Paul,
From what I have heard, Milosevic is very
charming in person, and especially at dinner.
I could contest several details of this message,
but guess I'll pass. Guess I'm getting too worried
about the threat of a ground invasion to fuss any
further with the poor old guy, at least for now.
Barkley
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, May 20, 1999 12:33 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:7061] Rosaer on Kurds/Kosovo
Barkely,
We have been through this a number of times, so this is my last
post on this issue. (Definite, no further, finis, end!!! ;-))
You have demonized Milosevic from the begining. I have been
neutral on this issue arguing that Milosevic, whatever, his
negatives, was better than the alternatives. Well, we can debate
this but, now you are demonizing him, not for what he has done,
but what you think he might have done or what NATO argues he
was going to do. This is not up to your standard of scholarship
which is usually impecable. Milosevic was a conservative with
regard to the Bosnian situation and, as we both know, had reached
agreement on the political structure of Bosnia before your friend,
Zimmerman, intervened and loosed the carnage of the Bosnial war.
Don't blame Milosevic for this because the blame lies right in the
American State Department. Furthermore, Milosevic was always a
conservative in the carnage following the American precipitation of
the Bosnian war -- if you look carefully, he tried to restrain the most
vicious of the para-militaries (you know who I am talking about) and
he was not a supporter of the extreme elements in Bosnia. In fact,
his support of the Dayton agreement was a real come-down from
so-called 'Serbian interests.' Of course he was rewarded by NATO
by the worst ethnic cleansing that the region has ever seen, the
expulsion of 500000 Serbs from Krajina with the tacit and active
support of your government, the Americans. So much for Serb co-
operation with Americans who are obviously as trustworthy as a
rattlesnake. So don't give me shit about how nasty Milosevic is.
He is at least as honorable as your president and, probably, more
dependable.
I suggested that, given his history, there is no reason that
Milosevic should be considered as supporting ethnic cleansing.
Your response is, positively, amazing. "Yes but just because he
expoused tolerance before, it doesn't mean he hasn't become a
bigot since." You are absolutely right. But you do not give one
iota of evidence that he has changed his position -- except
regurgitate the NATO position that he is an evil man -- without
evidence, without example, without any concrete evidence that
there is the slightest element of truth in the NATO propoganda (
which we all know from other posts on this list are totally wrong
and designed to be misleading.)
Barkely, I have always respected your opinions and your
knowledge of the Balkans. I don't know what it is that has made
your assessment of the current crisis so 'bereft of reasonable
judgement' that you have become almost hysterical in your
demonization of Milosevic who, probably not a nice guy, would at
least be as nice a dinner guest as Clinton, Albraith or Gore, and
certainly a better dinner companion than the disgusting Blair and
his vermin followers.
