Tass reports on their late edition on Thursday that Arkan is still leading the valient fight. he is presently engaged against a column of old men, women, and a asortment of children. He also defeated a platoon of marines.
Also noted is that Milosovic has spirited his family to the confines of Cyprus. Our great leader
is also placeing civilians on importent bridges and leading our country from the confines of a hidden bunker. One last note please send more civilians to bridges in case Nato doesn't know your there/ you know for propaganda purposes later. Thank you milo.

Milosevic Shifts to Softer Strategy

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 8, 1999; Page A01


..."Yugoslav news media began reporting Tuesday that Kosovo refugees were returning home from the border regions. In Belgrade's official version
of events, the ethnic Albanians left their homes either out of fear of NATO bombing or under pressure from KLA "terrorists" in order "to stage a humanitarian disaster according to instructions obtained from the NATO criminals." "...

All of a sudden the ethnic Albanians who were running scard from NATO bombs (which now are raining down even harder) are no longer afraid of them. Simply, friggin, unbelievable!

And of course the KLA, who by the way, are their brothers, husbands and sons, were robbing them of their money and valuables (and raping them,) were able to disguise their accents so that they sounded just like Serbs! Simply, friggin, unbelievable!
phil

Notice the use of "quotes" and sourcing as well as the technique of first "setting up" the quote for context.

---

Refugees Tell of Use as Human Shields
Men of Kosovo Village Placed in Front of Yugoslav
Tanks in Battle With Rebels

By Daniel Williams
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, April 8, 1999; Page A01

KUMRA, Albania—When Yugoslav troops closed in on Kosovo rebels near the village of Kralan last Friday, an army commander drafted local ethnic Albanian men to help.

Soldiers detained dozens of them, stripped them to the waist, and forced them to stand in front of army tanks as human shields against gunfire from anti-government rebels, according to survivors.

All day long, tanks and recoilless rifles fired over the heads of the men into the village. By the next morning, the rebel defenders of Kralan were either dead or had fled.

Ghani Kilmendi, a farmer who was among those forced to stand in the line of fire, said that after the fighting ended,the army commander handed over about 50 of the men to a passing band of "Chetniks" -- Serbian paramilitary volunteers notorious for their ruthless treatment of civilians. The captives were marched away, and their fate is unclear.

"I fear, I fear for them," Kilmendi said as he slumped on a blanket in this refugee way station near the Albanian-Yugoslav border. "I don't think we will hear from them again."...

---

Now when Tanjug and AFP are able to apply this level of rigor to their reporting, they may become a believable news sources. phil

Hi,

Following is another site -- this one from CARE -- dedicated
to the crisis in Kosovo ( http://www.care.org ).

Particularly useful are the daily news updates, access to CARE media reps for eyewitness accounts, an online donation form, and downloadable ad banners for those who cannot support CARE with a donation.

CARE’s Karen Robbins returned from Macedonia on Wednesday, April 7, at Hartsfield International Airport in Atlanta, GA. Robbins was deployed to Kosovo three weeks ago and was evacuated to Macedonia just prior to NATO air strikes. Robbins witnessed the influx of refugees at border crossings, and can describe the conditions. A Real Audio interview with Robbins is also available online at:
http://www.care.org/info_center/kosovo/kosovo_interviews.html

It's a great, informative resource during the crisis. I hope you can visit.

Thanks,
Jessica

The Current Bombings:
Behind the Rhetoric

By Noam Chomsky

There have been many inquiries concerning NATO (meaning primarily US) bombing in connection with
Kosovo. A great deal has been written about the topic, including Znet commentaries. I'd like to make a
few general observations, keeping to facts that are not seriously contested.

There are two fundamental issues: (1) What are the accepted and applicable "rules of world order"? (2)
How do these or other considerations apply in the case of Kosovo?

(1) What are the accepted and applicable "rules of world order"?

There is a regime of international law and international order, binding on all states, based on the UN
Charter and subsequent resolutions and World Court decisions. In brief, the threat or use of force is
banned unless explicitly authorized by the Security Council after it has determined that peaceful means
have failed, or in self-defense against "armed attack" (a narrow concept) until the Security Council acts.

There is, of course, more to say. Thus there is at least a tension, if not an outright contradiction, between
the rules of world order laid down in the UN Charter and the rights articulated in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UD), a second pillar of the world order established under US initiative
after World War II. The Charter bans force violating state sovereignty; the UD guarantees the rights of
individuals against oppressive states. The issue of "humanitarian intervention" arises from this tension.
It is the right of "humanitarian intervention" that is claimed by the US/NATO in Kosovo, and that is
generally supported by editorial opinion and news reports (in the latter case, reflexively, even by the very
choice of terminology).

