Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clark Supporters and Kosovo?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
san antonio Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 06:08 PM
Original message
Clark Supporters and Kosovo?
Every time I get in a debate with conservative friends about why we shouldn’t have gone to Iraq, they ask me if I opposed the actions in Yugoslavia under Clinton the same way I object to what Bush is doing. My answer is hell yes, I didn’t like it then and I don’t like it now.

What do the Clark supporter say when this is brought up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dookus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. I say
that ending genocide is a worthwhile reason to bring down a dictator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
san antonio Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Repugs Say
“I say that ending the rule of a murder who gassed his own people is a worthwhile reason to bring down a dictator.”

Isn’t that what the Repug talking heads repeat over and over to justify Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoneStarLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. The Poverty of Moral Equivalence
True, that is what they keep spouting.

The correct response is that there has not been a need uncovered nor identified to so radically and dangerously break with the Clintonian version of "regime change" in Iraq as we have not found any WMDs, only sparse examples of equipment hidden a decade ago and sparse evidence of disjointed WMD programs. Clintonian regime change is responsible for this lack of WMD. Clintonian regime change, not a Bush invasion, is what kept Saddam on such a short leash.

Besides, if ending the rule of a ruler who murders his own people by techniques worse than gassing (mass starvation, for example) is such a fucking crime, when are we going to roll up on the DMZ and take out Kim Jong Il? When are we going to jaunt across southern African and kick Robert Mugabe's senile ass out of Harare? When are we going to head over to Myanmar and depose the SLORC? When are we going to float down the Nile and beat the snot out of the boys running things in Khartoum?

We're not.

Because none of those disadvantaged, repressed, murdered peoples are sitting on top of a lake of oil (except maybe Myanmar...lots of offshore interests there).

That the end result is noble does not in any way, shape, or form excuse this administration lying and exaggerating its way into an invasion. I will guaran-fucking-tee you that if George Bush came to the American people last year and said "You know what, that Saddam Hussein, he's a bad guy. We need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and a few hundred American lives and go over there and depose him because by God he's evil and he gassed a town full of Kurds in 1988." The country would never buy it. The country would never go for it.

So instead they lied to us. They cajoled the population of America into a false hysteria over Iraqi capabilities that never existed beyond the boundaries of George Bush's feeble brain and Dick Cheney's scheming brain. The country bought it, they got their war, American soldiers got killed, and all the fucking while they spout this moral fertilizer about how getting rid of Saddam is so noble. Well you know what? If it is, time to mount up and go to Korea and Zimbabwe and Myanmar. Oh, what's that? Not interested? Too far away? Economy can't handle the stress?

Yep, that's right. Moral my white ass. This is the sharp end of calculated cynicism where morality is just another excuse, not something that stands on its own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Well Said, Sir!
Well said indeed! My hat is off to the gentleman from Texas!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. The importance of keeping things straight.
Now, more than ever. Right on, LSL.

:kick:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debsianben Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
18. Get your facts straight

(1)Those who claim that the purpose of the campaign of indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets in Serbia that General Clark was in charge of as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO was to "stop genocide" are, knowingly or not, reversing the chronology. Now, there had been a national conflict between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo, roughly parallel to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of one side being composed of both local unofficial militia and the official government (the Israelis or the Serbs) and the other side being composed of terrorist groups or, depending on your politics, "freedom fighters" (the Palestinians or the Albanians) and both sides committing atrocities. Yes, there had been a few incidents of extremely small-scale massacres of Albanian civilians by Serbs. There had also been many incidents of equivelantly-size groups of Serb civilians being killed by Albanian terrorists. There is one imporant difference though between the Serb-Albanian conflict in Kosovo (pre-US intervention) and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: before the US intervention, MORE SERBS HAD BEEN KILLED BY THE KLA THAN KOSOVARS KILLED BY SERBS. That doesn't negate the very real national oppression that was going on, and it doesn't make things OK, but that is a generally agreed on historical fact that no one disputes.

The more large-scale atrocities (evacuation and displacement of thousands of Albanians)--although its an exaggeration to call it genocide, just as it would be an exaggeration to call very similar tactics the US has employed both in Vietnam back when and in Iraq now "genocide"--happened ONLY AFTER THE BOMBING STARTED, BECAUSE THE BALANCE OF FORCES HAD BEEN CHANGED BY THE BOMBING STARTED and the Serbs wanted to create what the Israelis call "facts on the ground" so that they could keep a large chunk of Kosovo in Serbia in any final settment.

At the time the bombing STARTED, no one--not Clinton, not any one--claimed that the purpose was to stop genocide. That wasn't even the official excuse. The official excuse was the refusal of the Serbs to sign the US-brokered peace treaty.

(2)Milosevic was not brought down by the campaign of indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets that General Clark was involved in. In fact, a good argument can be made that it actually helped delay his downfall. The opposition movement within Serbia had been gathering steam shortly before the camapign of indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets, and (temporarily) evaporated during and for a while afterwards.. There were stadiums that had been full of anti-government protestors weeks before the campaign of indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets took place that were full of larger crowds at patriotic anti-NATO rallies during it. The fact is that when your country is attacked and thousands of your innocent civilians are killed, a lot of people tend to rally around their leader, no matter how much they started out hating him. Given post-9/11 Amerian experience, I'd think DUers would be painfully aware of that fact. Every bomb that dropped on a building full of innocent people strengthened Milosevic politically. All in all, the damn thing probably delayed his downfall by several months or more.

(3)Fun fact about the Serbia/Kosovo intervention: it was participated in by America's NATO ally Turkey. AT APPROXIMATELY THE SAME TIME THAT CLINTON WAS BOMBING SERBIA, the Clinton Administration was infusing massive military and financial aid into the brutal Turkish military. Why? Basically, to help Turkey deal with Kurdish resistance ("terrorism"). The Turkish effort to put down the Kurds was ethnic cleansing on a far more extensive scale than anything the Serbs did in Kosovo, tens of thousands of Kurdish villages burned down and Kurds being gunned down with American bullets left and right. It was one of the worst human rights violations of a decade rife with awful human rights situations. Always keep that in mind, that at the same time vapid liberal commentators were going on about how the bombing of Serbia proved that "American power" was now a benevolent force in the world, the Turks were perpetrating massive ethnic cleansing in Turkish Kurdistan with yankee guns and money.

