> > I'll leave the abstract construction to others with the expertise and inclination. I'd rather simplify: HOW TO PROTECT INNOCENT MUSLIMS IN KOSOVA? That's my preferred moral question of the day. > > Acceptance of Serbian government's peace plan and offer of ceasefire. U.N.and/or E.U. monitoring team to make sure the plan is being implemented and enforced. What other options are there? > We've been there before. The Serbs reportedly would beat the monitors up and otherwise restrict their movements. Observers are not very effective if they are under threat if they actually observe something important, or if the local population is too intimidated to assist them. The other option is chasing the sumbitches out of Kosova. > > This is total bullshit, as some informed anti-bombers have attested. > > Saying so doesn't make it so. I don't have to prove Serbian atrocities, since only a tiny, albeit vocal minority doubt their prevalence. Besides, given your likely rejection of Western sources, there is no way I could prove it to you. > > Since Louis didn't answer, I'll throw his question to you: if no independent journalists are permitted to investigate atrocities in Kosova, and since both refugees and Serbs are biased, from what source would you accept as legitimate a report of atrocities? If none, haven't you precluded such information on spurious, a priori grounds? > > Well there are problems all around. Its the same problem that occurred in Cambodia in the 1970's when refugees were the only source of information. Some of their stories were true, others false and some exaggerated. Refugees can be a good source but one has to take extreme care because refugees are not neutral actors.>> That's a curious example, since in that case a massacre truly was in progress and the outside world did nothing, other than aggravate the situation. > > If sending in troops to protect Muslims and secure Kosova is > > escalation, that's what we need. > > That is a pretty big IF. Evidence and the way the situation is going so far suggests that sending in troops would have the opposite effect of what you say above. Would you be in favor of a U.N. peacekeeping mission? > It would be an improvement over present circumstances. I'd trade it for the bombing in a second. But suppose one was sent in and they got shot up by the Serbs? What do you think Milo is prepared to concede, in the way of security for Kosovars, especially in light of the lack of pressure implied by nothing more than UN peace-keepers? > If ground troops are send in, the invasion will have to be staged from a neutral country like Romania, Macedonia, Hungary or Bosnia. Various pundits have even suggested that staging may occur in Montenegro. The Serbian government and people will view this as a declaration of war on it, which will destabilize the region for many decades to come. > There's also Albania. As for a declaration of war, we're there already. Except the bad guys are winning and the other bad guys are diddling. > > I thought you were some kind of Leninist. What's your problem with death and destruction? > > Ha. Guilt by association, ad hominem and fallacy of composition all in one. Which is it? > No it was serious and not hostile, if a little jocular. I really did think you were a Leninist by your other remarks here. Leninists have no problem using force to achieve their revolutionary ends. Nor do I. I'm not a pacifist. I'm a laptop bombadier, remember? > > > It follows that if NATO does the exact opposite of what it is doing now ( i.e. stops bombing and starts fair negotiations) it will have the effect that NATO intended when it first started the bombing. Give peace a chance!> > > > > No, that doesn't follow one tiny bit. > > Yes it does by modus todus. If P then Q. ~P so ~ Q. If bombing leads to the destruction of Kosovo then not bombing will lead to not destroying Kosovo. > Modus schmodus. If Milo is determined to destroy Kosova, bombing or no, than no bombing does not save Kosova. > > A cessation of all bombing and an invitation to negotiation simply affords Milo Co. the opportunity to do what they like with Kosova at their leisure. > > *Bombing* has lead Milosevic to do whatever he likes with Kosovo. Without the war, there were constraints on what he could do. I'm not sure what those constraints were, but you agree that bombing has made the situation worse. >> Bombing has provided some cover for dirty deeds, yes. I'd say the cover persists, even if bombing stops. If I knew three weeks ago what I know now, I would have counseled Madeleine not to bomb, but to ship in every variety of aid worker, monitor, journalist, and other third party possible, and to prepare for a ground invasion (including selling it to the U.S. public). But we're not there anymore. case I propose: > 1) minimization of all suffering by: > 2) Immediate acceptance of the Serbian government's > peace plan. If they Is their "plan" still on the table, including your peacekeepers? If it is, I would take it, all the while building up forces for a land invasion in the event it proved necessary. Though the decision should really be up to Kosovars, not me or you. > > I really don't care. > > So you have no respect for international law or national sovereignty? Not in its present, highly dysfunctional form, no. Who does? It's like what Gandhi said about Western civilization: "it would be a good idea." mbs
