye for an eye, vendetta upon vendetta. Perhaps this is the "reality" of the situation--I am not foolish enough to dispute this--only that you reject the validity of "right" and "wrong" in this situation. Or put more clearly, you reject "right" while seeing "wrong" everywhere. Your argument is fraught with a dreadful cynicism that I reject.

posted 06-01-99 11:51 AM ET            

BTW, you said I reject 'right' while seeing 'wrong' everywhere. I presume you meant I reject the Nato bombing.

Well, I don't recall ever saying anything to support or oppose the bombing. Even in this thread, I said I support the view

1. The Serbs are somewhat right

and NOT anything about Nato.
On the other hand, Andrew Kasantsev opposes the bombing vehemently, as do k_shane and others. Not that I support or oppose the bombing but it hardly enters my thinking on this Kosovo issue.

As I had always maintained, I am not an angel. Nor do I want to be known as one.

posted 06-01-99 12:26 PM ET            

You stick to western POW as far as I can see. That is - there are Law, there are Power to enforce Law, and let state be broken, but Law remain.

That may well be the case. Just that the response of law is more flexible, not just a "fiat justitia, pereat mundus" (let justice be done, give a **** about the consequences). But overall, my thinking is tailored around the concept you describe - even more so as I'm a lawyer, and belong to a school of law which sees the state as nothing else but a legal order.

I can understand this POW - you had very long tradition to resolve crisis through court system, this system is so mighty, that in some countries (let us NOT speak about USA ) it has more power than any goverment structure. When you had such rigid framework, you can allow yourself some freedom in politic - democracy, free market economy and the same thing. When problems are arisen you go to court and use law to decide them.

Rule of law, not rule of men. But as the law is written and applied by human beings, the difference may not be that huge...

But let me tell you one thing - in Russia there never, NEVER was any good court system. From times before mongol invasion, through times of Orda, through all Tzars ruling, through Communists epoch - such thing as Just Court is unheard of here. Court and Law Enforcment System is ALWAYS is instrument of opression - sometime it will protect some little man from another little man - but never - from ANY power - be it some policeman, statesman or mafioso.

This is true, but also for the West, that system was new at a time. And violated at other times... also, I think that at its height, islamic law and to a lesser extent chinese law had at least a tendency to protect the weak from the strong - with the exception of the ruler who used this to weaken the nobility, but western law has a similar though slightly different root.

Where you would use Law we use Custom. That is what I mean, when I spoke about 'problem solving' - there are situation, there are different methods to resolve it - but Law stand in their list somewhere near bottom.

This is also true with the old system of international law. The question is: Should conflicts be decided by law or not ? Also, a final legal decision does not exclude compromise.

Situation in Kosovo is very interesting - both sides are eastern type people - neither serbs, nor albanians NEVER had good western Law system. They have habit to use force, lie - anything handy - to get result. The albanian use lie more often - remember our discussion in another topic about muslim ideology? For example, some 'evidence' of Serbs atrocities said that serbs drive albanian and demands 1000DM from person to not kill them - but another source that average YEAR income in Serbia is about 500DM - and you can believe me, it is very good estimate....

Well, annual income does not equal savings made over a longer period. If I look at the amounts paid to those smuggling Albanians into western europe, those amounts look plausible. Whether they are exactly true, we cannot know.

Another source said, that KLA compel all refuges to speak about atrocities - this is also very possible, as Commander Satish Nambiar said this is standard practice for ALL conflicts. For example here we saw interview from Albania - refuge, who was robbed by local mafia said with great heat - 'Serbs don't rob us, but our brethern do!'

But it is rather difficult to come up with a consistent story and explain why there would be no physical evidence like injuries (which have been documented by the the War crime stribunal); I know this from the various stories of Asylum seekers. I also think the people from the UNHCR can decide whether stories are made up or have a high degree of credibility.