(4)A final point. You'll notice that in that last three paragraphs I make a point of always reffering to the intervention as "the campaign of indscriminate bombing of civilian targets." That's a matter of basic accuracy. Forget the fact that the bombing was so reckless and indiscriminate that various foreign embassies were accidentally bombed and their diplomats incinerated, forget the bombs that went so far off-course that they hit targets IN NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES. Forget the hospitals that were accidentally bombed. For get all of that...although it should not be forgotten, or forgiven, for the same reason that we blame a driver who joy-rides at 90 miles an hour through a street crowded with children for any kids that he accidentally kills. Let's just focus on the OPENLY DECLARED, OFFICIAL TARGETS and you can see that my description is accurate. Americans are so indifferent to life in "enemy" countries they often don't stop to do a basic role reversal. Imagine if some one--Al Queda for instance--was setting off bombs all over the U.S. Imagine that they bombed THE EXACT SAME TYPES OF TARGETS THAT WERE OPENLY DECLARED TO BE US TARGETS IN SERBIA. Would we then call them "military" or "civilian" targets? Examples: "government buildings." Note, not military buildings, not even anything remotely connected to the war effort, any "government building" was considered fair game. That means the department of social services, the ag department, anything. Would we consider these to be "military targets" if some one bombed them in America and your brother or sister--who was employed in a low-level civil service job--was dismembered or incinerated in the blast? Second example: radio stations, TV stations, any kind of official media. The argument there was that they were "broadcasting propaganda" by portraying the conflict from the Serb point of view and therefor it was OK to take out whole buildings full of innocent journalists, camera people, office staff, etc.

So, one more time, tell me why the "anti-war general" isn't a war criminal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Well, Then, Fellow, Here Are Some....
This was prepared about a year and a half ago, but remains serviceable for the purpose at hand....


The Unhappy History of Kossovo


One: Origin of the Quarrel

The clash in Kossovo of Arnaut and Vascian, as the peoples known to we moderns as Albanian and Serb were oft known in Ottoman days, differs from the usual run of Balkan bloodletting; it describes a real ethnic difference. Serb, Croat, Slovene, Montenegrin; all are Slavs, divided due to institutions only. Albanians remain in some proportion survivals of the old Dalmatian and Illyric peoples of Roman days, taken to craggy peaks for refuge from a tide of Slavic invasion commencing with the sixth century.

Medieval Albanian Catholicism offered further differentiation from Orthodox Serbs. The northeastern extension of the Albanian remnant, and the southern marches of the Serb, coincided roughly in modern Kossovo. Here the Serb Czar and Orthodox Patriarchite were able to exert authority the more atomized Albanian polity could not. After the death of the Albanian chieftain Skanderberg, and the Ottoman routing of Venice from the latter’s Adriatic lodgments, late in the fifteenth century, Albanians generally converted to Islam.

In Kossovo, this established local Albanians’ dominance over the Orthodox Serb peasantry, as the Ottoman gave landlord’s tenure only to Moslems. More enterprising or desperate Serbs migrated north; Albanians of similar motivation replaced them from the west. The locale remained poorly ordered, and a frequent theater for rebellion and consequent Ottoman suppression.

The catastrophe suffered by the Ottoman besieging Vienna in 1683 led to the swift seizure of Bosnia, Albania, and Serbia by Austrian and Bavarian Catholic armies. An Austrian force ventured into Kossovo in 1689, setting Albanian and Serb alike both to rebellion against the Ottoman and to battle against one another. The Austrians soon were routed at Nish. In Kossovo, the Ottoman killed every inhabitant they could lay hands on for days. Serbs fled north in great number, Albanians fled west.

With Ottoman authority reasserted, it was mostly Albanians who returned. These soon outnumbered the Serb survivors and progeny. Erection of an autonomous Serbia early in the nineteenth century enticed Kossovo Serbs to migrate north and acquire a freehold farm there. The Russo-Turkish War of 1877, which saw near collapse for the tottering Ottoman, was preceded and followed by Serb attacks.

These fell on Ottoman garrisons and Moslem inhabitants in the south of modern Serbia, culminating in the 1878 sack and firing of the Albanian quarter in Nish. Islamic refugees fled into Kossovo; Christians fled into Serbia for shelter from ensuing pogrom, and advancing Ottoman soldiery. The peace imposed by the Treaty of Berlin left Kossovo under unrestricted Ottoman rule.


Two: To the Yugoslav Monarchy

Albanian agitation for autonomy on modern terms within the declining Ottoman imperium began at Prizren in Kossovo, and at Istanbul. The Serb remnant in Kossovo were subjected to a wretched existence, without recourse from predation by landlord or hostile brigand. Early in 1912, declaration of an Albanian state ignited a successful rebellion in Kossovo against the Ottoman. In the Balkan War, pitting Slav and Greek against the Ottoman that autumn, Serbian armies struck south through Kossovo with great massacre against the Albanian populace. The Treaty of Bucharest in 1913 confirmed Serbia in possession of Kossovo.

During World War One, Austria-Hungary put Serbia’s army to flight in 1915. Albanians in Kossovo rose against the retreating Serbs with utmost savagery. The Serb soldiers replied in kind to fight their way through to the Adriatic, there embarking on French ships to tremendous Allied acclaim. Serb armies re-entered Kossovo from the south by the 1918 Armistice, and were bitterly resisted by Albanian rebels. The new Yugoslav monarchy with its Serb king did not succeed in breaking organized resistance till 1924 in Kossovo. Brigandage, and brutal reprisal, remained endemic to the locale.

The Serb monarchy of Yugoslavia superintended a determined effort to secure its rule in Kossovo. Land was stolen from Albanians as “undocumented,” and made available for Serbs who would venture south to settle on it. Schools teaching in Albanian, originally encouraged in the hope they would keep Albanians backward, proved hotbeds of secessionist agitation, and were suppressed. In 1937, the monarchy entertained proposals by a leading Serb intellectual, the assassin turned historian Vaso Cubrilovic of Belgrade University, that all Albanians be forcibly expelled from Kossovo.

Near the start of World War Two, Fascist Italy seized Albania. Nazi Germany seized Yugoslavia in 1941. The mines in northern Kossovo, and most Kossovo Serbs therefore, were retained under Nazi occupation; the remainder of Kossovo was awarded to Italian Albania. Serbs in Italian Kossovo, mostly recent settlers, were pitilessly persecuted by Albanians, even against occasional Italian opposition. The S. S. security division “Skanderberg” was largely recruited among Kossovo Albanians.


Three: The Tito Era

After Italy capitulated in 1943, Tito, the Communist partisan leader, declared Kossovo would be allowed self-determination if Communists won. In 1944, his partisans succeeded in fighting their way into the place, with some local Albanian support at last. Royalist Chetnik partisans violently opposed any idea of Kossovo secession, winning Tito even more support in that locale.

Tito, however, reneged on that promised self-determination, annexing Kossovo anew to Serbia as an “Autonomous district” within his new Yugoslavia. The Albanian Communist leader, Enver Hoxha, was in no position to contest the matter, amid talk under Stalin of a Balkan Federation to include Albania itself. Tito’s break in 1948 with Stalin ended any real hope for Hoxha he could fold Kossovo into his hoped for Greater Albania.

Kossovo’s populace was then about three-fifths Albanian and one-quarter Serb, with the remainder including Moslem Slavs, Catholic Montenegrins, Turks, and Gypsies. Tito saw that Communist party and police supervisors in Kossovo were Serbs. These energetically hunted up the least hint of Albanian secessionists, harvesting batches of them for show trials in 1956 (coincident with the Hungarian revolt), and again in 1964.

