My I ask, what are you doing exactly, on this list?
I am a bit puzzled, Tresy: you are speaking , parroting is a better word,
mainstream jingoist propaganda. This list is a place for people to go beyond
state propaganda; moreover your writting is revealing complete ignorance
towards Balkan:
1. Milosevic was an usefull tool for US in the years of Dayton; he was , in
the light of the evidences historians fromYugoslavia have in disposal,
"usefull toy" for US interests in the region. Then, afterwards, he had
suffered the fate of Saddam , Noriega and many others, and became
"anusefull"
 There are many reasons for this tour d 'force;
2. "destabilizing force in the region"- but for whom? Very strange way of
percepting things. This is not the first time I am meeting an advocate of
war(s) , but first time on a list such as this one.
What does this dubious statement means?
3. "disastrous arm embargo"- I am missing your point once again, I dont se
the link with Kosovo: embargo on weapons that should be delivered to whom?
4." There were literally no meaningful options left."- so it is your opinion
that NATO is some kind of Red Cross suplement? A humanitarian organization,
driven by humanitarian reasons ( " to prevent another humanitarian
catastrophe")

This is not serious analisy, this is an ordinary parroting of mainstream
slogans.
What about the 2000 dead Yugoslav civilians killed by NATO ( both Serbs and
Albanians), admitedly more than people killed in civil war between US
sponsored KLA ( you remember the Contras of course?) and YU army?
They are "unworthy victims", I suppose?
What about exodus of Serbs, Jews , Gypsies from kosovo now, fleeing from
Albaninas ( this is not propaganda: I am watching those people under my very
window, coming in thoushands...)
And finally, you havent answered to me, is Chomsky , a stounch opponent of
this war and  arguments you are using "a revisionist" ( your words for anti
NATO critic)?
                                 Andrej




----- Original Message -----
From: Tresy Kilbourne <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 1999 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] in 300 words or less, Why did NATO intervene in
Kosovo??


> I think NATO intervened more or less for the reasons stated: to stop yet
> another humanitarian catastrophe in the Balkans and to finally tell
> Milosevic that the West meant business. The reason I think this is that no
> credible alternative explanation has been offered, and the historical
> context of the intervention supports the stated reasons. This does not
imply
> that I think the motives were humanitarian. It had become clear that
> Milosevic was a truly destabilizing force in the region, with likely bad
> consequences for the rest of Europe, while negotiations--ten years of
> negotiations, including a disastrous arms embargo--had accomplished
nothing.
> There were literally no meaningful options left.
> --
> Tresy Kilbourne
> Seattle WA