The question is addressed in a news report in the NY Times (March 27), headlined "Legal Scholars
Support Case for Using Force" in Kosovo (March 27). One example is offered: Allen Gerson, former
counsel to the US mission to the UN. Two other legal scholars are cited. One, Ted Galen Carpenter,
"scoffed at the Administration argument" and dismissed the alleged right of intervention. The third is
Jack Goldsmith, a specialist on international law at Chicago Law school. He says that critics of the NATO
bombing "have a pretty good legal argument," but "many people think [an exception for humanitarian
intervention] does exist as a matter of custom and practice." That summarizes the evidence offered to
justify the favored conclusion stated in the headline.

Goldsmith's observation is reasonable, at least if we agree that facts are relevant to the determination of
"custom and practice." We may also bear in mind a truism: the right of humanitarian intervention, if it
exists, is premised on the "good faith" of those intervening, and that assumption is based not on their
rhetoric but on their record, in particular their record of adherence to the principles of international law,
World Court decisions, and so on. That is indeed a truism, at least with regard to others. Consider, for
example, Iranian offers to intervene in Bosnia to prevent massacres at a time when the West would not
do so. These were dismissed with ridicule (in fact, ignored); if there was a reason beyond subordination
to power, it was because Iranian "good faith" could not be assumed. A rational person then asks
obvious questions: is the Iranian record of intervention and terror worse than that of the US? And other
questions, for example: How should we assess the "good faith" of the only country to have vetoed a
Security Council resolution calling on all states to obey international law? What about its historical
record? Unless such questions are prominent on the agenda of discourse, an honest person will
dismiss it as mere allegiance to doctrine. A useful exercise is to determine how much of the literature --
media or other -- survives such elementary conditions as these.

(2) How do these or other considerations apply in the case of Kosovo?

There has been a humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo in the past year, overwhelmingly attributable to
Yugoslav military forces. The main victims have been ethnic Albanian Kosovars, some 90% of the
population of this Yugoslav territory. The standard estimate is 2000 deaths and hundreds of thousands
of refugees.

In such cases, outsiders have three choices:

(I) try to escalate the catastrophe

(II) do nothing

(III) try to mitigate the catastrophe

The choices are illustrated by other contemporary cases. Let's keep to a few of approximately the same
scale, and ask where Kosovo fits into the pattern.

(A) Colombia. In Colombia, according to State Department estimates, the annual level of political killing
by the government and its paramilitary associates is about at the level of Kosovo, and refugee flight
primarily from their atrocities is well over a million. Colombia has been the leading Western hemisphere
recipient of US arms and training as violence increased through the '90s, and that assistance is now
increasing, under a "drug war" pretext dismissed by almost all serious observers. The Clinton
administration was particularly enthusiastic in its praise for President Gaviria, whose tenure in office
was responsible for "appalling levels of violence," according to human rights organizations, even
surpassing his predecessors. Details are readily available.

In this case, the US reaction is (I): escalate the atrocities.

(B) Turkey. By very conservative estimate, Turkish repression of Kurds in the '90s falls in the category of
Kosovo. It peaked in the early '90s; one index is the flight of over a million Kurds from the countryside to
the unofficial Kurdish capital Diyarbakir from 1990 to 1994, as the Turkish army was devastating the
countryside. 1994 marked two records: it was "the year of the worst repression in the Kurdish provinces"
of Turkey, Jonathan Randal reported from the scene, and the year when Turkey became "the biggest
single importer of American military hardware and thus the world's largest arms purchaser." When
human rights groups exposed Turkey's use of US jets to bomb villages, the Clinton Administration found
ways to evade laws requiring suspension of arms deliveries, much as it was doing in Indonesia and
elsewhere.

Colombia and Turkey explain their (US-supported) atrocities on grounds that they are defending their
countries from the threat of terrorist guerrillas. As does the government of Yugoslavia.

Again, the example illustrates (I): try to escalate the atrocities.

(C) Laos. Every year thousands of people, mostly children and poor farmers, are killed in the Plain of
Jars in Northern Laos, the scene of the heaviest bombing of civilian targets in history it appears, and
arguably the most cruel: Washington's furious assault on a poor peasant society had little to do with its
wars in the region. The worst period was from 1968, when Washington was compelled to undertake
negotiations (under popular and business pressure), ending the regular bombardment of North
Vietnam. Kissinger-Nixon then decided to shift the planes to bombardment of Laos and Cambodia.