Tito purged his Serb Interior Minister in 1966, for opposition to economic decentralization. Albanian Communists replaced Serbs in Party and police supervisory posts in Kossovo. In the “Prague Spring” of ’68, Kossovo Albanian students demonstrated for national status in Yugoslavia, and an Albanian language university. After many arrests, Tito granted the university in 1970. Albanian language textbooks could only be got in Enver Hoxha’s Albania, which opened a connection to the new Kossovo school in Pristina for his enterprising “special service” agents.

A new Yugoslav constitution in 1974 gave autonomous Serbian Kossovo effective national status, with a representative on the Yugoslav collective presidency. Albanian Kossovo police and party personnel suppressed radical cliques, inspired to “Enverism” (as secession became called) by Hoxha’s agents. Some of these cliques, formed about 1978, included young men who would later become leading lights of the present-day Kossovo Liberation Army.

Tito died in 1980. In spring of 1981, Kossovo Albanian students at Pristina University began demonstrations demanding independence, even fusion with Hoxha’s Albania, to applause from spectators. Yugoslav Interior Ministry troops arrived, and broke the demonstrations, shooting and beating scores to death. Kossovo Albanian party and police officials sustained the crack-down, loyally denouncing “Enverist” radicals, and arresting and beating hundreds suspected of such leanings.

Radical secessionist leaders fled to sanctuaries in Western Europe. Several, meeting near Stuttgart in 1982 to form a popular front, were ambushed and shot dead by unknown assailants. Surviving radicals concluded the bullets came from Serbs in the Yugoslav Interior Ministry, and swore blood vengeance. Under the name of Popular Movement for the Kossovo Republic, a handful of such trained in Albania, and attempted a campaign of gun-battles and bombs against Kossovo and Yugoslav police.


Four: Rise of Milosevic

These largely would-be assassins had no material effect, but a profound moral one. Any crime against serbs in Kossovo was in serbia reported as secessionist terror, and crimes against Serbs in Kossovo, particularly against property of isolated farms and Orthodox sites, occurred with increasing frequency. The Serb Orthodox Patriarchite was ranged alongside the Serb Academy of Sciebces in protest of this, with the latter, in 1985, calling the current situation genocide against against Serbs in Kossovo.

At the start of 1986, the banker Slobodan Milosevic ascended to leadership of the Serb Communist Party. Belligerence in favor of Serbs dwelling outside Serbia’s boundaries, or in the autonomous districts of Vojvodina and Kossovo, offered a ready lever for political power. Kossovo Serbs were organizing militias with assistance from Serb Interior Ministry police; Hoxha’s death had not altered Albania’s support of “Enverism” in Kossovo.

Early in 1987, Milosevic arrived in Pristina’s suburbs for a meeting with Kossovo Serb leaders. A large crowd of Kossovo Serbs rioted before him against the largely Albanian Kossovo police. It was not chance; four days before, Milosevic had met with the riot’s instigators, and a schedule had been fixed for the outbreak.

Widely broadcast film of the incident established Milosevic as champion of distressed Serbs. Later that year, Milosevic used this popularity to force Serbia’s president from office. In the summer of 1988, Milosevic’s Serb Communist Party organized a campaign of Kossovo Remembrance rallies throughout Serbia proper, claiming an average attendance of half a million at each. In November, Milosevic as Party chief dismissed the Albanians in Communist Party leadership in Kossovo, and promulgated constitutional changes effectively stripping Kossovo of its autonomous status.

Albanian Communist leadership in Kossovo mobilized sizable demonstrations and hunger strikes in protest early in 1989. These were broken with loss of life by Yugoslav Interior Ministry troops, who seized the arms of both Kossovo’s national guard and police. Closely surrounded by tanks, the Kossovo Assembly voted itself out of effective existence on March 23.

Milosevic now accepted the Presidency of Serbia. Continuing Albanian demonstrations in Kossovo were broken by Serb and Yugoslav soldiers and police; hundreds of arrests were accompanied by torture. At the end of the year, Albanian intellectuals and some Communist leaders collected to form the Democratic League for Kossovo. The police terror stilled the demonstrations early in 1990.

Milosevic ratified Serb Parliament decrees forbidding Albanians to buy land from Serbs in Kossovo, and removing Albanians from civil service, including hospitals, schools, and the police. The latter quickly became overwhelmingly Serb. The Albanian membership of the Communist Party in Kossovo took up membership in the League for Democratic Kossovo.


Five: The Kossovo Resistance

This L. D. K. was led by the writer Ibrahim Rugova. He inspired Kossovo Albanians to a program of passive resistance to Serb authority. A “shadow state” emerged, quartered in private dwellings, and with a government in exile operating in Germany. Rugova’s “shadow state” held elections, administered Albanian language schooling, even collected taxes. These applied equally to Kossovo Albanians dwelling abroad; most were guest-worker laborers in Europe, but some were prosperous businessmen, or smugglers of stolen cars and narcotics and prostitutes.

The handful of violent radicals constituting the Popular Movement for the Kossovo Republic (P. M. K. R.) were denounced by Rugova as stooges of the Serb police, and he was widely believed by Kossovo Albanians when he did. The radicals’ sporadic gunshots and arsons each served to signal a fresh campaign of interrogations and beatings by Serb police, directed against the nonviolent “shadow state” organizers.

With Yugoslav and Serb armed forces devoted to war in Croatia and Bosnia, Milosevic was content to leave Kossovo at this status quo. On Serb victory in Croatia, one of the leading Serb killers, an Interior Ministry employee known as Arkan, moved to Pristina with scores of armed followers. “Enverist” radicals of the P. M. K. R. secretly convened in Drenica (where resistance to the old Yugoslav monarchy had persisted into 1924), and there voted themselves the armed force of the Kossovo Republic. Albania’s newly elected government maintained cordial relations both with these radicals, and Rugova’s pacific Kossovo government in exile, now established near Bonn.

Kossovo Albanian boycott of official Serb elections in December 1993 gave Milosevic a resounding victory over his rival for the presidency, the Serb-American businessman Panic, and allowed the killer Arkan to win election to a parliament seat. The “Enverist” radicals were split into a Marxist faction, the National Movement for the Liberation of Kossovo, and a Nationalist faction, the Kossovo Liberation Army. The latter had a better footing abroad, where the pacific Rugova’s government in exile at Bonn was beginning to explore establishing its own armed force. Albania continued to assist by giving military training to dozens of radicals, and allowing transit through its borders.

The bloody summer of 1995 saw Serb massacre of Bosnian Moslems, Croat expulsion of Serbs, and NATO bombing of Serb forces in Bosnia. The Dayton Accords confirmed Serb gains in Bosnia, and recognized the rump Yugoslav Federation Milosevic dominated, from his seat for Serbia in its collective presidency. The pacific Rugova used his control of Albanian language media in Kossovo to maintain popular commitment to passive resistance, while the fledgling KLA demanded Serb departure from Kossovo, and launched a new campaign of sporadic shootings and bombings.

