(Joshua)"Humanitarian reasons for a war are as good as any. The U.S. has stayed out of other such situations, but when will someone say that enough is enough? There has to be a first time for everything, and now is the time for the United States to state something and stick with it"
-------
(A sentiment expressed by many these days)
Let's be clear about one thing. The U.S. does NOT design policy around humanitarian considerations. If a particular objective is felt to be worth some blood, a "humanitarian" cause will be enunciated to enlist a public's support. Thus the process of demonization, portrayals of atrocities (real or imagined), and the whole machinery of mind homogenization is brought to bear upon a population.
In words of more eloquence than I can muster - from a poster at another site:
"I'm tired of listening to the endless platitudes about how this war is a humanitarian sacrifice, for the US as well as NATO. I heard all that blather in the late 60's and 70's about Vietnam. It was not true then, and it ain't true now. Yep, the Commies were enraged at the actions of the French and the US, and atrocities were committed on
both sides. We went in to save democracy (nausea) and to avoid "a
Communist bloodbath." And 500,000 Asian casualties and 50,000
American casualties later, (not to speak of the suffering of the
Vietnamese, Laotian and Thai people as their countries became a war
zone for 15 years) the objective of placing a US puppet government on
Asian soil was not reached. But we did have bloodbath, more terrible
in scope than any atrocities the North Vietnamese were intending, or
even capable, of carrying out. More Vietnamese were killed than would
have ever been killed if we just stayed away from the place. And Pol
Pot would probably not have emerged." - "A bold polite prole"
Naturally there are various points of view other than those pushed by mega-media.
For "atrocity balance" try these:
http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/elich.htm
www.independent.co.uk/stories/B1704904.html
And for possible corporate interests, try these:
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-04/13/078l-041399-idx.htmlhttp://motherjones.com/arms/lobbying.html
http://motherjones.com/arms/index.html
And for one of many "minor" concerns, try:
http://www.loe.org/html/headlines/kosovo.html
Are there crimes against humanity being perpetrated? You bet there are. One of the strongest forces that draw us together to form bonds as a social species is the power of sympathy and empathy. The cynical use of this human trait by an entity of power to promote self-aggrandizing objectives is the unspeakable atrocity.
And to borrow another quote from SDF's link:
No mention is made of the fact that the basis on which technology acquires power over society is the power of those whose economic hold over society is greatest. A technological rationale is the rationale of domination itself. It is the coercive nature of society alienated from itself. Automobiles, bombs, and movies keep the whole thing together until their leveling element shows its strength in the very wrong which it furthered. - (from Dialectic of Enlightenment)
