Setting the record straight on Clark, Pentagon, Pristina, Clinton...

[wyldwolf]

Article on the front page of the NY Times:

I covered the Kosovo conflict at NATO headquarters in Brussels, at allied air bases in Italy and on an Air Force command plane one memorable evening that flew near Kovoso as ethnic Albanian fighters tangled with Mr. Miloseovic army's at Mount Pastrik.

It was clear that the stakes for NATO were enormous and that its commander was not in an enviable position. The United States Air Force general, Michael C. Short, who oversaw NATO's air campaign was pressing for a freer hand in conducting strikes in Belgrade while some anxious allies were insisting that the air attacks focus on Serbian troops. General Clark had an ally in NATO's secretary general, Javier Solana, but still had to maintain the support of 19 NATO nations, not to mention the Clinton administration, which had divisions in its own ranks.

Since General Clark announced his intention to run for the presidency last month, a number of partial and even misleading accounts of the war have emerged. Some have suggested that his strained relationship with the Pentagon reflects badly on his skills as a leader. What is often overlooked in these accounts is that important issues were at stake in deciding whether and how to go to war.

"There was giant resistance from the Pentagon to deepening the commitment to the Balkans," General Clark told me in a 2001 interview. He said the Balkans had not figured in "the Pentagon view of its national military strategy, which is to prepare to fight in the Persian Gulf and in Korea, and that short of that, the maximum amount should be spent on the procurement account."

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/03/politics/03CND-GORD.html

[JackRiddler]

1. The problem...

is not the skill with which Clark waged or did not wage the war, or what his relations with the Pentagon at the time were.

The problem is that the war was as criminal as any war ever fought.

The U.S. set up its impregnable fortress above Yugoslavia and bombed a civilian population into submission. It intervened in a dirty civil war to arm one side that was no better than the other, in the interest of creating new allies. The end result was a much greater orgy of death than had occurred before the intervention. The lies came thick as always, for example the hundreds of thousands of Albanian refugees were mainly set in motion by the bombing itself, and not by the made-up "Horseshoe" plan (never existed).

The group handshake with Clark, Thaci and Agca, the Croatian general who oversaw the single biggest deportation and atrocity of the Yugoslavian civil wars (Krajina), says it all.

I don't really care that Clark was following orders, or how well or how poorly he carried out his criminal assignment. Criminal it was. Murder it was.

Until this fellow entered the race, I was content with the idea of "any Democrat against Bush" (especially since it was obvious that Holy Joe had no chance, leaving mostly real Democrats among the frontrunners). I was happy to see Dean get ahead, though I'm not so hot on his politics, for the reason that he got there by attacking the Bush regime and calling it out for what it is.

Only because of Dean's success did Clark feel he had a chance to enter suddenly and steal the anti-Bush thunder.

Now I wonder. Clark will have all the freedom and willingness to continue the war in Iraq, and a free hand to do so. ("I didn't want to start this, but now that we're in I must see it through, blah blah.")

And I also think America and the Democrats have had enough of Clinton's machinations, and Clark is obviously tied into that. It's time for someone genuinely new - whether Dean or even Kerry doesn't matter to me, compared to the evident horror of letting a war general in.

[Donna Zen]

2. You are correct..

is not the skill with which Clark waged or did not wage the war.

The problem is with closed minds and shoddy thinking on the part of those who feel somehow justified to "live the lie" of politics based on twisted facts.

The problem is that the war was as criminal as any war ever fought.

Milosevic thanks you for supporting his goal of ethnic cleansing. Personally, as an American Serbian, I laugh at your attempt to present this tripe as somehow proof of a pure-than-thou liberalism.

The U.S. intervened in a dirty civil war to arm one side that was no better than the other, in the interest of creating new allies.

Illogical wouldn't you say? NATO intervened because NATO did not want to arm one side and thereby sustain the conflict.

The group handshake with Clark, Thaci and Agca, the Croatian general who oversaw the single biggest deportation and atrocity of the Yugoslavian civil wars (Krajina), says it all.