Serbia was greatly unsettled by the influx of refugees from Krajina and Slavonia. In Yugoslav elections on May 31, 1996, the Montenegrin presidency went to an opponent of Milosevic, and in Serbia, opposition parties won local posts in many cities. Milosevic refused to allow victorious opponents to take office in Serbia. He allowed three months of demonstrations, then bought off his principal Serb opponent by offering him a cabinet post. The demonstrations were mopped up by brutal police attack, and opposition figures allowed to take local office found their function superseded by various national agencies. The Vatican brokered an agreement Milosevic signed to allow Albanian language schools official existence in Kossovo, but he took no steps to implement it.


Six: Taking Up the Gun

In Bonn, the leading functionary of Rugova’s government in exile, Bujar Bukoshi, rejected passive resistance, and turned the radio transmitter he controlled to broadcasts supporting the KLA. Early in 1997, Albania’s banks were revealed as Ponzi swindles. Mobs looted government facilities, including military arsenals, and swiftly reduced the land to anarchic chaos, in which a Kalshnikov rifle could be had for a five dollar bill.

Bukoshi’s embryonic forces, consisting of a few hundred exiled policemen and soldiers, established themselves in Albania as the Armed Forces of the Kossovo Republic (F. A. R. K.), in competition with the KLA. Albanian students organized demonstrations against Milosevic’s refusal to implement the Vatican agreement on schooling, ignoring orders to desist from Rugova. Serb police crushed the demonstrations with extraordinary brutality.

KLA attacks, which by the Serb government’s claims had been occurring roughly once a week, and claimed ten Serb lives since 1995, began to take place almost daily at the start of 1998. In the old rebel district of Drenica, near the village of Likosane just before noon on February 28, a gunfight broke out between KLA men and a Serb police patrol. Once it was over, Serb police massacred the men of a wealthy Albanian clan considered leaders of the hamlet. Five days later, Serb police surrounded the family compound of a KLA leader and shelled it for hours, then went into the ruins and murdered women, children, and wounded, to a total of 58, including the KLA man, Adem Jashari.

These murders turned Albanian village elders throughout Kossovo against Rugova’s passive resistance. They put hundreds of their young men at the disposal of the KLA. In Drenica, and near the Albanian border, armed partisan bands appeared in such strength the Serb police retired to establish encircling roadblocks. Western diplomats threatened Milosevic with dire consequences if the murders by his police were repeated. Milosevic agreed to begin implementing the Vatican schools agreement, and to meet with Ibrahim Rugova. Simultaneously, Milosevic admitted the ultra-nationalist Chetnik party into a coalition government with his Serbian Socialist Party, and loosed his Serb police once again into Drenica.

This campaign was conducted with the same degree of atrocity that characterized previous operations by Serb police. In one typical incident near Gorjne Obrinje, after fourteen Serb police were shot in a fire-fight, a group of fourteen Albanian women, children, and old men found hiding nearby were shot point-blank by Serb police. Some 200,000 Albanians fled their homes to avoid the fighting, some to southern Kossovo and some to Albania. President Clinton ordered a show of force by U. S. warplanes over Yugoslavia, and in October, his pressure secured an agreement by which Serb Interior Ministry troops were to vacate Kossovo, negotiations with Kossovo Albanian leaders were to begin in earnest, and a body of diplomatic observers would enter Kossovo to monitor events. During the course of negotiating this agreement, Milosevic told a U. S. general that the way to bring peace to Drenica was to “kill them all.”

The monitored cease-fire brought many Kossovo Albanian refugees back to their homes. In Albania, the Kossovo government in exile’s small armed force was violently absorbed by the KLA; in Kossovo, KLA men began arresting and executing functionaries of Rugova’s “shadow state” as collaborators with Serbia. They also murdered about a dozen Serb civilians, and a Serb village mayor. By the start of 1999, fire-fights of company and even battalion scale between KLA guerrillas and Serb police were once more occurring.

Near dawn on January 15, battle broke out between KLA guerrillas and Serb police near the town of Racak. After nine KLA men were killed the rest fled. During the afternoon Serb police entered the town, raped and murdered two women, and murdered forty-three unarmed men and boys. Serb Information Ministry spokesmen in Pristina next morning invited Western journalists to visit the scene of a “successful” fight against the KLA; when they reported what they saw, Milosevic declared the KLA had fabricated the incident, and demanded the diplomatic observers quit Kossovo. The chief judge of the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal for Yugoslavia was denied entry to the country.

Seven: The NATO Intervention

NATO demanded the talks agreed to the previous October begin in February, and threatened military action to force compliance. The meeting at Rambouillet Chateau featured a severely fractured Albanian delegation; its principal factions (all of which hated one another) were Rugova’s adherents in the old LDK, old line Communist functionaries from that same umbrella group, and the KLA led by Hashim Thaci. After days of negotiation, Milosevic struck out about half the already settled agreement, substituting his initial demands, which the Albanians and NATO had already rejected, and forced collapse of the talks on March 18. Two days later, 40,000 Serb police and soldiers with 300 armored vehicles launched a fresh offensive into Drenica.

NATO air strikes commenced against Serbia on March 24. While these aimed at destroying Serb anti-aircraft defenses, Serb police and soldiers in Kossovo commenced a wholesale assault on the Albanians of Kossovo, aimed at driving them from the country by exemplary massacre. During the course of this campaign, roughly 10,000 persons, mostly young men, were murdered by Serb police and soldiers. Almost a million Albanians took to flight, either west to Albania, south into Macedonia, or into the mountains of Kossovo itself. Lightly armed KLA guerrillas could accomplish nothing against the Serb forces.

When Serb air defenses were disabled, NATO warplanes began attacks demolishing bridges, power stations, and the like in Serbia proper. With Serb police and soldiers forced to retire their heavy equipment to shelter in bunkers by NATO air bombardment in Kossovo, their murder squads became vulnerable to attack by Albanian partisans, many of whom were not, properly speaking, KLA, but village militia deployed by their clan elders. When Serb police and soldiers attempted to group together to overpower these guerrilla bands, the Serbs were savaged by NATO warplanes.

On June 3, Milosevic capitulated. Serb police and soldiers retired northward; NATO troops moved in. Kossovo Albanian refugees streamed back to their homes. Many set upon Serbs still remaining in Kossovo. NATO troops intervened to protect lives, but not property; even so, several dozen Serbs, many elderly, were killed. The overwhelming majority of Serbs resident in Kossovo fled north into Serbia, or into that small portion of northern Kossovo around the mines where they had long constituted the principal element of the populace.

A government for Kossovo, formed under NATO auspices, blended elements of the LDK and KLA, with the KLA’s Hashim Thaci emerging as Prime Minister, while Ibrahim Rugova, the nonviolent leader, found himself without power, or much prestige. The KLA has kept its word to disarm only poorly, and remains a police problem for NATO occupation troops. It has attempted to provoke guerrilla war in the adjoining areas of Macedonia which are largely populated by Albanians, but has had scant success there, either in baiting the Macedonian government into atrocious reaction to their activities, or in gaining wide support among Albanian people in those districts.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dirk39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. "The Racak Massacre": NATO Sponsored Media Scam
"Near dawn on January 15, battle broke out between KLA guerrillas and Serb police near the town of Racak. After nine KLA men were killed the rest fled. During the afternoon Serb police entered the town, raped and murdered two women, and murdered forty-three unarmed men and boys."


http://www.berlinonline.de/berliner-zeitung/politik/308862.html (german newspaper, this is a translation):
January, 17, 2004
Finnish pathologist Helena Ranta said the work of the Hague tribunal regarding the so-called Racak massacre was incomprehensible. The former head of the forensic team the European Union sent to the Kosovo-Albanian village of Racak in January 1999 to investigate the events there, in a conversation with Berliner Zeitung, criticized the UN tribunal for not following up the evidence that there was heavy fighting between Serb soldiers and the Kosovo-Albanian fighters during the night of January 15-16, 1999 in the Racak-region.