The deaths are from "bombies," tiny anti-personnel weapons, far worse than land-mines: they are
designed specifically to kill and maim, and have no effect on trucks, buildings, etc. The Plain was
saturated with hundreds of millions of these criminal devices, which have a failure-to-explode rate of
20%-30% according to the manufacturer, Honeywell. The numbers suggest either remarkably poor
quality control or a rational policy of murdering civilians by delayed action. These were only a fraction of
the technology deployed, including advanced missiles to penetrate caves where families sought shelter.
Current annual casualties from "bombies" are estimated from hundreds a year to "an annual nationwide
casualty rate of 20,000," more than half of them deaths, according to the veteran Asia reporter Barry Wain
of the Wall Street Journal -- in its Asia edition. A conservative estimate, then, is that the crisis this year is
approximately comparable to Kosovo, though deaths are far more highly concentrated among children --
over half, according to analyses reported by the Mennonite Central Committee, which has been working
there since 1977 to alleviate the continuing atrocities.

There have been efforts to publicize and deal with the humanitarian catastrophe. A British-based Mine
Advisory Group (MAG) is trying to remove the lethal objects, but the US is "conspicuously missing from
the handful of Western organisations that have followed MAG," the British press reports, though it has
finally agreed to train some Laotian civilians. The British press also reports, with some anger, the
allegation of MAG specialists that the US refuses to provide them with "render harmless procedures"
that would make their work "a lot quicker and a lot safer." These remain a state secret, as does the
whole affair in the United States. The Bangkok press reports a very similar situation in Cambodia,
particularly the Eastern region where US bombardment from early 1969 was most intense.

In this case, the US reaction is (II): do nothing. And the reaction of the media and commentators is to
keep silent, following the norms under which the war against Laos was designated a "secret war" --
meaning well-known, but suppressed, as also in the case of Cambodia from March 1969. The level of
self-censorship was extraordinary then, as is the current phase. The relevance of this shocking example
should be obvious without further comment.

I will skip other examples of (I) and (II), which abound, and also much more serious contemporary
atrocities, such as the huge slaughter of Iraqi civilians by means of a particularly vicious form of
biological warfare -- "a very hard choice," Madeleine Albright commented on national TV in 1996 when
asked for her reaction to the killing of half a million Iraqi children in 5 years, but "we think the price is
worth it." Current estimates remain about 5000 children killed a month, and the price is still "worth it."
These and other examples might also be kept in mind when we read awed rhetoric about how the
"moral compass" of the Clinton Administration is at last functioning properly, as the Kosovo example
illustrates.

Just what does the example illustrate? The threat of NATO bombing, predictably, led to a sharp
escalation of atrocities by the Serbian Army and paramilitaries, and to the departure of international
observers, which of course had the same effect. Commanding General Wesley Clark declared that it
was "entirely predictable" that Serbian terror and violence would intensify after the NATO bombing,
exactly as happened. The terror for the first time reached the capital city of Pristina, and there are credible
reports of large-scale destruction of villages, assassinations, generation of an enormous refugee flow,
perhaps an effort to expel a good part of the Albanian population -- all an "entirely predictable"
consequence of the threat and then the use of force, as General Clark rightly observes.

Kosovo is therefore another illustration of (I): try to escalate the violence, with exactly that expectation.

To find examples illustrating (III) is all too easy, at least if we keep to official rhetoric. The major recent
academic study of "humanitarian intervention," by Sean Murphy, reviews the record after the
Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928 which outlawed war, and then since the UN Charter, which strengthened
and articulated these provisions. In the first phase, he writes, the most prominent examples of
"humanitarian intervention" were Japan's attack on Manchuria, Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia, and
Hitler's occupation of parts of Czechoslovakia. All were accompanied by highly uplifting humanitarian
rhetoric, and factual justifications as well. Japan was going to establish an "earthly paradise" as it
defended Manchurians from "Chinese bandits," with the support of a leading Chinese nationalist, a far
more credible figure than anyone the US was able to conjure up during its attack on South Vietnam.
Mussolini was liberating thousands of slaves as he carried forth the Western "civilizing mission." Hitler
announced Germany's intention to end ethnic tensions and violence, and "safeguard the national
individuality of the German and Czech peoples," in an operation "filled with earnest desire to serve the
true interests of the peoples dwelling in the area," in accordance with their will; the Slovakian President
asked Hitler to declare Slovakia a protectorate.

Another useful intellectual exercise is to compare those obscene justifications with those offered for
interventions, including "humanitarian interventions," in the post-UN Charter period.