Mark you - I don't try to blame albanians - I simply try to persuade you, that your standard western procedure - 'Hey, you, you, you, and you - you are guilty. Why? Because our books say so!' - has no power in situation.

We have yet to see whether it works. Also, the western action is not only dictated by law. The US is often showing a total disregard for international law though in this case, IMO they have it on their side (not that they'd care much about it...)

Yes, KLA will use all NATO help - but to their own means, and - believe me - they will
make it with great adroit! Maybe you even don't understand what hit you!

Disarming the KLA immediately after international troops move in will be a difficult task. If NATO or the UN do not subscribe to all KLA aims, their troops might well find themselves fighting parts of the KLA.

Maybe later (if you wish) I can decribe to you scenario of China annexion of Russia Far East - the same schema as in Kosovo works ideally here - and then we yet to see NATO bombs on my birthplace, when we try to stop 'legal separating of mostly Chinese province from evil Russia'.

Hmm.. as I can't see similarities, this would be interesting. Maybe in a seperate thread ?

chola3:

I subscribe to Dan's general observations. For some issues:

Yes, I know, that West still think that there are Absolute Good and Absolute Evil in the world.

Now, I wonder where you find that in my posts (assuming that you consider me to be a representative of the western view).

Of all the people (in this forum) involved in these topics, I am perturbed by Roland's view of Serbs.

I have to say this is pretty surprising as I have only stated my views of the Serb regime and its propaganda.

I had not seen any implicit acceptance by him of any possible rights of the Serb people. Considering his well, all-rounded knowledge and highly factual posts, it does trouble me.

Thanx for the flowers... Now, where should I have made reference to the rights of the Serb people ? Clearly, they have rights - like that NATO does not attack the TV stations. Though they serve to uphold the regime, they are not military targets IMO.

As an Austrian (possibly German speaking), he shares one thing with a Tamil like me: A history of atrocities committed in the name of others. Maybe he has a VERY high aversion to any kind of talk about race and totally hate anyone perceived to be doing anything in the name of their race.
I wish I know whether I am missing something or whether Roland is too sentimental about this 'race' thing.

Doing anything ? No. Committing atrocities ? Yes, and I don't give a **** about the reasons, whether racist, national, religious or whatever.

Or (non-seriously) maybe subconsciously he is a Aryan-supremist who feels the Serbs were responsible for two German disasters.

posted 06-01-99 02:04 PM ET            

Re:
"Now, I wonder where you find that in my posts (assuming that you consider me to be a representative of the western view)."

Actually that reply is mis-directed to me. That sentence was not in my post. A small mistake but needs correction all the same.

As for the rest of your reply, I did expect something like what you wrote, except maybe I was thinking (hoping?) you may get upset about the last point. Anyway, I am glad you share my viewpoint about attacking TV stations. After all, I am sure Nato is perfectly capable of jamming Serb TV and broadcasting their own view when needed.

As we know, there is not much more we could discuss about this silly mess that we haven't already.

Both of us do share some similar views except on the implication this March99-August(?)99 thing will have on the future. I still believe this had unleashed something that no one is prepared to handle.

posted 06-02-99 12:43 AM ET            

About Law.
'Let us try to use Law in that situation and find, does it may any good'. It is example of myth, that Law can force itself. Btw, modern Russia situation is a result of similar myths - a) that free market heals economy, b) that just law help to order society. But without some Power to enforce it the best Law in the world is as good as dead. So what do we see here? Old communists Power drop down, the weak attempt to make new Power system break against outcry 'you are making new GULAG!', so chaos began to organize itself - and what is the simplest human organization? Criminal gang! After some time Russia acquire really working Power - mafia Power. Maybe 50 year later mafia law will evolve in some working western-like Law system, but I really wonder...
All this mean, that in order to use your Western Law you had to occupy Kosovo and put there good amount of your SpecPolice Forces. But people there will never understand WHAT are you doing and WHY you do that, and crisis would not be solved that way, only postponed.

