The Serbs had proposed a UN 'peacekeeping' force but the US rejected this.
There is a serious effort underway to take Yugoslavia into the Russian
federation--WWIII here we come.
wcm
>
> >The Serbs can stop the bombing by pulling out of Kosovo and allowing
> >an international *force* to come in.  They have chosen not to do
> >that.
>
> The "Serbs," rather Milosevic, chose not to allow the occupation of his
> country by 29,000 NATO troops, who have no legal jurisdiction over
> Yugoslavia.  This demand for occupation made at the so-called negotations
> at Rambouillet, which were really dictates, was one of the two out of three
> demands Milosevic would not go along with.  It is a good question what he
> would have done had it been a truly international force, i.e. partly
> non-NATO, but the U.S. didn't want to allow even consideration of such a
> thing, for very obvious reasons, considering the history and intentions of
> the U.S. and NATO.
>
> >>         Firstly the international observers who may be able to confirm or
> >>         deny the stories allegedly reported to NATO have fled the bombing
> >>         or been expelled.
> >
> >Fled the bombing?  Believing their presence was necessary to prevent
> >the killing, and knowing they would not themselves be targeted by the
> >bombing, they fled?
>
> What are you two talking about?  The observers were withdrawn because the
> bombing was about to begin.
>
> >But media serves elites.  Are you now arguing against that
> >well-established fact?  Are there good media and bad media?  Why don't
> >the good media go to the neighbor countries and broadcast into
> >Yugoslavia?  Do you mean they aren't doing that because they have
> >changed their minds and become patriots, re-fighting the Battle of
> >Kosovo?
>
> *All* media serve elites?  Hardly.  Alternative media in Belgrade have now
> been closed down.  You can read on the internet how many organizations
> dedicated to increasing democracy in Yugoslavia have now been set back and
> oppose the war partly because of this.  Alternative media operations hardly
> have the wealth or ability to pick up and move to an adjacent country.
>
> >It makes no sense to believe
> >the government.  It makes no sense to believe either side.  It makes
> >sense to do your own analysis.
>
> It makes sense to believe the government when, for example, Bill Clinton
> address the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and tells it that the reason we are in
> Kosovo is to promote the ability "to sell" American exports in the region.
> It also makes sense when Secretary of Defense Cohen states publicly that
> the purpose of our intervention is to make way for American investments in
> the Balkans.  But you're right, it makes sense to do your own analysis, and
> you have to piece it together while walking through the propaganda land
> mines set by those with imperialist intent.
>
> >> >NATO does't have to show anything, because there isn't any higher
> >> >authority that can stop it.
> >>
> >>         Oh well, so much for the 'democracy' NATO was formed to
> >>       protect.
> >
> >What do you mean?  Those democracies are still intact.  Unless you
> >mean that even the published poll results are wrong and most people
> >really don't support the NATO action.  Or do you mean you didn't
> >understand the fact that even democracies use force?
>
> I can't speak for Meecham, but it seems obvious that the "higher authority"
> is the rule of law, not popular opinion.  In this case that authority would
> be the treaties entered into by the NATO democracies that disallow
> intervention except when attacked.
>
> >By doing what he has done.  By forcing out hundreds of thousands of
> >people to become refugees in other economies.  You keep saying the
> >bombing caused that, which implies he had no choice, that he was the
> >victim.  But he did have choices.  He chose the worst one.  By forcing
> >everybody out, he made it easier for NATO to step up the bombing,
> >because he minimized the possibility of bombing Albanians by mistake.
> >And he could have agreed to the proposed deal, but he didn't.  And he
> >still has choices.  He can capitulate, but he doesn't.  The region
> >*is* destabilized.  NATO will not back down because it would mean
> >there is no possibility of enforcement, which democracies depend on
> >and which is one of the reasons NATO was created.
>
> Milosevic's actions were predicted by General Clark before the peacekeepers
> were withdrawn.  NATO and the U.S. knew before hand that what has happened,
> in some form, was what would happen.  General Clark was quoted in the
> war-promoting media to this effect.  You won't find many people who oppose
> NATO's action to defend Milosevic, but only someone who really does not
> care about the consequences of pulling out the peacekeepers would say that
> what is happening now is better than what would have happened if, one, real
> negotiations rather than dictates had happened in Rambouillet, and two, the
> observers had stayed put.
>
> >>         Stop them from what?
> >
> >Stop them from being a cause of the troubles in the region over the
> >last ten years.  Don't say stop them from what.  You know what.  Your
> >argument is that there was less killing per unit time before the
> >bombing.  So what?
>
> So then you confess to not caring about the exponential increase in
> killings directly as a result of the withdrawal of the peacekeepers, never
> mind the NATO bombing?
>
> >You weren't doing
> >all this protesting when there were only n killings, but n+m killings
> >has suddenly become too much for you to bear.
>
> The protesting comes usually when the people of a country that was not
> involved, and legally shouldn't be, in the altercation, suddenly finds it
> is, such as paying $5.9 billion and sending in 1,000 warplanes and untold
> numbers of troops to a situation which has exacerbated, and certainly no
> rational argument can be made to have helped, an international catastrophe.
>
> Why is the role of the KLA ignored in this discussion?  How stupid can any
> group of so-called liberators be to go up against a war machine as huge as
> Milosevic's?  The Kosovars had grievances, but it would be foolish to think
> they didn't know Milosevic's methods.  It seems pretty obvious following
> the NATO bombing in Krajina that the KLA was banking from the beginning,
> considering its weakness, that the same offer would come its way.  And what
> do you know, Albright flew to Rambouillet, got the KLA to change its
> opposition to the agreement, and the KLA had its airforce.
>
> >"I think people are in favor of the
> >NATO action because it is a decisive action to stop a wrong.  Despite
> >the fact that the NATO ACTION IS ALSO A WRONG, I think they will
> >continue to be in favor of it as long as it stays focused on its
> >military goal and until the Russians negotiate a deal acceptable to
> >NATO."
>
> The NATO action was stated to be intended to prevent exactly what has
> happened.  The NATO action, therefore, is not only a failure but it is
> immoral as well as illegal.  The daily twisting of fact by the apologists
> about our governments' intent is really a wonder to behold and it remains
> to be seen how much longer the televison-addled brains of Americans, for
> one group, will be convinced of our righteousness.
>
> I can't respond to all your arguments, no time.  I am glad to read you feel
> the NATO action is also a wrong but I obviously fundamentally disagree that
> the situation was helped by the course of action that was taken.  I believe
> this situation was engineered by Clinton/Albright for the purposes of
> creating this catastrophe.  They have shown by their participation in the
> slaughter of Serbs by Croatia and by their allowing the mass deaths in Iraq
> that they DO NOT CARE.  They have their minds set on imperial ambitions and
> the number of deaths is an afterthought.  Yes, it is difficult to believe
> that our own leaders can think this way, but the facts speak for themselves.
>
> Alan Collins
>