In that period, perhaps the most compelling example of (III) is the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in
December 1978, terminating Pol Pot's atrocities, which were then peaking. Vietnam pleaded the right of
self-defense against armed attack, one of the few post-Charter examples when the plea is plausible: the
Khmer Rouge regime (Democratic Kampuchea, DK) was carrying out murderous attacks against
Vietnam in border areas. The US reaction is instructive. The press condemned the "Prussians" of Asia
for their outrageous violation of international law. They were harshly punished for the crime of having
terminated Pol Pot's slaughters, first by a (US-backed) Chinese invasion, then by US imposition of
extremely harsh sanctions. The US recognized the expelled DK as the official government of Cambodia,
because of its "continuity" with the Pol Pot regime, the State Department explained. Not too subtly, the US
supported the Khmer Rouge in its continuing attacks in Cambodia.

The example tells us more about the "custom and practice" that underlies "the emerging legal norms of
humanitarian intervention."

Despite the desperate efforts of ideologues to prove that circles are square, there is no serious doubt
that the NATO bombings further undermine what remains of the fragile structure of international law. The
US made that entirely clear in the discussions leading to the NATO decision. Apart from the UK (by now,
about as much of an independent actor as the Ukraine was in the pre-Gorbachev years), NATO countries
were skeptical of US policy, and were particularly annoyed by Secretary of State Albright's "saber-rattling"
(Kevin Cullen, Boston Globe, Feb. 22). Today, the more closely one approaches the conflicted region,
the greater the opposition to Washington's insistence on force, even within NATO (Greece and Italy).
France had called for a UN Security Council resolution to authorize deployment of NATO peacekeepers.
The US flatly refused, insisting on "its stand that NATO should be able to act independently of the United
Nations," State Department officials explained. The US refused to permit the "neuralgic word `authorize'"
to appear in the final NATO statement, unwilling to concede any authority to the UN Charter and
international law; only the word "endorse" was permitted (Jane Perlez, NYT, Feb. 11). Similarly the
bombing of Iraq was a brazen expression of contempt for the UN, even the specific timing, and was so
understood. And of course the same is true of the destruction of half the pharmaceutical production of a
small African country a few months earlier, an event that also does not indicate that the "moral compass"
is straying from righteousness -- not to speak of a record that would be prominently reviewed right now if
facts were considered relevant to determining "custom and practice."

It could be argued, rather plausibly, that further demolition of the rules of world order is irrelevant, just as
it had lost its meaning by the late 1930s. The contempt of the world's leading power for the framework of
world order has become so extreme that there is nothing left to discuss. A review of the internal
documentary record demonstrates that the stance traces back to the earliest days, even to the first
memorandum of the newly-formed National Security Council in 1947. During the Kennedy years, the
stance began to gain overt expression. The main innovation of the Reagan-Clinton years is that defiance
of international law and the Charter has become entirely open. It has also been backed with interesting
explanations, which would be on the front pages, and prominent in the school and university curriculum,
if truth and honesty were considered significant values. The highest authorities explained with brutal
clarity that the World Court, the UN, and other agencies had become irrelevant because they no longer
follow US orders, as they did in the early postwar years.

One might then adopt the official position. That would be an honest stand, at least if it were
accompanied by refusal to play the cynical game of self-righteous posturing and wielding of the
despised principles of international law as a highly selective weapon against shifting enemies.

While the Reaganites broke new ground, under Clinton the defiance of world order has become so
extreme as to be of concern even to hawkish policy analysts. In the current issue of the leading
establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, Samuel Huntington warns that Washington is treading a
dangerous course. In the eyes of much of the world -- probably most of the world, he suggests -- the US
is "becoming the rogue superpower," considered "the single greatest external threat to their societies."
Realist "international relations theory," he argues, predicts that coalitions may arise to counterbalance
the rogue superpower. On pragmatic grounds, then, the stance should be reconsidered. Americans who
prefer a different image of their society might call for a reconsideration on other than pragmatic grounds.

Where does that leave the question of what to do in Kosovo? It leaves it unanswered. The US has
chosen a course of action which, as it explicitly recognizes, escalates atrocities and violence --
"predictably"; a course of action that also strikes yet another blow against the regime of international
order, which does offer the weak at least some limited protection from predatory states. As for the longer
term, consequences are unpredictable. One plausible observation is that "every bomb that falls on
Serbia and every ethnic killing in Kosovo suggests that it will scarcely be possible for Serbs and
Albanians to live beside each other in some sort of peace" (Financial Times, March 27). Some of the
longer-term possible outcomes are extremely ugly, as has not gone without notice.

A standard argument is that we had to do something: we could not simply stand by as atrocities
continue. That is never true. One choice, always, is to follow the Hippocratic principle: "First, do no harm."
If you can think of no way to adhere to that elementary principle, then do nothing. There are always ways
that can be considered. Diplomacy and negotiations are never at an end.