About evidences. When you live in small farm village during any civil war you find yourself in very interesting situation - at night comes 'rebels' and demand (with weapons near your head) you to give them food, clothes, money, shelter - and no help to 'those goverment bastards!'. And at day goverment forces come, and punish you for given help and take whatever they wish from 'rebel scum', and at night rebels come again, and again punish you for 'collaboration', and at day goverment goes mad at you and forces you to flee in another country... And there rebels rules, and WHAT do you think such witness tell at interrogation? Foreign judge will leave, and witness will have to live in camp with undeground rebel administration. So those evidences - not evidences at all, but only wishful thinking of prejudicied court. Even wounds, rapes, killing - how could you tell who are responsible for them? Maybe it was serbs, maybe KLA people, maybe (in rape case, for example) it was some neighbour, who jump at case - you could not change past, but you can get some good, if you would tell them, what they are wish to hear from you. Do you really believe all them would told the truth?!

About scenario
I don't sure it would be interesting to many, so I show it here.
Do you know, how much people is livevng here, on Far East of Russia, from Siberia to Pacific? 10-15 mln.
There are already much chinese here, they works on our fields, sell their goods on our markets, live in our cities. It is VERY probably, that after 10-20 years there would be MORE chinese, that russians here (they had high birth rate, add to constant emigration). Chinese, as far as I know, tends to live by close socities, so after some time there would be our own chinatowns, with their internal goverments, policy, schools... And that they would tell - 'we are majority here, so we want autonomy or unification with Great China. And though we are very calm peoples, there would be some clashes, even blood - from both sides! - and our goverment surely would not let this territory go, so it began to deport rebel leaders, they began to organize, (and there would be NO probleme with finance - they even no get a good sums from drug selling), so it would come to mass fight, and mass deportation.
And what THEN would NATO do? WHOM they would defend? Would they be using Law or would they try to get some profit from situation? I think profit would prevail.
But the same situation we get in Kosovo! So it is not the Law NATO support there, it only tries to find some profit. And THAT is the question - what profit does it search?

posted 06-02-99 02:01 AM ET            

Dunno. In the west the concept that those in power would enforce and be subject to the law was a pretty gradual process that started centuries, if not millenia, ago(it was probably present in Republican Rome but it was greatly diminished in the Empire, so I think the modern tradition must date later). It certainly was present in the 18th century; without it the Constitution of the United States would have been a complete failure.

obKosovo:
In this situation, NATO's legal position is debatable at best(resting largely on how you interpret 'the purposes of the United Nations' in the North Atlantic Treaty) so it is not effective for them to rest on law for a solution. They are a power block that is trying to enforce its will. I've not said different. The closest I've come was at the outset of NATO operations where I said something along the lines of, "They might be doing the right thing, but for the wrong reasons.".
OTOH, if the UN had approved these actions then we would have a situation where law was properly being enforced by the power(in this case the UN). Regardless of your country's traditional outlook, when you join the UN you are accepting the western outlook on law, IMHO, and therefore accepting the UN's application of it.

Hugo:
"...anything goes in a war..."

Not really. The Geneva conventions lay out proper conduct in wartime(or any time of armed conflict involving one of the signatories). Anyone that breaks these is, by definition, a war criminal.

If you're interested, it even applies to Serbian government action vs. the KLA. In noninternational conflicts within the territory of a signatory, the following provisions must be followed:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. -- Chapter I Article 3 Geneva Convention I(12 Aug 1949)

Any such acts by Serbian forces in Kosovo(including, I would think, forced evictions, etc.; Geneva Convention IV, which specifically applies to civilians in time of war, has the same regulations in this case) would constitute 'war crimes'.