Western politicians used the tragedy in the village of Racak, where 40 Albanians died exactly 5 years ago, to prove to the public that the upcoming NATO attack on Yugoslavia was necessary.

US diplomat William Walker played the leading role. The chief of the OSCE mission in Kosovo immediately accused the Serbs of having killed 45 unarmed Albanian civilians at close range in Racak. The Serbian side rejected this interpretation und spoke instead about KLA soldiers killed in battle.
Pictures not published

She knew, that at that time "KLA-fighters were buried around Racak," said Ranta. "At that time I received information that proved that several Serb soldiers had been killed as well. Unfortunately, we will never know the exact number of Serb soldiers that died that night." It would be appropriate "to ask the tribunal why they are not interested in that number."

Ranta criticized the indictment against former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic in the case of Racak for mostly following the Walker version. "When Ambassador Walker said that there was a massacre at Racak, this statement had no legal value. I declared at that time that the OSCE-observers forgot to take all steps necessary to secure a crime scene: isolating the area, refusing admission to all unauthorized persons and colletinig all material evidence.

Ranta demanded that in addition to the OSCE pictures the tribunal also use the pictures taken by two additional photographers, shot several hours prior to the arrival of OCSE-observers.

The pictures show "that at least one of the bodies was moved afterwards â?" that body is not seen on OSCE-pictures."
Left in the lurch

In the days prior to the NATO-attack on Yugoslavia it was clear "that a bunch of governments were interested in a version of Racak that blamed only the Serb side," said Ranta. "But I could not provide this version." Her instructions came from the German diplomat Pauls. The representative of the then-German EU-presidency asked for a written statement. "Afterwards, I had to show these personal statements to William Walker, who was obviously not amused when he read it." Still, she agreed to take part in the important press conference on March 17, 1999. "At that (conference), I was sitting with the German ambassador to Belgrade, Gruber, and a Finnish diplomat on the podium. I hoped that those gentlemen would support me." But that was not the case. "I rather had the feeling that I was left in the lurch," said Ranta.

As a result of the Walker dominated press-conference most of the media accepted the version of a Serb massacre of Albanian civilians as proven. A few days later the NATO air attacks on Yugoslavia began.

(Translated from German by C. Schuetz & J.Catalinotto)

Hello from Germany,
Dirk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Yes, Fellow
You do seem to like the scent of this swill, but the apologists for Butcher Slobo are insufficient to carry the day in the question.

By the way, who are you planning to vote for in your state's Democratic Party primary?

"If a man will continue to insist two and two do not make four, I know of nothing in the power of argument to stop up his mouth."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debsianben Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #25
33. I am NOT a Milosevic apologist

Let's get that straight. The fact that I opposed Clinton's bombing of Kosovo doesn't make me a Slobodan Milosevic apologist any more than the fact that I opposed Bush's bombing of Iraq makes me a Saddam Hussein apologist. I think both men were brutal fascist thugs, and in both cases I think they deserve to be tried and sentenced to life in prison for their crimes. That doesn't justify the slaughter of thousands of innocent Serb and Iraqi civilians with bombs and missiles. In fact, one of my anti-war arguments re: Serbia was that the bombing campaign actually delayed Milosevic's fall from power for obvious reasons. (People tend to rally around the leader when they are attacked and thousands of their innocent civilians are killed.) Similarly with Hussein--arguably, the bombings and sanctions actually made a popular revolt against him far less likely. In fact, when one happened after the first Gulf War the U.S. actually relaxed its no-fly zones to allow Iraqi helicopter gunships in to supress the rebellion. So opposing the brutal interventions in Serbia and Iraq doesn't make you an apologist for Milosevic or Hussein.

In fact, General Clark was (hesitantly and inconsistently) critical of the decision to invade Iraq...does that make him a Hussein apologist?

In both cases, my view is very simple. Whether you live in Serbia, Iraq or the United States of America, regime change begins at home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. No, Sir, You Do Not Seem To Be
The fellow so addressed is a regular purveyor of the article in question, however, and calling things by their proper names is a point of principle to me....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debsianben Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. Yeah, and?

I glanced over this, and it doesn't look like you're actually contradicting anything I said. We agree that Milosevic was an evil SOB, that there was a real issue of national oppression in Kosovo, and that there were real incidents of massacres perpetrated by Serbs against Albanians. I don't see much in your historical summary that I disagree with, except for the fact that you're simply leaving out all of the parts of the story that you don't like or that conflict with you're view. For example, the thousands of innocent civilians that (nobody denies this) were taken out in the air strikes, the fact that a huge chunk of the official, intended targets in the 90-day bombing campaign were not "military" by any stretch of the imagination, the fact that after the NATO victory Albanian nationalists engaged in massive ethnic cleansing not only of the substantial Serb minority in Kosovo but also of the roma population, etc., etc., etc. Not to mention, I consider any presentation on the Serbia/Kosovo intervention that doesn't mention the massive military aid the US supplies to countries such as Turkey and Israel that have committed far more extensive crimes than Serbia ever did to their own respective opressed nationalities (the Kurds and the Palestinians, respectively) to be lying by ommission, because that fact rips to shreds any possible argument that the bloody campaign of bombing in Serbia was motivated by a concern for human rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. Quite The Contrary, Fellow
No one pretends anymore, outside Serb nationalists and other bare-faced liars, that there were many thousands of civilians killed by NATO air attack.

Your idea of what constitutes a military target is quite naive; there are very few installations in a modern industrial society that are not of use to both military and civilian purposes, and the laws of war allow strikes against such "dual use" facilities, based on an avowedly subjective judgement, on which no judge has yet issued any authoritative ruling, that the direct military benefit of the act is greater than the harm to civilians from it.

Nor is there any concealment of the subsequent sufferings of others at the hands of vengeful Albanians. Your final point is meaningless, as none of those matters you mention touches in any particular on the course of events it was my purpose to inform people about.

If you wish to debate Israel v. Palestine, there is a forum for the purpose in Foreign Affairs; it is a particular haunt of mine, most times, and there is great sport to be had there....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debsianben Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. Eh?

Given the amount of bombing that took place--and given some high-profile incidents demonstrating how indscriminate the whole thing was that even the cravenly pro-war corporate media had to cover, like the Chinese Embassy--how is even logically possible that there were *NOT* thousands of civilian deaths? Perhaps the bombs that lit up the sky over Belgrade were built in the same factory that produced the "magic bullet' that killed JFK, and magically managed to avoid killing any of the non-soldiers who reside there. This was a bombing campaign so precise that (above and beyond some of the more awful individual incidents of schools and hospitals and such) some bombs went so far off course they hit targets in neighboring countries. This is a matter of public record. Perhaps you don't count people killed in bombings of "potentially dual use facilities" as civilians. All I can say about that is that I sincerely doubt that you would have the same view on the distinction between military and civilian targets if the shoe were on the other foot.