The right of "humanitarian intervention" is likely to be more frequently invoked in coming years -- maybe
with justification, maybe not -- now that Cold War pretexts have lost their efficacy. In such an era, it may
be worthwhile to pay attention to the views of highly respected commentators -- not to speak of the World
Court, which explicitly ruled on this matter in a decision rejected by the United States, its essentials not
even reported.

In the scholarly disciplines of international affairs and international law it would be hard to find more
respected voices than Hedley Bull or Louis Henkin. Bull warned 15 years ago that "Particular states or
groups of states that set themselves up as the authoritative judges of the world common good, in
disregard of the views of others, are in fact a menace to international order, and thus to effective action in
this field." Henkin, in a standard work on world order, writes that the "pressures eroding the prohibition
on the use of force are deplorable, and the arguments to legitimize the use of force in those
circumstances are unpersuasive and dangerous... Violations of human rights are indeed all too
common, and if it were permissible to remedy them by external use of force, there would be no law to
forbid the use of force by almost any state against almost any other. Human rights, I believe, will have to
be vindicated, and other injustices remedied, by other, peaceful means, not by opening the door to
aggression and destroying the principle advance in international law, the outlawing of war and the
prohibition of force."

Recognized principles of international law and world order, solemn treaty obligations, decisions by the
World Court, considered pronouncements by the most respected commentators -- these do not
automatically solve particular problems. Each issue has to be considered on its merits. For those who
do not adopt the standards of Saddam Hussein, there is a heavy burden of proof to meet in undertaking
the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international order. Perhaps the burden can be
met, but that has to be shown, not merely proclaimed with passionate rhetoric. The consequences of
such violations have to be assessed carefully -- in particular, what we understand to be "predictable."
And for those who are minimally serious, the reasons for the actions also have to be assessed -- again,
not simply by adulation of our leaders and their "moral compass." _

Smart bombs getting smarter everyday.

Now I've seen everything. My Serbian apologist friends imply in their arguments that NATO smart bombs can imitate tank and canon round. But now these smart bombs have reached a new level of inginuity.

Just a few minutes ago on CBS Reports with Dan Rather I saw images of the latest accomplishments of these NATO smart bombs. These NATO smart bombs (which I pause to mention, are launched from aircraft that have not yet been shot down by Serbian technology) are now able to, smartly I say, remove the roofs of houses leaving only the rafters behind! You know, the sticks what hold up the shingles what keep the rain offin their heads.

Simply, frigging, amazing!!! I don't believe I've ever seen anything quite like it before. Friggin u-u-n-n-n-n-believable!!! What will these smart bombs be able to do next??? Make peace?

Your humble servant,
SmartBomb

Kolina, you obviously can't deny they want a great Albania and can't deny KLA actions either. You might not want a great Albania but they certainly do. I know many Bosnian refugees that now have to live in Germany. Some were able to go back but refused to cause they now have a life there and that is something I can understand. When talking about refugees. 92.000 Serbs had to leave Mostar, 165.000 Serbs had to leave Sarajevo, 120.000 had to leave Zagreb and 500.000 had to leave Craina.
And I am sure like yourself they didn't want to go either. But luckily you are still alive. Some Serbian refugees didn't have that fortune. After all they went through they were killed by Clintons humanitarian democratic bombs.

Kolina, I wish Yugoslavia didn't break up and all this hate and misery would never have happened. But that is something, we people and our leaders, had no impact on. " Democratic countries" made that decision instead of us. remember the 25th of May when all the children were dancing and singing together?

If ethnic cleansing is not occuring in Kosovo, what does the USA expect to gain from spending millions of dollars on bombing Yugoslavia? what benefits do they reap? None except loss of our soldiers, equipment, and money. We are trying to stop a murderer from killing innocent people whos only crime is being Albanian like the KLA revolutionaries that Milosevic wants to stop. He does not differentiate between soldiers and civilians. This is why we risk our sons and spend our money on a third world country that has nothing we need.

...and who will hate us no matter what we do.
YHS, SmartBomb

opinion of a Belgradian

People, I was free to present you a letter I very much agree with. It's from one colleague of mine to an American guy who was interested. Jay, whoever you are, if you read this I hope you don't mind to see it posted.