And yes, Serbia is a signatory(at least the ICRC shows them(Yugoslavia) signing 2 February 1950 and ratifying on 21 April 1950).

posted 06-02-99 04:43 AM ET            

Sorry, that's what you get from pasting... ok, I redirect this to andrew: "Now, I wonder where you find that [absolute good, absolute evil] in my posts (assuming that you consider me to be a representative of the western view)."

... except maybe I was thinking (hoping?) you may get upset about the last point.

1. why should I get upset ?
2. why would you want me to get upset ?

Andrew:

About Law.
'Let us try to use Law in that situation and find, does it may any good'. It is example of myth, that Law can force itself.

As I've said: "But as the law is written and applied by human beings, the difference may not be that huge..."

Btw, modern Russia situation is a result of similar myths - a) that free market heals economy...

That's not a myth IMO, just that Russia does not have a free market economy...

b) that just law help to order society. But without some Power to enforce it the best Law in the world is as good as dead.

A nice quote: "Power without law is tyranny, law without power is ridiculous."

All this mean, that in order to use your Western Law you had to occupy Kosovo and put there good amount of your SpecPolice Forces.

That's the plan...

But people there will never understand WHAT are you doing and WHY you do that, and crisis would not be solved that way, only postponed.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic. You could have said the same about post WWII Germany.

About evidences....... And there rebels rules, and WHAT do you think such witness tell at interrogation? Foreign judge will leave, and witness will have to live in camp with undeground rebel administration. So those evidences - not evidences at all, but only wishful thinking of prejudicied court....Do you really believe all them would told the truth?!

I just know from asylum claims that it is very difficult to completely make up a story. Also, why do you think the "court" would be prejusdiced ?
That refugees will tend to report serb atrocities only and be more silent about the KLA is a high possibility. That's why the west has to be very careful in dealing with the KLA and see it as a potential enemy rather than an ally.

About scenario
I don't sure it would be interesting to many, so I show it here. Do you know, how much people is livevng here, on Far East of Russia, from Siberia to Pacific? 10-15 mln.
There are already much chinese here, they works on our fields, sell their goods on our markets, live in our cities. It is VERY probably, that after 10-20 years there would be MORE chinese, that russians here (they had high birth rate, add to constant emigration). Chinese, as far as I know, tends to live by close socities, so after some time there would be our own chinatowns, with their internal goverments, policy, schools... And that they would tell - 'we are majority here, so we want autonomy or unification with Great China. And though we are very calm peoples, there would be some clashes, even blood - from both sides! - and our goverment surely would not let this territory go, so it began to deport rebel leaders, they began to organize,... so it would come to mass fight, and mass deportation. And what THEN would NATO do? WHOM they would defend? Would they be using Law or would they try to get some profit from situation? I think profit would prevail. But the same situation we get in Kosovo! So it is not the Law NATO support there, it only tries to find some profit. And THAT is the question - what profit does it search?

So I assume the legal issues of your scenario are not the prime interest here... but I have to ask the same question: What profit does it search ? I think I put the same question to Oleg some time ago, but he couldn't explain it.

posted 06-02-99 06:24 AM ET            

As for possible profit to the Nato members in this adventure, I really don't see any.

Somewhere in MSN news section (Electronic Telegraph, maybe) I read of Nato having big plans to operate outside its borders. Even if such plans are true, I haven't seen much capablity (unity & willingness-wise) shown so far.

All the same, some of the Nato countries (Britain, US, France) have a different idea that not always equate with profit. Things like honour, do-good factor, duty to civilise others and such may have top priority. Especially the honour stuff after they get into an un-intended mess. The way I see it, they really believed they can get Milosovic to give them something. Unfortunately, even if he wished, he had nothing to give that Nato can accept (unless he wanted to be dead). So, I think Nato is just trying to take back the honour which they themselves mortgaged to Milosovic freely.

posted 06-02-99 10:42 PM ET            

As Spoc said, West had long tradition of life under Law. Here Law Enforcement stumble on every level - noone respect law, neither Goverement people, nor policemen, nor people. You need looong time to change situation, or very harsh methods from goverment on every level - to kill every corrupt policeman, judge, official... So I had great doubt about our future Lawful Society. I see no road leading there.