Anyway, what's your source for what "nobody" says? The same commentators who routinely reverse the chronology between the really large-scale atrocities starting and the beginning of the bombing. No less than Wesley Clark said in a press conference during the bombing that the massive escalation in atrocities by Serb nationalists against Kosovars was "an entirely predictable consequence" of the bombing. That's an exact quote...in Chomsky's book "Hegemony or Survival," he's got a great discussion of that point.

Anyway, I would guess that your understanding of what "nobody but Serb nationalists and liars" believes is rather America-centric, given how popular that intervention was in most of the rest of the world.

I'm not interested in discussing Palestine, except for as it pertains to the discussion of General Clark's role in war crimes in the Serbia/Kosovo intervention. The fact is that Israel/Palestine, like Turkey/Kurdistan, is a powerful enough counter-example to completely falsify any claim that the yankee military colossus is overly concerned with human rights or overly affected by moral revulsion against "ethnic cleansing."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. You May Trouble Yourself, If Actually Concerned, Sir
To research the tabulated civilian casualties, there are available with a little effort from United Nations sources. My view of military and civilian targets is based on awareness of the ordinary practice of war-fare, and the laws pertaining to it, which are also in your reach with a little effort.

That Prof. Chomskey reared up in your response identifies the situation perfectly: he is an excellent linguist, and his comments on that subject are very valuable. In others, they are worth very little, to my view, although like the proverbial stopped clock he does manage, largely by saying so much, to be right on occassion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debsianben Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Chomsky-bashing as an aide to evading the issue

I don't reference Chomsky because of his contributions to Linguistics (a subject I'm not competent to discuss in any case), but because I thought he made a good point about Kosovo. If you don't find Chomsky's critique of American foreign policy or of the role of media in shaping political debate very useful, that's fine...although I do have to say, I've always suspected that much of the antipathy towards him among defenders of such things as Clinton's Serbia/Kosovo misadventure is motivated precisely by the fact that he is so relentlessly calm, logically consistent and factually well-informed. They'd far rather deal with critics of the Michael Moore variety--brilliant sense of humor and a undeniably a great film-maker, but also wildly, bizzarely inconsistent when it comes to practical politics.

In any case, whatever you think of his political work in general, that's beside the point. I referenced him only because that book provided a useful and very relevant discussion of Wesley Clark's statements during the 1999 intervention, which constituted a rather confession on General Clark's part of how hard it is to justify the view that the intervention "stopped genocide". I'm not going to reproduce the argument here, both since I don't have the quotes in front of me and its easy enough to simply stop by your local Barnes & Noble or (now that the strike is over) Borders and look it up. The point about how apologists for the air strikes routinely reverse the chronology--and the dissection of Clark's statements during the war--remains valid regardless of what you think about his more general views.

Look, the lines of political demarcation are clear enough. You think that the United States practices benevolent imperialism and has every right to lay waste to the population centers of "rogue states," although you probably aren't as enthusiastic when the POTUS is an elephant rather than a donkey. I on the other hand think that blowing up blatantly civilian targets (as was done in Kosovo) is a bad thing even if some sort of legalistic argument can be made that it's OK given "generally accepted rules of war" that, after all, the United States has been a primary author and beneficiary of in terms of modern warfare. And, no I don't regard the United Nations as some sort of nuetral source or honest broker between the Pentagon and its victims.

Meanwhile, I've got a huge stack of papers to grade, so I think I'm going to call it a night, let you have the last word, and go home and make some coffee.

All the best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. You Miss The Point Entirely, Sir
Edited on Fri Jan-23-04 02:28 AM by The Magistrate
This conversation was begun by a fellow asking for assistance in debate with persons over the invasion of Iraq: he wanted a good line to use in seeing off a common rebuttal offered to such criticism by those adhereing to other side.

You have siezed on the opportunity to press an old attack by the ultra left on President Clinton, and by extension, on Gen. Clark, the commander of President Clinton's forces then, and now a prominent candidate for the Democratic Party's nomination for President. This is hardly helpful to the purpose; telling people who defend the Iraq invasion that the attack on Serbia was wrong too will simply convince them you are hoelessly naive, and unfit to criticize any military venture on its merits, because you clearly are moved by a blanket opposition to all use of military force.

Very few people here, Sir, and myself perhaps least of all, are interested just now in ultra left critiques of Democratic Presidential candidates, that would tend to diminish their prospects at the polls come fall. The rank and file of the Party desires nothing more than the eviction of the criminals of the '00 Coup from the office they usurped, and means to have a candidate, and to press a campaign, that can achieve that. Re-hashing this tired old tomfoolery about NATO crimes in Serbia, and the dark imperialist designs you are sure lay behind the venture, will not aid that in the slightest. The claims are rediculous, but that is beside the point; they are irrelevant to the present crisis in the political life of our country.

One final, small point, Sir. Your affection for Prof. Chomskey is noted. However much you are taken by him, you are simply going to have to accept that many people see little of value in his political commentary, and learn to sit through the expression of that disagreement without resort to claims the fellow is being bashed, or that the disagreement is somehow an indication that he is really spot on in opinions. He is far too predictable in his political comments for them to be the result of any acute study or deep thought, out of which they emerge by careful consideration. He brings to each work of analysis an a priori belief, that he imposes on the question, and unsurprisingly finds bits and pieces he can extract to adorn his pre-conceptions with a pretence of proof. He is, at bottom, a garden-variety of propagandist, albeit a very skilled and erudite one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debsianben Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #46
48. One Final Clarification

Without re-hashing the substance of the issue, on which I have had my say, I do want to clarify what I meant by "Chomsky-bashing." Its not that I'm unwilling to sit through any disagreement with the man's views. The fact is that I disagree with him on many points, and I thought I made abundantly clear in the message you are responding to that the issue in question is not whether one happens to find his more general contributions useful or not--that's beside the point--but rather whether he made a good point on this particular instance. The "Chomsky-bashing" in the subject line was a reaction to the way that you brought Chomsky up. Rather than replying to the substance of the thing--and I brought him up just because I thought his most recent book had a useful discussion of the particular point we were talking about--your response struck me as amounting to, "oh, you're referencing Chomsky, you must be some kind of ultra-left lunatic." That is to say, you evaded the substance of the argument by just a priori blowing off anything that he has to say....(incidentally, just for the record Chomsky is not opposed to all use of military force, eg he thought WWII was a just war of self-defense and still maintains that position now.) If I had said that General Clark had made a good point about Iraq in his recently published book, and you had responded with a generally derisive comment about Clark's alleged ideological leanings, I might have used the phrase "Clark-bashing" in my response. The point is not that Chomsky in a special category, just that his arguments deserve as much of a hearing as any one else's. The "bashing" bit was a reference to dismissing the person so as not to have to deal with the ideas.