But, I have to say something first. I saw on Sky that the new plan of NATO is to bomb Yugoslavian communication centers if SM don't consign them some 6 hours of TV-time. Well, seems like we have here another fait accompli, as we had in Rambouillet - NATO analysts know quite well that it's unacceptable for him, and they may start right now. They could start it without announcement anyway, without this whole bullshit. ;(

It will also be an useless effort, meaning that it will change nothing - Yugoslavian state TV doesn't have a smallest credit between persons who think at least a bit. And the rest is so "intoxicated" that they would not give a s*** for enemy's program, no matter the language or topic. Really, do they mentioned the language they intended to use, I can't recall that? 'Cause, if NATO intended to influence Milosevic's supporter with foreign language program - well, that's more than laughable and they are much worse than naive!


I'm sorry I didn't found enough time to write more about situation in Serbia - you have my message about the ways Milosevic rules, it wasn't detailed as I initially intended to make it but you could conclude that Milosevic opposition now, especially because of a war situation, has not a smallest chance to change things in any direction!


So, we have another foolish, in fact completely blind action from NATO. Not that I'm surprised, it was clear from the beginning that they entered this action completely unprepared, material aside. I really can't find any reasonable explanation for this - that is, if they are trying to achieve proclaimed goals.


To stay consistent, I'll try to give an another view - or, to underline what I think might be an unofficial reason for this. Let me quote Stratfor's analysts:

> Given all of this, we felt that within a few days of the bombs
> dropping, NATO would realize that it had miscalculated and would
> seek a diplomatic solution designed to halt the deportations.
> With Easter coming, the Pope's intervention and the unhappiness
> among the U.S. military, many of our NATO allies and the
> Russians, it seemed to us that Easter would provide a face saving
> opportunity for a cease fire that would evolve into a diplomatic
> solution. Once it became clear that Milosevic wasn't bluffing, we
> felt that America's NATO allies would force an interim settlement
> in order to prevent the refugee problem we see today and a
> bombing campaign that could not prevail.
> . . .
> The key error we made is in our evaluation of the Clinton
> administration's willingness to shift policies. Throughout the
> last week, Washington has moved mountains in Rome, Berlin and
> Paris to keep the alliance's doubts from forcing a policy shift.
> Moscow's rage has been tempered somewhat with the IMF loan still
> dangling and quiet diplomacy keeping them under control. Finally,
> the institutional subservience of the U.S. military to civilian
> authority has stifled criticism from that quarter. Clinton and
> his close ally, Tony Blair, have held it together.
> . . .
> Put simply, Bill Clinton may be prepared to let the bombings
> continue indefinitely and have the EU deal with the Albanian
> refugees. Whether Chirac or Schroeder are willing is another
> matter. Yet we completely underestimated NATO's and Bill
> Clinton's aversion to appearing to be stymied. We underestimated
> Clinton's aversion to negotiating with Milosevic from a position
> of weakness.
>
> The problem is that NATO continues to operate from a position of
> weakness. What it seems to have decided is to increase its air
> strikes until they no longer negotiate from weakness. Given the
> constraints on those air strikes and given the available force
> and the threat in Iraq, we think they may achieve the illusion of
> strength more easily than they will achieve its reality.

I'll say it gives a sense to all this mockery - communication centers are probably the most expensive buildings a country can have. Please note that:

1. it all happens after the "Easter ceasefire". He also offered to release the captured - clear sign from Milosevic that he is willing to cooperate.

2. It's not about refugees either - Yugoslavian officials clearly and squarely stated that they accept return of "all the Yugoslavian citizens". That, I guess, means that they agreed to let anyone with any Yu-document to return home - if so, it's also very easy to control.

3. Milosevic also accepted the presence of international troops on Kosovo, and to me it doesn't seem that there can be a significant difference in capabilities of US or some European troops - both can ensure the respectation of all agreements.

Leaving this all to Clinton's vanity and unwillingness to defer at least a little - he just decided to prolong a war without real reasons! ;(( Ask yourself, people - does that fit humanitarianism in which name US officials claim to act? Do Yugoslavian and US officials differ in principles, or on the scale only?


. . .


This action, I'm afraid, means the end of our conversation - I don't think I'll be able to reach the Net after the given deadline. I hope I'm wrong, if I am you'll read more from me and if not, well, please keep my words somewhere in your minds when they start to satanize us again...


For the end, I'll give you another quote and then leave you to above mentioned letter.

> ...
>
> This action is without doubt in our national interest.
> America's credibility and the future of the NATO alliance are on
> the line. We previously threatened to use force to prevent atrocities
> in Kosovo during the Bush Administration. If we fail to act, our threats
> in other parts of the world will not be taken seriously, and we may find
> ourselves having to actually use force more often.
> ...
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Frank R. Lautenberg
> United States Senate

---

Jay,

yes, I am (was, that is) an IT/CS student at Electrical Engineering
Faculty, University of Belgrade. And yes, I do speak English - lately,
more than my mother tongue, Serbian.