Free Market - hmm, there WAS intention to use free market in Russia, but to REALLy make it work you NEED western-type Law System to protect it - because its cornerstone is Right to Have Property. But here there are no such right, and noone protect it... But there was good option to use strong china-type goverment-controlled economy - and our rulers are failed miserably in that task also...
And post-war Germany was a western-type country. Nazi have not enough time to clear from peoples the habit to Law an Order (and as far as I know, dutch had them aplenty ).

About predjuced court - I had not facts, only some suggestions - it financed by USA directly or covertly, so it is hard to wait not-predjuce from them. We all saw 'independant' observers in Irak turn out to be spy - intentionally or not (spy camera in their apparates). NATO had very bad record in that. 'You lie me once - why had I to believe your more?'.

posted 06-04-99 04:17 AM ET            

So I had great doubt about our future Lawful Society. I see no road leading there.

It is very difficult, but which system would the people prefer ? The semi-anarchic "law-of-the-stronger" or a rule of law system ? Democracy still has to evolve in Russia, but I don't think people want to give away their right to vote, and that's a basis for development. It will take a long time, but I wouldn't be pessimistic.

Free Market - hmm, there WAS intention to use free market in Russia, but to REALLy make it work you NEED western-type Law System to protect it - because its cornerstone is Right to Have Property. But here there are no such right, and noone protect it... But there was good option to use strong china-type goverment-controlled economy - and our rulers are failed miserably in that task also...

Absolutely right. One of the biggest mistakes in the transition process was to privatize enterprises without having entrepreneurs or a legal framework under which entrepreneurship can work. The first step should have been to give the land to the farmers as this is a quite simple enterprise. The industry should have been restructured under government control first, the system change was way too radical. You can put part of the blame on some smart IMF boys who have no idea what they are doing...

And post-war Germany was a western-type country. Nazi have not enough time to clear from peoples the habit to Law an Order (and as far as I know, dutch had them aplenty ).

They still did a lot of damage, but the prerequisites had still been there. BTW, what about the dutch ? I don't understand the comment...

About predjuced court - I had not facts, only some suggestions - it financed by USA directly or covertly, so it is hard to wait not-predjuce from them.

I think it is financed just as the UN, which means the US should pay 25% - if they fulfil their duty at all...

We all saw 'independant' observers in Irak turn out to be spy - intentionally or not (spy camera in their apparates). NATO had very bad record in that. 'You lie me once - why had I to believe your more?'.

The CIA is really a load of assholes. But putting a spy among inspectors and messing up an international court are two things. If they could do that so easily, why would the US object to a permanent international criminal court ?

And about profit - in our local forums there were many reasons for NATO - to test ultramodern weapon (Serbia now is testing ground for them - grafitti boms, stealth bombers and same);

Grafitti bombs ? LOL... the question is just, do you need a real war to test them, especially if you manouver yourself into a ton of political problems ?

to test it's power as Only Power in the World,

If we look at economic power, military spending, technology etc, I don't think there would be a need for such a test...

to drop down euro (there is some interesting speculation about overheated USA financial market, which cannot tolerate for another hard currency),

Most poeple estimate the effect to be about 2 cents; also, once the problem is solved, the effect is only temporary. And why should the NATO countries which are also in EMU play along ?

to distract attention from President,

Well, Clinton is through his problems, and he can't be reelected. If the war went wrong, he had a lot more to lose than to gain.

and many personal motives (Olbrait hate to serbs for example).

You mean the US foreign secretary ? I'm not sure about her motives, but you're right that she has taken a rather one sided view...

posted 06-06-99 10:36 PM ET            

It is very difficult, but which system would the people prefer ? The semi-anarchic
"law-of-the-stronger" or a rule of law system ?

