Max,
I'm getting on your case again about terminology.
The group that I think that you are worried about (I sure
as hell am) is the Albanian Kosovars. Repeat after me,
ALBANIAN KOSOVARS. I have just addressed the fact
that "Muslims" is a too narrow term. However, "Kosovars"
includes the Serb population of Kosmet, who are in danger
of getting bombed by NATO, but unless they are in a mixed
marriage or the victims of a mistake, are not in much danger
(except as "collateral damage") from their fellow Serbs.
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Sawicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 11:24 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:5607] RE: Re: RE: Re: Young Democratic Socialists position
on Kosovo
>
>>
>> But that is really a bad news. Since military and political
>egos are at stake and few "reality checks" exist - the current
>course of action will escalate until a major disaster brings them
>into a halt. That means that your conclusion
>
>> >So sure, bombing isn't helping Kosovars. But at this point, a
>ceasefire
>might not help them either. You help them by protecting them,
>which means
>ground troops.
>>
>> is a non-sequitur. Things can get much much worse, perhaps not
>for Kosovars (since they've already hit the rock bottom), but for
>other peoples
>in the region. >
>
>One consideration is that it should be up to Kosovars whether
>their situation can get worse or not, and what to do about it.
>Since we don't have much idea of what they want, my response is
>simply that the situation is fluid and what might persist as an
>interminable, utterly useless, Iraqi-type bombing campaign might
>instead deviate into a plausible rescue/relief effort. My hunch
>is that at this point, Kosovars are clinging to the latter
>belief, so I feel obliged to cling along with them.
>
>mbs
>
>
>