Let us call the things with their real names - our two countries are at
WAR - there is nothing to approximate here. Your army is bombing around
my country, and, had it been powerful enough, our army would be bombing
your country as well - make no mistake about that. Military targets,
bridges, power plants, schools and hospitals, with no selection and no
shame, same as you are doing now.

I finished my studies and left Yugoslavia a year ago. I have had enough
of oppressive, communist-style regime, and your newly-found enemy - a
'horrible dictator in the heart of Europe', as you now call him. Back
then, he was your ally and friend, Dayton peace treaty guarantee and
'factor of stability' on troubled Balkans.

There was a broad anti-Milosevic movement in Serbia prior to this all.
It was building up from early nineties, and culminated in winter
1996/97, when Milosevic lost his first elections. What he did was -
annulate the election results, in an obvious communist-style election
fraud. What we did was - took it to the streets, and staged a four month
day-by-day demonstrations, longest lasting in history of western
civilisation. Tens, hundreds of thousands, half a million at peek -
marched against Milosevic in the capital of Serbia and other towns. He
was ready to fall, but utterly peaceful demonstrations were not enough
to bring the dictator down. We needed just a bit of help. We looked up
to the west. We carried American, British and other western nations'
flags along with our own. We hoped our country will become normal, as
yours were.

What you did was - NOTHING. Stood aside and watched. And all of that is
richly documented on CNN website.

Now... only two years later... your army is destroying my country, with
a sarcastic explanation of fighting not against Serbs, but against this
former friend of yours, former factor of stability and now ruthless
dictator, Milosevic. What a hypocrisy! In the same time, Milosevic's
children are on safe place, in one of NATO countries, and I guarantee
you that no NATO bomb will fall on his head. For the first time during
his oppressive ten year rule, he has all of the Serbs united behind him
- he has the angry, defending nation, homogenised by American bombs,
left with no choice but to support him and his brutal policies. People
who carried American flags through the streets of Belgrade two years
ago, are now burning them on very same streets.

Whatever is going on in Kosovo right now - killings, burning of
villages, refugees - can be justified in the eyes of Serbs. They are
attacking us? Ok, let's show them the fireworks. And that is exactly
what is happening. It also shows how untrue are your leaders' claims
about 'preventing a humanitarian catastrophy' - with this attack, you
have given Milosevic and his butchers carte blanche on Kosovo. You can
not 'deteriorate his power to do what he is doing' with bombing - a
supply of knives and oil barrels is enough to kill and burn. And don't
ask me to feel pity for 'weary ethnic Albanian refugees' when my family
is spending days and nights in underground shelters, 400 miles from
Kosovo.

*

Now... normally, I'm calm and reasonable person. Honestly 🙂 But some
things are just too much. I appreciate your (and other people's) effort
to communicate, to hear all sides... There is nothing better than
communication, and nothing worse than when communication stops - as we
are witnessing right now. There are many, MANY people in Serbia opposed
and fighting against what seems to be the last standing communist regime
in Europe. Unfortunately, you guys are of no help at all... quite the
opposite.

> If you can't or don't want to reply because of pressure either
> personal or political that is more than understandable.

No... let me explain one more interesting thing about my country. There
is no classic communist repression in Serbia. If you want, you may go
and give a speech against Milosevic and his evil reign - nothing will
happen to you, and certainly no men in leather jackets will come to
arrest you, as seen in movies about the life behind the iron curtain.
You can start mass demonstrations if you want to (and if you are able) -
no one will stop you. BUT! All state controlled media (99%) will scream
'Treason! Traitor!' and you will be dead and buried, without anyone
laying a hand on you. That's how modern day dictators operate... and
frankly, watching CNN, I see you American are not too far away either.

> If you can I'd certainly appreciate someone to exchange information
> with in Belgrade.

Well, I can't be of much assistance there, since I'm probably further
away from Belgrade than yourself 🙂 But if you wanted an opinion from
a Belgrader - here it is 🙂

Cheers,
Vladimir

---

At the and, the commercials:


A group of people I know is trying to get an e-campaign going, campaign with a simple goal - to present to the world the opinions and thoughts of Serbian opposition, who's voice is now nowhere to be heard. Members of this group are mostly students of Belgrade University, sharing the common idea - that it is never too late to move the things in right direction.

The working name of the project is "AMAN BRE!" (meaning "OH COME ON!"), and I invite anyone who want to receive our texts, analyses and such on mail to contact me.

Smoke pot. Time for the peace pipe. Celebrate diversity!