You wish to know, what system our people would prefer? Maybe you wouldnt like an answer - monarchy! But special monarchy - limited with clever monarch (I know, that such animal is extinct, but that's about dreams... ). And I know, that now there are NO any pretendent, NO good leader, who can take on himself responsibility for country at whole, not for his family, clan, or bank account... Alas.
But NOT - take attention - NOT the ruling of Law, because here noone know, WHAT does it means, so cannot imagine would it be better than good monarchy (and peoples here are ready to forgive much to tzar, if he give them stable, calm life with some economical and political freedom).

BTW, what about the dutch ? I don't understand the comment...
This is my bad english. I thought about German of course.

the question is just, do you need a real war to test them, especially if you manouver yourself into a ton of political problems ?

But of course! One thing - test in lab or in range - but REAL result of such attack on REAL state you can get only in REAL situation. And what political problems? The US wish to be 'world commander' - not 'world leader' - and Kosovo show, that there are NO any power, which can stop them.

posted 06-07-99 04:17 AM ET            

You wish to know, what system our people would prefer? Maybe you wouldnt like an answer - monarchy! But special monarchy - limited with clever monarch (I know, that such animal is extinct, but that's about dreams... ). And I know, that now there are NO any pretendent, NO good leader, who can take on himself responsibility for country at whole, not for his family, clan, or bank account... Alas. But NOT - take attention - NOT the ruling of Law, because here noone know, WHAT does it means, so cannot imagine would it be better than good monarchy (and peoples here are ready to forgive much to tzar, if he give them stable, calm life with some economical and political freedom).

I wouldn't mind... back in the 18th century in central europe, "enlightened monarchy" (aufgekl�rter Absolutismus - damn, what's the english term for that ?) was one step in the evolution of the rule of law (the english and french developments were rather different). The monarch seeing himself as the first servant to the state, and though he could change the laws, the notion was that he and the civil servants were bound by existing laws. I'm just wondering whether it is necessary to go back that far, or whether the concept really is so hard to understand...

But of course! One thing - test in lab or in range - but REAL result of such attack on REAL state you can get only in REAL situation. And what political problems? The US wish to be 'world commander' - not 'world leader' - and Kosovo show, that there are NO any power, which can stop them.

Public opinion is not clear about this, and about half of the Congress opposes Clinton's policies.

You see, I think that now we see dawn on new era - before what country leader did with it's citizens were the matter of citizens of that country. Only when one country attack another (Irak, for example), United Nations can interfere and stop it.

Agree with the shift in real politics, but ever after WWII, the legal concept was that this does matter. Otherwise, the Nuremberg trials would have had to be a lot more limited.

And I think it was good policy, because there is no limit to interpretation of term 'violation of civil rights', especially if it is you, who define, WHAT does those 'rights' mean. And now New World Order appear at stage, but for me it is the same old story about World Empire...

posted 06-07-99 06:38 PM ET            

Problem with disposal leader in unstable society - he spend his time in rule not on state problem, but on enrichment and bringing to power his own clan. Monarch need not such activity - he is already in power for a very long time - but you need VERY good leader to that - and I already said, that I don't see anyone fit for that role here/now.

Roland:

It seems only, that enlightened monarchy is not a garanteed road to Rule_of_Law. Almost all eastern countries has a VERY long tradition of King/Schah/Emperor ruling, which does not lead them to democracy/republic way. Only Rome descendant choose that road it seems.

posted 06-08-99 03:18 AM ET            

The effect has been different: in Britain, Parliament took over; in France, the ancien regime hold on to "simple" monarchy and was overthrown violently...

Regarding NATO: Milosevic had agreed to a complete pullout, and now in the talks about the details of the pullout, the serbs want to maintain 20.000 troups in Kosovo. If Milosevic does not stand up to his part of the deal, NATO will go on. However, I'm rather sure he's only playing to the domestic audience and for some time...