: : Since when is it inconsistent to see the Milosevic government *and* NATO as two incredibly powerful, undemocratic institutions pursuing their own agendas which have nothing to do with 'humanitarianism?' If you want to use intellectual crayons to color NATO white and Serbs black, be my guest.: Attempts at insults are not discussion.
**I'll take that as an admission that my position is consistent in that case. Attempts at eluding the issues under cover of 'insults' (not even *that*, but rather 'attempted insults') notwithstanding.**
: : If NATO's reasons for the air strikes were so compelling, if the humanitarian aspects of what they planned were so righteous, why not take it up with the UN Security Council instead of acting unilaterally, as a 'defensive' consortium?
: What is so special about the UN? Why are they less of a monster? is it because they invite onto the council various leaders of autocractic countries in addition to mixed democracies?
**Well, it is rude to answer a question with a question and I *could* simply skulk off under that presumption... instead let me take a swing at the issue you raise in the hope that in future, it may embolden you to articulate and defend a viewpoint.
First off, were there debates in the UN (Security Council or otherwise) we would have a much better idea of the reasons behind the proposed aggression. As it is, that country club for militarists, NATO has defined another sovereign nation's internal problems, formulated a crude and violent response which has had the result of de-nuding Kosovo of 100,000 ethnic Albanians within the last 4 days, lead to the deaths of 5 leading Kosovo opposition leaders, and has managed to make a once very unpopular Milosevic more popular than ever with his people. There's an old proletarian expression used in the carpenter's field which says to "Measure twice; cut once." The UN would have permitted at the very least several nations to express an opinion and argue for or against this hare-brained example of gun boat diplomacy for a philandering President and his European Yes-men. As it is, the NATO has been permited to unilaterally spark the biggest blood feud between Albanians and Serbs since the 1300's. Remember the stated NATO objectives:
Objective #1: Stop the ethnic cleansing... has it worked? 100,000 refugees and counting 4-5,000 per hour into Albania alone. One senior NATO analyst was forced to admit today that the ethnic cleansing of the region will be a "fait accompli" by week's end.
Objective #2: Force Milosevic to accept a peaceful resolution to the Kosovo issue... peace has been permanently put to death along with the defenseless civilian population. There will be no healing the blood feud which has now erupted. Milosevic was like a loaded gun; NATO was the trigger finger.
Objective #3: Bring stability to the region... unless you consider the complete absence of European observers, humanitarian groups, foreign journalists; the complete obliteration of any democratic opposition leaders/groups on the ground; widespread terror; the political rehabilitation of Milosevic... to be good for 'stability,' I'd say that one is an abject failure as well.
But the unspoken and actual NATO objective of creating and maintaining a weak and divided Balkans has been obtained... brilliantly.**
: : I'll tell you why... because the ambassadors from the world's governments would go ballistic... just as I'm sure you would should the CIS declare a bombing campaign against Turkey until such time as it agrees to stop its aggression against the Kurds.
: So you want either / or. Either bomb evevry example of aggresive nationalism, or none.
**That's disingenuous even for you, gee. Your criticism was specifically one of consistency. In your mind this means if one despises Milosevic and ethnic cleansing, one must approve of the NATO's actions. For *you* to be consistent, it would mean that similiar examples, exploited by powerful, undemocratic institutions like the NATO would also enjoy your uncritical support. So why not take a swing at one of the issues posed? If the CIS were to announce an impending series of airstrikes against Turkey until and unless such time as the Turks establish an autonomous region in the Kurdish homeland, what would your response be? Should the US and NATO stay out of it and 'let justice prevail' as it so obviously [voice dripping with sarcasm] has in Kosovo? I'll inform you of my consistency in the matter... it would be wrong, just as it is wrong for the NATO now. Over to you...**
Krasnaya's Critical Mass
