Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 12:55:27 -0500 (EST)
From: danceswithcarp <dcombs-AT-bloomington.in.us>
Subject: Re: roger doesn't want diplomacy




On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Aaron Micheau wrote:

> there is no 'lesser evil' here because neither he nor anyone else has even
> suggested a practical lesser evil.  The NATO strikes are not like some
> short term, distasteful, but helpful solution to Kosovars' problems.  The
> strikes have simply added fuel to the fire.  They are an evil on top of an
> evil.

Ah, here it is: the most simplistic approach of all, I can't think of
+anything+ to do, so therefore I must oppose +everything.+  

Where you err, aaron, is in the qualification that there must be some
"short-term" solution.  roger and I both have said, as well as unka bart,
that there simply is no short-term solution; this one is The Long Haul.

The Falklands, Panama, Grenada, the Gulf, the Frogs in chad, even the
Rwandan massacres all happened incredibly quick.  Therefore, it seems,
that most of the western people have developed the "Leave it to Beaver"
syndrome where the solution must come at the end of the half-hour; it must
be sensible, have no fall-out, and above all it must be final.

This is delusional thinking.  War necessitates untidy plots and endings.
I'm all for alterantives but so far all that has been offered is "turn
Miosevic and Arkan loose and lets just try to TALK sense."   That isn't
even a half-assed solution, long-term or short.  You claim that NATO adds
"fuel to the fire."  How so?  By causing the so-called innocent serbian
masses to rally to the cause of nationalism?  the "fuel to the fire" was
lining up serb tanks and apcs on the Kosovo border and saying "go." 


Well, bullshit to that.  Saying that somehow the serbs are FORCED tinto
making bad CHOICES is apologism of the highest extreme.  If the people
oppose Milosevic and his henchmen then they oppose them.  Nothing NATO has
done should change that.  However if given a choice between continued
opposition to Milosevic or supporting blind nationalism and the people
CHOOSE blind nationalism, how can you defend them yet attackpeople like
roger on the same grounds?


> It's really not difficult to explain, Carp.  Blowing up passenger trains,
> food-processing and hot water plants in Yugoslavia isn't doing crap for
> Kosovar Albanians.  

Not if you're looking for a "Leave it to Beaver" solution.   Who said
solutions had to be sterile and sanitary?  The serb people are choosing
the nationalistic route; that's their choice.  Why aren't they rallying to
get rid of Milosevic or to hang Arkan the murderer.   And the damage to
the serbian pales beside the damage done to 750,000 homeless albanian
kosovarian refugees.  Who did that damage and what do you propose to do
to right it?   Conduct an email petition drive to oust Milosevic?  That
you can compare the train to 750,00people driven from their homes just
shows how dumb the left is thinking.  That's some of the most overblown
Micky Mouse rhetoric in hystery.


> This doesn't qualify as a half-assed effort to save
> Kosovars- it is a full-out effort to give NATO a legitimate role as a world
> authority.  The Albanian Kosovars are a pretext.  At the same time however,
> NATO is making Milosevic much more popular by quieting his opposition and
> making him look like the nationalist hero he's always wanted to be.  The
> Serbs in Serbia have only the slightest inkling what's happening in Kosovo.


[gag]  Oh, the serbs, like the grrmans in 42 are held in ignorance? Do you
think all of us are stupid?  Who do you think is in the serb army,
citizens of another country?  People who can't communicate with home?

>   So now they are indignant in their ignorance - being persecuted for no
> apparent reason.

"Ignorance?"   Man, that one cracks me up.


> No problem here. A look at the actual Rambouillet accords makes one think
> NATO didn't want Milosevic to agree to them.  NATO rejected a Milosevic
> counteroffer because it insisted that any peacekeeping troops in Kosovo had
> to be NATO troops.  

I am not going to defend the R... accord.  Period.  They fucked up.


> If NATO spent one one thousandth of its resources
> helping refugees instead of dropping bombs, the Albanians would be much
> better off.  

Oh, so your argument is it's better to unleash Milosevic and his henchmen
and then give bread to the victims than it is to try anything at all to
confont him?  This is an incredible statement and I have a hard time
believing I'm reading it.  "Let the man run wild.  We'll feed ALL of you
when you're ran from your homes."  It seems obvious it's not your home
that is lost, aaron.


> NATO has backed Milosevic and the entire Serbian population
> into a corner, and dismissed any non-NATO attempts (e.g., Russian) to
> negotiate the conflict.  So it's clear that NATO is a major obstacle to a
> meaningful solution.  This can't "all wash out" until NATO stops the war.  

Then what?  Milosevic turns softy and thing are magically peachy-keen.
what will we do then, hold "Prayer and Hope" sessions while the refugees
starve?  This is weak.


> 
> "Allegedly"?  What do you think, Carp, we are on Milosevic's payroll?

Well, if we went by appearances...

No one is interested in confronting the real issue which is inhumynity and
PLANNED CRIMES AGAINST HUMYNITY, so what's it look like to you?


> Secretly harboring dreams of political careers in Belgrade?  i think YOU
> need to do some explaining.  Just what is your theory here about how/why we
> all crave a Greater Serbia?

In silence lies tacit support.




cARP