I have to say I find your characterization of anti-war views on Kosovo as "an ultra-left critique of the Democratic Party" as rather amsuing. The fact is that this "ultra-left critique of the Democratic Party" is shared by one Dennis Kucinich, one of the seven candidates for that party's nomination for POTUS. Indeed, Kucinich not only voted against the resolution authorizing air strikes, he was one of the congressman who filed a lawsuit against the Clinton administration for violating the War Powers Act. So its not a matter of subscribing to an "ultra-left critique of the Democratic Party," simply of siding with one of the 7 Democratic Presidential hopefuls (Kucinich) over another one of the 7 (Clark). Now, last time I checked, in the one and only state of the 50 where it has actually come to a vote so far (Iowa), Kucinich had 1 delegate at the Caucus and Clark had a grand total of zero. (That is to say, he knew he would be creamed, so he didn't bother making an effort.) There are a lot of factors in play and no one will know until Tuesday, so you really can't tell me yet with any confidence that Clark will do well and Kucinich badly in New Hampshire. All of this is ony relevant to the question of whether taking an anti-war stand on Kosovo is a matter of an "ultra-left critique of the Democratic Party."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Honestly, Sir
Edited on Fri Jan-23-04 02:13 PM by The Magistrate
It causes me no grief to have amused you: this remains an ultra-left critique when emanating from such quarters as Prof. Chomskey. It is possible to say with perfect confidence Rep. Kucinich will draw less than 6% of the New hampshire vote, while Gen. Clark will garner upwards of 20% of the ballots there.

As you may have surmised, this is hardly my first time around the block here on the subject of Kossovo, and the Balkans generally. The various propositions put forward by those who critize the operation from an ultra-left perspective are not facts, and accordingly do not require dealing with as facts: they are a priori assumptions emanating from a particular world view, and cite in most shoddy fashion occassional quotations out of context, or out of date, and in a manner that reveals no understanding of the Balkan realities.

The reference to blanket opposition to military force was the characterization of the likely response of a supporter of the Iraq invasion to a person telling him the invasion of Iraq and the war on Serbia both were wrong. Prof. Chomskey has certainly on occassion supported violence he concieves as revolutionary, and done so in some instances damned shabbily, most particularly in the early days of the Khymer Rouge. The particular point of his in this instance you make so much of, Sir, is not particularly remarkable, nor telling. Butcher Slobo found himself assailed in the early stages of his projected designs toward Kossovo, and when assailed, cracked on all sail to get as much accomplished as he could while he still might: thus a good deal of the crime occured after the war began. But the expulsions were begun two days before the first bombs fell, and the pattern of massacre and driving out of Kossovar Albanians had been established well before even that, and there is no reason whatever to suppose he would not have executed his designs had he not been subjected to war. Rather, they is every reason to suppose he would have carried them out, albeit at a slightly slower pace. The notions put forward by some, that the point of the NATO exercise was to destroy Serb socialism, or to lay hands on a mythical Serb wealth, are simple nonsense, though those who cling to them are incapable of accepting reasoned refutation of them, for to do so would require altering not only their view of the world, but of themselves as well.

"There were only three men who ever understood that whole affair: one is dead, another has gone mad, and myself, I have forgot the matter entirely."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
45. bombing civilians is never the answer to ending anything.
period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. It Is Sometimes Unavoidable, Mr. Blitz
Life is largely an exercise in doing evil in the hope good might come of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrats unite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. Just ask the Kosovo's & you will have your answer.
Welcome to DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
san antonio Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. What's different?
Between the way you are justifying Kosovo and what the Repugs have said to justify Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrats unite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. The Kosovo Peole Love Wesley Clark!
Thats a big difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dirk39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
26. Did you ask them?
Have you seen, what's going on in Kosovo now? How many Kosovos do you know?
They're just about to privatise the rest of the hospitals and turn former public hospitals into leisure centers for the rich.
Mission accomplished...
Dirk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Heaven It Was For Albanians Before In Kossovo, Eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
funky_bug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. The difference, for me
is that Clark was serving in a military and was taking orders from the president. He was not the president, ignoring the UN, defying the logical order voted on in the IWR, and by-god going to war anyhow. There was no genocide. Not anymore. There were no WMD's, but there sure was a whole lot of oil.

The difference is that 1.5 million Albanians are still praising the efforts of the US, while millions of people in Iraq are still waiting on Bush the Lesser to deliver the "freedom" and "democracy" that he promised them. They are bombing and fighting all the way...

And perhaps most importantly is the mathematical difference here:

Number of soldiers killed SO far in Iraq: 500 and counting
Number of soldiers killed under Wes' command: 0

And that, for me, makes a whole lot of difference. It's not how the war was started, it's how it was played. Remember, Wes didn't start it, but he finished it well. Kosovo is over, but the war in Iraq (despite the flight-suit proclamation) is still going on. Soldier will still be dying when a Dem takes the office. Who better to pull them to safety, than the man who has done it before?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonRiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. NATO and the UN were trying to get the US in long before we did.
We were part of an international coalition to STOP ongoing genocide (ala the Nazi extermination of European Jews). Of course we did the right thing by going in. Saddam was a totally different ballgame. * claimed that we were invading Iraq to protect the U.S. from WMD (ha, ha). There was nothing of the sort happening. And, there was no war and genocide occurrying. Your rightwing "friends" are just spinning the Repuke mantra.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dirk39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #9
28. These are the people, who did write the script for Clark and Co.:
"RUDER-FINN

But Repo says that what Harff was up to in Bosnia makes the work of Hill and Knowlton pale before it. She continues:

"Yet the shock of being duped (by Hill and Knowlton) soon wore off and gullibility returned (to the American public). In no time another American PR firm, Ruder Finn, working for the Croatian and Bosnian separatists, publicly bragged that it had been able to turn world opinion against the Serbs."

Visconti continues with regard to Harff:

"James Harff, director of Ruder & Finn Global Public Affairs, in an interview with French journalist Jacques Merlino which was published in his book, Les Verites Yougoslaves ne sont pas toutes bonnes en dire (Albin Michel, Paris, 1994), talked about his new clients and his (i.e., Harff's) strategy for success. According to Harff: 'Between August 2nd and 5th, 1992, the New York Newsday came out with a lead story on (Serbian death) camps. We jumped at the opportunity and immediately distributed it to three major Jewish organizations - the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and the American Jewish Congress ... The engagement of Jewish organizations on the side of the Bosnians was a superb poker play. Immediately thereafter, we were able to associate the Serbs and the Nazis in the public's mind ... It is not our job to verify information ... Our job is to accelerate the circulation of news items which are favourable to us ... We are not paid to moralize ...'"

Regarding his coup concerning the American Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, Harff<5> bragged to Merlino, who was at the time Deputy Director of the network TV2 in Paris, France (April of 1993):

"This (i.e., getting the three Jewish groups on board insofar as the elite message concerning the Bosnian conflict was concerned) was a 'sensitive matter', as "the Croatian and Bosnian (Muslim) past was marked by real and cruel anti-Semitism. Tens of thousands of Jews perished in Croatian camps ... Our challenge was to reverse this attitude (i.e., this history) and we succeeded masterfully.

