Steve D'Arcy wrote:
> The problem is not that NATO isn't attacking dozens of countries. The problem is
> that it is attacking ANY countries. You can't justify this killing on humanitarian
> grounds given that (1) NATO actually opposes independence for Kosova;
If you go back and read the arguement that was advanced (not by you) carefully, I think
you will find that this was exactly what was being disputed.
It's true that NATO opposes independence for Kosovo---and for very good reasons. Kosovar
independence would provoke Russia and China (remember Tibet?) in a way that has not been
seen since the Cuban Missile crisis, and could lead to massive loss of live in Kosovo on
a scale we have not seen yet. That wouldn't be very humanitarian, would it? It's just
not politically safe for NATO to go that far---so they've got to work within the safest
framework they have.
I do think they have humanitarian reasons. I'm just smart enough to know that they are
only a small part of the picture---but it does plays well at home.
> (2) NATO wants its own troops to occupy Kosova and to "demilitarize" the Kosovars' own
>
> organizations.
Yeah, so what? If we've learned anything from Bosnia its that the existence of military
weapons
among the populace there is extremely dangerous. I would venture we've learned that from
our own internal terrorist attacks as well (like OKC).
> ; (3) NATO has caused more suffering and death in Kosova than Serbia
> had done prior to the bombing, and the NATO commander said that he expected as much
You are forgetting that shortly after the Paris peace talks began, the Serbs amassed
half a million troops on the Kosovo border. There was already going to be a bloodbath,
no matter what NATO did. Would you rather that the Serbian army got away scot free
without paying the price for the choices they made? It's a strong possibility that the
only reason they hadn't killed as many people was that they aren't as efficient as NATO.
Don't you get it? The Serbians are not going to stop killing people on their own. They
had plenty of opportunities in Bosnia and they didn't. They've had plenty of
opportunities to do so here and they didn't.
Should we have another Rwanda? Would that make everyone here happy?
You also forgetting that not every life in Kosovo is morally equivalent. I don't feel
sorry for the Serbian troops that are choosing to rape and murder other people. Not one
bit. If they die I do not care. If the suffering is theirs then as far as I'm concerned
it doesn't count. After their mass rape, killing, and torture of the Bosnian people I
just don't have any faith that they will leave a single person alive and unharmed in
Kosovo. I am more confident of NATO's desire to do that, if only to save face.
I am not a fan of NATO in general. I'm just as concerned with capitalist hegemony as
anyone
else here. But I have studied enough history to know that we are in a similar situation
to the beginning of World War 1, and I know enough about the history of fascism to
prefer capitalist hegemony to it any day.
> (4) NATO has made no contribution whatsoever to humanitarianism in the past, and
> has shown no signs of changing its agenda.
>
I think you are incorrect here. The two main factors that brought Serbia
to the Dayton peace accords in 1995 were NATO airstrikes, and the Croatian
army. Given what was happening in Bosnia, I'd call forcing Serbia to the peace
table a humanitarian effort.
---
Christopher W. Chase
-----------------------------------------------
ECA 377 Department of Religious Studies
Arizona State University Tempe, AZ
(480) 965-7145
christopher.chase@xxxxxxx
http://www.public.asu.edu/~heresy
-----------------------------------------------
> The problem is not that NATO isn't attacking dozens of countries. The problem is
> that it is attacking ANY countries. You can't justify this killing on humanitarian
> grounds given that (1) NATO actually opposes independence for Kosova;
If you go back and read the arguement that was advanced (not by you) carefully, I think
you will find that this was exactly what was being disputed.
It's true that NATO opposes independence for Kosovo---and for very good reasons. Kosovar
independence would provoke Russia and China (remember Tibet?) in a way that has not been
seen since the Cuban Missile crisis, and could lead to massive loss of live in Kosovo on
a scale we have not seen yet. That wouldn't be very humanitarian, would it? It's just
not politically safe for NATO to go that far---so they've got to work within the safest
framework they have.
I do think they have humanitarian reasons. I'm just smart enough to know that they are
only a small part of the picture---but it does plays well at home.
> (2) NATO wants its own troops to occupy Kosova and to "demilitarize" the Kosovars' own
>
> organizations.
Yeah, so what? If we've learned anything from Bosnia its that the existence of military
weapons
among the populace there is extremely dangerous. I would venture we've learned that from
our own internal terrorist attacks as well (like OKC).
> ; (3) NATO has caused more suffering and death in Kosova than Serbia
> had done prior to the bombing, and the NATO commander said that he expected as much
You are forgetting that shortly after the Paris peace talks began, the Serbs amassed
half a million troops on the Kosovo border. There was already going to be a bloodbath,
no matter what NATO did. Would you rather that the Serbian army got away scot free
without paying the price for the choices they made? It's a strong possibility that the
only reason they hadn't killed as many people was that they aren't as efficient as NATO.
Don't you get it? The Serbians are not going to stop killing people on their own. They
had plenty of opportunities in Bosnia and they didn't. They've had plenty of
opportunities to do so here and they didn't.
Should we have another Rwanda? Would that make everyone here happy?
You also forgetting that not every life in Kosovo is morally equivalent. I don't feel
sorry for the Serbian troops that are choosing to rape and murder other people. Not one
bit. If they die I do not care. If the suffering is theirs then as far as I'm concerned
it doesn't count. After their mass rape, killing, and torture of the Bosnian people I
just don't have any faith that they will leave a single person alive and unharmed in
Kosovo. I am more confident of NATO's desire to do that, if only to save face.
I am not a fan of NATO in general. I'm just as concerned with capitalist hegemony as
anyone
else here. But I have studied enough history to know that we are in a similar situation
to the beginning of World War 1, and I know enough about the history of fascism to
prefer capitalist hegemony to it any day.
> (4) NATO has made no contribution whatsoever to humanitarianism in the past, and
> has shown no signs of changing its agenda.
>
I think you are incorrect here. The two main factors that brought Serbia
to the Dayton peace accords in 1995 were NATO airstrikes, and the Croatian
army. Given what was happening in Bosnia, I'd call forcing Serbia to the peace
table a humanitarian effort.
---
Christopher W. Chase
-----------------------------------------------
ECA 377 Department of Religious Studies
Arizona State University Tempe, AZ
(480) 965-7145
christopher.chase@xxxxxxx
http://www.public.asu.edu/~heresy
-----------------------------------------------