PHIL
get a shipload of salt for the news YOU are reading , as well as I do.


try www.informinc.co.uk

just read it , you or others , there is no need to
look for the owner, party etc.Truth should be
universal;it might hurt, but one mustn't stay ignorant.

Daniela, the truth is seldom in conflict with common sense. ;o) Thanks for the url. phil

Open letter to the people of Yugoslavia

I am an American and a Christian. I have seen the pictures of the bombing damage, the displaced refugees, the reports on CNN, and I have read posts from both sides. I do not agree with what is going on over there. I grieve for the people of Yugoslavia and for what they are going through. For the ethnic Albanians who are being murdered, raped, robbed, stripped of identity and driven from their homes and their homes looted and burned by thugs. For all the innocent people in Yugoslavia who are having to endure suffering, hardships, disruptions and dislocations, even injury and death because of Nato bombing. This is a war that I believe never should have started.

Before we start pointing fingers, I believe there is enough blame to go around to everyone.

First of all it is my understanding that ethnic Albanian separatists and particularly the KLA have been waging guerilla warfare against the Yugoslav government, maybe for years, and trying to secede Kosovo from Yugoslavia to make it an independent republic. That is comparable to swatting a hornets' nest with a baseball bat--it's begging to get stung. In this sense one could say they have brought trouble on themselves.

But I say that Milosevich and his armed thugs under his direction have gone far beyond what was necessary to take care of the situation, emptying whole towns and burning them to the ground, robbing, looting, driving innocent people from their homes empty handed, forcing them en masse out of the country, stripping them of all identifying documents, even separating the men and either killing them or sending them off on a forced march to an unknown fate. And this started even well before the bombing started. This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And lest you say this is all propaganda, there are too many witnesses all saying the same thing, telling too similar stories. In the Bible it is written, "in the mouth of two or three witnesses let every matter be established." Here we have 200 thousand witnesses, so I think the requirement of legal evidence is well satisfied. So what would have been the proper way? I recall from my days in the National Guard (a military reserve organization) in riot control training, one of the first things you do is go after the leaders. Arrest the leaders and most times the riot will just dissipate. If that doesn't work you use sharpshooters to take out those who are egging the people on. Only after all else has failed do you go for full firepower.

Then there is the matter of NATO. What their motivation is I don't know. I have toyed with the idea that here they have all these new toys they need to try out, and this gave them an excuse. I have seen this view also expressed by others. Whatever the motivation, and however greivous the situation that they used as a reason to begin bombing, I believe it is wrong for them to be attacking a sovereign nation over an internal dispute that they themselves would otherwise not be involved in. To go to the Bible again, there is a proverb that he who meddles in someone else's quarrel is like a person who grabs a dog by the ears (he's asking to get bitten!). Destroying bridges, factories, refineries, railroads, heating plants, putting innocent people out of work and totally disrupting their lives, even killing and wounding innocent civilians just to stop a gang of criminals on the rampage. (Understand, I am not calling all Serbs criminals, just those who are involved in this ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.) This is burning the barn down to get rid of a rat.

Were I a judge (which I am not) ruling in a civil case (which this is not), I think this is how I would rule.
1. NATO must cease bombing NOW.
2. Milosevich must stop his ethnic cleansing and work on the real problem, the KLA. Further, he must work to resettle those who have been driven out of their homes by his thugs, providing shelter for them where necessary until their homes are rebuilt.
3. The Albanian Kosovars must cease fighting against the Yugoslav government and trying to secede from the state, and both sides must work together to come to a mutually agreeable solution.
4. The NATO nations (and anyone else who desires to participate) must send in aid in the form of engineers, technical people, parts, machinery, expertise and whatever else is necessary to aid the Yugoslav people in rebuilding what NATO has destroyed by its bombing.

I may get blasted from all sides for taking such a stand as this, but I believe this is what it is going to take to bring this war to a halt. And I believe I have the mind of the Lord Jesus on this. The alternative, as I see it, is that NATO is going to back themselves into a corner where they have no choice but just to keep on escalating until other nations become involved and it becomes a much wider war, maybe even another world war (God forbid!). God knows I don't want that to happen. I am praying for all of you, that this war can come to a quick end and a peacable and equitable solution.

Pete Rose

Charleston WV

If ethnic cleansing is not occuring in Kosovo, what does the USA expect to gain from spending millions of dollars on bombing Yugoslavia? what benefits do they reap? None except loss of our soldiers, equipment, and money. We are trying to stop a murderer from killing innocent people whos only crime is being Albanian like the KLA revolutionaries that Milosevic wants to stop. He does not differentiate between soldiers and civilians. This is why we risk our sons and spend our money on a third world country that has nothing we need.

No answer? Cat got your tongue?