"At the beginning of July 1992, New York Newsday came out with the article on Serb camps. We jumped at the opportunity immediately. We outwitted three big Jewish organizations.... That was a tremendous coup. When the Jewish organizations entered the game on the side of the Bosnians we could promptly equate the Serbs with the Nazis in the public mind. Nobody understood what was happening in Yugoslavia ... By a single move, we were able to present a simple story of good guys and bad guys which would hereafter play itself. We won by targeting the Jewish audience. Almost immediately there was a clear change of language in the press, with the use of words with high emotional content such as ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, etc, which evoke images of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers of Auschwitz."

source: http://www.endtimesnetwork.com/oldnews/vol8no6.html

Dirk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Well, That Certainly Settles It, Fellow
The Jews did it: is there nothing they do not do?

You are reaching the limits of reasonable tolerance in your support for a mass murderer....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dirk39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. Sorry, but please read carefully:
What this Pentagon hired PR-company did with some jewish organisations, exactly 'cause they expected them to protest the war, is disgusting.
Please, I beg you, read what the cynical chief of one of these organisations did say about what they were doing.
You reverse the facts, completely.
The jewish organisations in the USA had lots of sympathy for the serbs, 'cause they were the only ones, who did fight against the Nazis and didn't welcome them, while the KLA were known as antisemites.
Your reply to my post is not fair.
Dirk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. It Is More Than Fair, Fellow
This is not the first time you have trotted out this swill, and know perfectly well what it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dirk39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. When the director of a pentagon hired and payed...
PR-agency openly states in an interview that his organisation deceived jewish organisations and calls it a pokerplay.

"The engagement of Jewish organizations on the side of the Bosnians was a superb poker play. Immediately thereafter, we were able to associate the Serbs and the Nazis in the public's mind"

ending with the words:
"We are not paid to moralize".

Then this is cynical and disgusting. And if someone describes what they did to Jews, how they offended their memory of the Shoa, you call him an antisemite?


I would really like to know, what the jewish organisations that were deceived by Ruder-Finn would reply, if they would know these statements by James Harff. At least I'm sure, they wouldn't call me an antisemite.
Dirk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sidwill Donating Member (975 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. Very simple
Iraq wasn't about bringing down a dictator, it was about establishing a permanent US military base in the region and securing the worlds second largest reserves of oil for US exploitation as prescribed by PNAC.

THe bombing of Serbia had one simple honorable goal: To end the genocide that was taking place in Kosovo.

To sum up Clinton made war with milosevic to stop genocide (no oil payoff)

Whereas Bush made war for profit and to expand US dominance (PNAC doctrine)


That is the difference and yes sir its a big difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dirk39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #11
30. It wasn't about stoping the genocide,...
In the decade before the war, the IMF and the worldbank - with Germany playing a major role - have destabilized Yugoslavia, they have provoked ethnic rivalties and they have forced deviding Yugoslavia. Without the economic background, this conflict can't be understood. If anyone is responsible for what was going on in Yugoslavia than it's the IMF, the worldbank, the german government and the Nato. Clark just finished the dirty job.
Dirk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Ah Yes, The Riches And Wealth Of The Balkans....
Edited on Thu Jan-22-04 08:02 PM by The Magistrate
Beacon of prosperity to the world throughout the ages....

Its despoilation was essential to the economy of the West, against which the enlightened Socialism of Butcher Slobo stood as a standing rebuke of peace and plenty!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dirk39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. For some people it matters,
that after one of those bitter pills from the IMF, the prices for bread are going up 400% within one day.
And that through the principle of "devide and rule" - sorry don't know, if this is the correct translation for "teile und herrsche" - desperate people are provoked to fight one another. Esp. Germany was highly involved into provoking ethnic fights within Yugoslavia.
Dirk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. The Political Ambitions Of Butcher Slobo
Edited on Thu Jan-22-04 08:26 PM by The Magistrate
And his decision to use the tool of "Greater Serbia" to advance them, remain the leading cause of the late Balkan wars. The rest is just tired ultra-radicalism taking to its Procrustean bed with a bad case of the vapors....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
private_ryan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. what matters is the scale or degree of the problem
Even Egypt and Saudi Arabia (insert plenty of names here) are persecuting /hanging the people who criticize the Government. The difference is that the army is not being unleashed on an ethnic group, killing and displacing them.

Not that hard to see the difference, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
5. This really isn't that difficult
Saddam may have gased his own people (if the Kurds really are "his" people) years ago.

The genocide in Kosovo was at present.

Clinton didn't use any phony excuses like "WMDs" and "Mushroom clouds" to trick the American people into backing the Kosovo war. It was billed as humanitarian from the start.

We also didn't immediately station guards around oil wells after we went in to Kosovo.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windansea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. for some reason
I don't think this guy wants a real answer...know what I mean??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
11cents Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. Massive ethnic cleansing was also destabilizing the region
About two hundred thousand Kosovars had already been ethnically cleansed in the year or two before the war. The influx of Kosovar Albanian refugees was threatening to bring war to Macedonia, which has a large Albanian minority and is very fragile. The president of Macedonia warned Clark about this when the latter became SACEUR.

And, yes, Milosevic's crimes were underway at the time of the war; the war reversed them. And the reasons for the war were presented honestly.

And if anyone asked me what I'd thought of the Kosovo action while it was happening, I'd be able to honestly say that I'd strongly supported it. I also favored the Bosnian intervention -- just thought it should have happened sooner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MariaS Donating Member (545 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
7. The Difference is
that President Clinton didn't claim that Milosovic had weapons of mass destruction ready to use on us at any moment. If Chimpy had presented the War as a war of humanity from the beginning maybe more people would have thought about it differently. Bush lied to us Clinton Did not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
10. the Balkans started falling apart
just before gw1 and bush didn`t want to do anything about it.-no oil-
it was a NATO operation with the USA leading the way
we bombed the crap out of the structures ,not the people
we intervened and stopped to the best of anyone`s ability ethnic and religious murders.
we still patrol the area making it safer for for all the people in the area.
we have brought the leaders of the killings to the world court to be tried legally..not in secret
Bill Clinton and Clark are heroes to those who were being slaughtered by the bad guys.
this is just some of the things clark and clinton did
what has bush done in iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_H Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
15.  The Genocide in Kosovo was orders of magnatude greater
in Kosovo--and it was happening all at once in real time.

Kosovo had NATO backing.

499 fewer Americans were killed in Kosovo.

Clinton didn't obfuscate the reasons for going in.

And Clark did a better job tahn Franks did.

The Kosovars love Americans for their involvement. The Iraqis are at best ambivalent about our invoilvement in Iraq.

I'd ask my Republican friends if they "supported our president in time of war" back then like they support our president during war now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meow mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
19. military defense of muslim ppl
gee imagine that..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MIMStigator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
22. Genocide.
Genocide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windansea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
23. chirpity chirp


gee where did he go?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark Can WIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #23
41. chirp chirp...........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC