iThe ultimatum that the US issued to Yugoslavia in the talks prior to
the viscous bombing, and which Yogoslavia of course rejected, was that
NATO troops be permitted to occupy all of Yugoslavia.
The action successfully achieved its aim, projection of the US empire
forces into the Balkans.  However the price has  been to alert Russia
to the US's true intentions.
wcm>
> Tresy Kilbourne wrote:
> . . .
> >MILOSEVIC'S WILLING EXECUTIONERS
> >
> >Milosevic's Willing Executioners
> >
> >by Stacy Sullivan
> >. . .
>
> I'm familiar with the New Republic article and am anxiously waiting for a
> counter argument.
>
> With respect to "Why did the US attack Yugoslavia?" Chomsky  prefers to
> answer a slightly different question. One that is framed more to his liking at
> http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/chomreplieskos.htm
> which includes the following:
> "[Steven Erlanger] writes that 'just before the bombing, when [the Serbian
> Parliament] rejected NATO troops in Kosovo, it also supported the idea of a
> United Nations force to monitor a political settlement there.' If
> Erlanger's report is true, then it provides very dramatic evidence of US
> intentions: . . ."
>
> The effectiveness of UN protection is mentioned in the Stacy Sullivan article:
> ". . .We had been told that Kamenica was the place where Bosnian Serb
> forces had killed many of the 7,000 Bosnian Muslims who were missing after
> the Serbs overran the U.N.-protected enclave of Srebrenica the previous
> summer. . ."
>
> Ken Freeland writes:
> >Tresy,
> >I can scarcely believe your campaign to vilify the Serbs, victims of
> >clear NATO atrocities, on this venue.  In your defense against some very
> >well reasoned objections to your demonization campaign, you respond by
> >essentially conflating the situation in Bosnia with the situation in
> >Kosovo, which is really apples and oranges. . . .
>
> It appears that some on the left wish to have it several different ways at
> once.
>