Note: The date of the photo....prior to the indictments for War Crimes. If you would had any respect for the quality of research, you would know that Clinton chose Holbrooke and Clark to visit every NATO capital and the Bosnia, Albania and Kosovo. Clark was working in the White House at the time. Clark's recommendation uponing returning from the trip, was that Bosnia needed to be made a priority. Wellstone was thrilled, he had been pushing hard for something to be done. Clark would later negotiate the Dayton Accords as part of the US team.

I don't really care that Clark was following orders, or how well or how poorly he carried out his criminal assignment. Criminal it was.

Again, Milosevic thanks you for being willing to overlook the true criminals in this world.

[The Magistrate]

3. Well Said, Ma'am

The line attempted by Mr. Riddler above, besides being false, is worthless as a political tool. The number of people throughout the nation who might be swayed by it could be accomodated in a high school gym, and damned few of them are going to vote Democrat in any case, but rather for some "pure" splinter party, or even decline to participate in the fraud of elections at all.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[DoveTurnedHawk]

4. Well Said, My Friend!

You boil it down to its essence! The reptiles will slink away from the heat.

DTH

[Rowdyboy]

5. Thank you, Donna Zen and the Magistrate....

to see this crap posted on DU turns my stomach. Any apologist for Milosonovobitch deserves the same scorn we reserve for all mass murderers.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pastiche423]

19. I believe

it would take hundreds of thousands of school gymnasiums to hold all of the people that believe like Jack, I and many, many others here at DU.

That war was criminal, it killed thousands of innocent people, it was based on a lie that no one can defend and clark headed the slaughter, while enjoying his life's career.

This is not about a "splinter party". This is the BASE of the Democratic Party. Sell your warmongering somewhere else.

P.S. Great post, Jack!

[juajen]

40. As usual, Pastiche

I totally disagree with you, and don't plan on visiting any gymnasiums in the near future.

[SWPAdem]

7. An excellent and moving response

Thank you..........

[incapsulated]

6. Yeah, and what about those criminals.....

who tried to whack Hitler? An elected Head of State!

It's just like that shit!

It would have been a Paradise in the New Improved Milosovic Yugoslavia if we had not interferred with such murderous glee!

Shame!

[JackRiddler]

8. Responses...

Did I defend Milosevic? Never! Do you require some kind of obligatory condemnation of his crimes, before I am allowed to talk about the U.S.-led Kosovo war? Sorry, I see no need for that. Opposition to the Yugoslavia war is not equivalent to support for Milosevic - any more than opposition to the Iraq invasion means you support Saddam.

By suggesting that my remarks defend Milosevic, a charge for which she has zero evidence, Donna Zen uses the same cheap argument as the Freepers who howl that opponents of the Iraq war are "Saddam lovers."

The next predictable step, provided by incapsulated, is to bring "Hitler" into it. I was not for bombing Yugoslavia. Ergo, I would have capitulated to Hitler and let him rule the world. QED.

Rowdyboy goes one further by equating my opinion with mass murder: "Any apologist for Milosonovobitch deserves the same scorn we reserve for all mass murderers."

I'm not an apologist for Milosevic, but if you say so... Hey, Rowdyboy, are you going to let me get away with mere scorn? You just equated me with a mass murderer! I think you need to bring me up on charges at Den Hague. "To see this crap posted on DU turns stomach." That's too bad, but it's not an answer, is it? It's little more than a call to silence me.

All of which is completely irrelevant.

Any of you could try responding to what I say, but obviously it's easier to project and defeat your own fantasies about what I am saying.

What matters to me is that the KLA, the U.S. ally in Kosovo, was (correctly) listed as a terrorist group by the State Department. The Germans funnelled support to them throughout the '90s. This was taken over by the CIA in '98. (The CIA's mujahedeen friends from Afghanistan were also doing good work on the ground there.)

The U.S. had no business intervening to encourage Albanian separatism. This was probably key in extending the Yugoslavian civil wars by a further round.

What matters to me is that the illegal bombing of Yugoslavia caused the death of thousands of civilians and caused hundreds of thousands of people to flee their homes (which was then blamed falsely on Milosevic).

It matters to me that this action was in no way covered under international law. It matters to me that the U.S. at Rambouillet presented a non-negotiable ultimatum to Milosevic ("Annex B"), demanding he allow all of Yugoslavia to be occupied by NATO, or else it would be bombed.

It matters to me that the U.S. announced and then carried out the execution from the air of workers at the Belgrade TV station, for the crime of showing up to work that day. It matters to me that a day after China presented a peace initiative at the UN, the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was bombed by the U.S. "Accidentally," of course!

What matters is that this was the same approach, typical of the U.S. war machine, that has made our country so unpopular in the world - and turned it into the target of people who are every bit as willing to kill innocent civilians in the pursuit of their cause as one Wesley Clark.

But what matters truth? The Magistrate delivers the most important verdict here:

"The line attempted by Mr. Riddler above, besides being false, is worthless as a political tool. The number of people throughout the nation who might be swayed by it could be accomodated in a high school gym, and damned few of them are going to vote Democrat in any case..."

Ahem, I state opinions, attempting party "lines" is apparently your province.

Otherwise, you're probably right about the importance of this issue in the U.S. elections, a topic however that I do not in any way address.

Apparently there's no point in even talking about anything that won't influence the 2004 presidential election. Truth, lies, debates on the facts, whatever - the only measure of words here is their value "as a political tool." Thanks for clearing that up for me. I might not have noticed what a smart realpolitiker you are.

So, can any of you do better than name calling and knocking down strawmen?

At least Donna Zen tries, by telling us "the date of the (group handshake) photo" is before the "indictment for war crimes."

Sorry, I'm not sure what photo or whose "indictment" you mean. Here is the photo I meant (sorry, I should have sourced it in the first place):



This was taken in 1999.

In 1995 a Croatian force under Ceku, armed and trained by the U.S., expelled 250,000 Serbs from their ancient homeland in the Krajina, accomplishing the single biggest "ethnic cleansing" of the Yugoslavian war. Ceku has yet to be "indicted" for this, he now leads a KLA-allied militia in Kosovo.

The group handshake photo is from 1999 and shows Clark celebrating the new order in Kosovo with Kouchner (Kosovo regent after the war), Thaci (KLA leader), Ceku (who I mistakenly identified as "Agca" above, sorry), and Michael Jackson.

More here:

http://www.mbruce.addr.com/clarkatborders.htm

Finally, DoveTurnedHawk has this edifying piece to add, in praise of The Magistrate's view that all that matters is what will "get those Bush bastards":

"You boil it down to its essence! The reptiles will slink away from the heat."

So I'm a reptile, too. A Milosevic-apologizing, Hitler-loving, election-breaking, line-attempting creature with scales.

However, I don't see myself slinking as yet.

Anyone going to hazard an actual response? In the Enlightenment spirit of debate on political questions, preferably using logic, relevant facts, and English syntax to communicate actual ideas (should you have any)?

[JackRiddler]

9. So, where are you now?

You're great as a little group congratulating each other for cheap namecalling, but the continuing lack of response indicates that none of you has a factual answer.

[IndianaGreen]

10. I applaud your post and I agree with your concerns about Clark

Concerns that have been echoed buy Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, reports of which were posted in DU when Clark announced.

[Clark Can WIN]

43. Of course you do Indiana,

But according to you he will NEVER run anyway.......... all those things about closure and what not.

Isn't that what you said?

[The Magistrate]

11. Indeed, Mr. Riddler

All that matters is evicting the current reactionary cabal from office. None of what you say is new to anyone, nor is there any likelihood of changing your view in the matter. There is no need to do so, either, and so you will find little effort devoted to doing so.

You will need to get used to indifference, if this the line you intend to peddle.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[wyldwolf]

12. The thing is...

When people post such garbage OVER AND OVER, you have to think they're either new to DU and think we're all going to be surprised top see the info OR they think posting it continuously will make it more credible.

[JackRiddler]

13. So you have no answer...

except to pretend you're the real DU and I'm not, as though this would be relevant.

[wyldwolf]

14. How you drew that conclusion only you and your shrink knows...

... my answer, again, is that the charges you make have already been addressed on DU over and over.

Perhaps the Clark haters just don't like the answers they're getting.

But our responses won't change.

[JasonBerry]

15. I watch these threads CLOSELY

I watch the Clark/Kosovo threads closely. I have YET to see an answer when the FACTS are presented concerning the war against the people of Yugoslavia.

What I DO see are tired, endless tirades against those who dare to question and present the facts to the community here at DU. The arguments are all very familiar as they were used against us when we opposed the war in Iraq.

wyldwolf, I really don't understand your always writing something like, "That's already been addressed," every time tough questions are raised. I don't get it. Apparently, to you, if something has been addressed on DU "before" than it cannot ever be addressed again. That is strange. Oddly, any positive Clark thread with the same old tired "spin" seems to not be a bother to you - no matter how many times we've read it. But, I don't mind as I understand that not everyone who participates on DU lives here 24/7 as if it's there job to do so. (No insinuation meant.)

We will continue to ask the tough questions. This is a Democratic party primary - time to look CLOSELY at ALL the candidates (yes, even the good General).

For truth,
Jason Berry

[wyldwolf]

16. you see tired, endless tirades... we see answers..

You may not LIKE the answers. I understand that. If someone says the war in Kosovo was justified and you don't believe it to be so, then you simply don't like the answer.

To the Clark supporters, the endless repetitive mantras are tired, endless tirades.

[JasonBerry]

23. Still.....

I said I understand your repeating your pro-Clark posts that all say mostly the same thing. For some reason, you want all questions posed about Clark in a negative way to show up a few times and then - go away! Please remember some are not here all of the time and I guarantee you that the info posted in response to the original message was NEW to many readers on DU. They shouldn't be treated with disrespect.

[SWPAdem]

39. ALL of the Clark bashers watch these threads closely

ANYTIME Clark's name appears in a thread, you can count on having the usual Clark bashing suspects show up....who will remain anonymous due to DU rules, but you know who you are anyway....to post the same old assumptions, accusations and paranoid wet dreams. It does not matter how weak the evidence/association, it will be posted. Any attempts to point out the ludricacy of the charges will be met with derision. Hard evidence that disputes the charges is ignored. It does not matter how many times, or how recently the accusation has been disproven. The effort is coordinated, with multiple posts using the same rhetoric. To me, it appears to be professionally organized and orchestrated. Is it coming from another Democratic candidate's campaign or directly from the RNC? We are either dealing with astroturf, robots, or cloning.

To all of you Clark bashers....I have already made up my mind who to support in the primaries. I do not need any of you to assist me and frankly, after what I have seen of your tactics over the last week, I wouldn't trust ANYTHING that you post about Clark, anyway. You are a desperate crew that disparages the intelligence, motives and loyalty of fellow Democrats, all the while swearing that you will not vote for Clark should he be the candidate. I don't want to hear about conscience votes...what you are talking about are your own egos. This is all so reminiscent of the run-up to the last Presidential election. All those conscience votes contributed to the debacle and look where we are now.

I am keeping a running score of all the unfounded bullshit that gets posted. I'm going to throw a quarter in a jar everytime one of you robots gets started and donate it all to Clark's campaign and I am going to start handing out Clark fliers within the next week. Thank you for contributing to the General.............:evilgrin:

[Clark Can WIN]

44. I've got a similar fund going

I give a dollar for every bash post, and a dollar for every time I hear the word Clark on the tube. :kick:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Riddle Me This.....

You condemn Clark for cozying up to Milosevic's henchmen...

You condemn Clark for trying to destroy Milosevic's henchmen...


It seems the SACEUR can do no right by you...

[JackRiddler]

45. CORRECTION

Easy enough to solve, since it's entirely your mistake. I did not condemn Clark for cozying up to Milosevic henchmen. (I'm not "condemning" anyway, I am describing the facts.)

So allow me to repeat myself, maybe this time you will actually read it:

The Ceku in the picture was a commander of Croatian forces, who deported 250,000 Serbs from their ancient homeland in the Krajina in the summer of 1995. This was the single largest act of ethnic cleansing during the Yugoslavian wars. The Croatian force had been armed and advised by the U.S. The name of the operation slips me, but it was something like, "Operation Thunderbolt."

[Julien Sorel]

18. Actually, this sentence:

What matters to me is that the illegal bombing of Yugoslavia caused the death of thousands of civilians and caused hundreds of thousands of people to flee their homes (which was then blamed falsely on Milosevic).

makes me want to discuss this issue with you about as much as I'd want to debate a member of the Flat Earth Society. Anyone capable of writing that is interested in propaganda, not facts. So go on thumping yourself on the chest as if you've presented some kind of irrefutable truth. Too many are simply tired of dealing with this crap, and the people who shovel it, to want to refute it anymore, and besides, as soon as nonsense like this is disposed of, another piece of nonsense is flung out, and another, and another, and another. Prety soon you'll be talking about Haitian men getting man breasts, and blaming Clark for it, which has happened here before.

The problem isn't with Clark, but with those reprobates who present one-sided, propagandistic versions of reality in an attempt to smear him.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Let's hear it for Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International!

Pentagon Report Whitewashes Civilian Deaths in Yugoslavia

(Washington, February 8, 2000) -- The U.S. Defense Department review of the NATO bombing campaign in Yugoslavia shows that the alliance has failed to learn from its mistakes in killing civilians, Human Rights Watch charged today.

The Pentagon review, released today in the course of Defense Secretary William Cohen's testimony before Congress, states that the bombing campaign was "the most precise and lowest-collateral-damage air operation ever conducted" (p. xvii), but provides no evidence to substantiate this summary assertion, nor any discussion of how many civilians died, why, or whether these deaths could have been avoided.

Meanwhile, a 79-page Human Rights Watch report released yesterday documents that the number of incidents in which civilians were killed in the NATO air campaign in Yugoslavia is at least three times as high as what the Pentagon has claimed.

"Congress should insist that the Pentagon produce a franker and more critical self-assessment," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/02/nato208.htm

"Collateral Damage" or Unlawful Killings?

Violations of the Laws of War by NATO during Operation Allied Force

From 24 March to 10 June 1999 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) conducted an air campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), codenamed Operation Allied Force. NATO aircraft conducted over 38,000 combat sorties, including 10,484 strike sorties, against targets in the provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina, Serbia proper and the Republic of Montenegro. Yugoslav media have stated that thousands of civilians were killed in NATO air raids. However, the civilian death tolls given in detailed FRY government accounts range from 400 to 600. NATO has not released official estimates of civilians or FRY combatants killed. No NATO forces were killed in hostile action during the air campaign. (07 May 2000)

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/kosovo/index.html

2. The Laws of War and the Protection of Civilians

Not all civilian deaths in wartime are unlawful. In the euphemistic terms of military spokespersons, “collateral damage”6 , including civilian casualties, is to be expected in war. But there are clear rules that set limits on the conduct of hostilities and in particular outlaw the use of certain means or methods of warfare. These rules are designed to protect -- to the maximum extent possible -- civilian lives and objects. The rules include a prohibition on any direct attacks against civilians or civilian objects, including reprisals directed at them. But they also include prohibitions on attacks which do not attempt to distinguish between military targets and civilians or civilian objects and attacks which, although aimed at a legitimate military target, have a disproportionate impact on civilians or civilian objects.

Finally, the rules make clear the narrow circumstances in which civilians or civilian objects lose their protection -- for example, when a civilian object is used for military purposes.

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/kosovo/docs/nato_all.pdf

[Julien Sorel]

25. Let's here it for the UN, which investigated and found

no evidence of war crimes! And on and on and on the circle goes.

[JasonBerry]

28. Well....

Read the report. It seems to state that there were war crimes without actually meeting the official criteria for "war crimes." That report is DAMNING - I sure wouldn't use that as something that will HELP the Clark campaign.

[SWPAdem]

42. Listen to yourself

"There were war crimes without actually meeting the official criteria"

What a load of bullshit! The UN said that mistakes were made, but that they were confident that civilians were not targeted on purpose. If you are so fricking worried about war crimes, then I suggest that you focus on the ones that are being committed in Afghanistan and Iraq on a daily basis. The only chance to stop those is to dethrone Bush. Stop attacking other Democrats and focus on the real fucking enemy.

BTW, I hope that you know that the right wing used this war crimes shit against Clinton on a daily basis. Where do you think all this disinformation is coming from?

[IndianaGreen]

29. You got a link, sport?

Or do you want us to take this by faith?

[Julien Sorel]

33. No, I made it up.

You caught me! I'm so ashamed, sportress. So ashamed....

Of course, you have the ability to search, use it. As I said above, it gets tiresome. You might have the time and desire to endlessly post the same garbage, I do not.

[JasonBerry]

22. TIME OUT BILLY

Take a deep breath......

To oppose war is not an idea that deserves your angry response. In fact, it's totally uncalled for. Many Democrats oppose war on religious and/or humanistic political principles.

"Too many are simply tired of dealing with this crap, and the people who shovel it..."

"The problem isn't with Clark, but with those reprobates who present one-sided, propagandistic versions of reality in an attempt to smear him.

"And the people who "shovel" it?" Any time in a primary campaign, there are going to be those who disagree with your man. To see fellow DUers (and I suppose myself} called "reprobates" is a bit too much. I would guess even a few Clark supporters would think that's going a bit far.

[Julien Sorel]

24. Angry? If you say so.

By the way, do you even know what a 'reprobate' is? I would say that anyone who consistently presents a twisted, one-sided view of events is certainly a reprobate. I think your friend Bill would agree.

I'm still waiting on all this damning information on Clark you threatened everyone with, lo these many months ago, by the way. I continue to ask, and all I see from you is silence, while chiming in in support of the weakest garbage imaginable. Surely yours is better?

And the people who "shovel" it?" Any time in a primary campaign, there are going to be those who disagree with your man.

Say it ain't so, Jason! Say it ain't so!

[JasonBerry]

26. Here's your answer

From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 .......

rep·ro·bate
A morally unprincipled person.
One who is predestined to damnation.
adj.
Morally unprincipled; shameless.
Rejected by God and without hope of salvation.
tr.v. rep·ro·bat·ed, rep·ro·bat·ing, rep·ro·bates
To disapprove of; condemn.
To abandon to eternal damnation. Used of God.

Yes, I do know the definition of "reprobate," and frankly, your use of the word in this context makes no sense. It is generally a word reserved for morally bankrupt people in a religious context.

This "Your friend, Bill," crap is bordering on harassment as you use it in every post directed to me. Read the DU rules. I have explained it over and over to you. I stand by my position that Bill Clinton has NO USE for Wesley Clark for anything but maybe a stalking horse for Hillary.

You ask about my stating months ago that there are things about Clark that people don't know - and will learn about - if he becomes a candidate. Now he is a candidate and some of what you call "garbage" includes:

1) A man who has a history of PRAISING the most repugnant members of the Bush administration.

2) A man who received a pass as an "anti-war" candidate in Iraq - in the weeks leading up to his announcement - was a LIE. Surely, the CNN clips and his own writings prove that Clark was NOT opposed to the war - only to the methods in which it has been executed.

3) A man who has questions to answer regarding his early recall from Europe, but as recently as a couple of months ago told Tim Russert he had "never asked" why he was recalled. Do you...does anybody really believe that? He has yet to offer a satisfactory answer. General Hugh Shelton publicly stated it was an issue of "honor and integrity." A reasonable question in the interview process is to ask why someone was fired. The man wants to be PRESIDENT.

I am not going to write all night. My posts stand as they are. Also, BillyBunter, the campaign is not over.

EDIT: Correct spelling error

[Julien Sorel]

27. Yep.

morally unprincipled person.

I think that issue is disposed of. What a terrible, shocking, outrageous insult.

Your list of complaints against Clark are the exact same ones that have been posted endlessly. This is probably getting close to the 500th time somone has posted them. Some bombshells. Nobody except a tiny minority here and with CounterPunch cares.

[JasonBerry]

30. I Think You Are VERY Wrong

The fact is most people aren't paying attention and don't know ANY of this -- pro, con or indifferent.

Why always point to Counterpunch? Why not point to The Nation and others who are also asking these tough questions? The questions have NOT been answered. And no, they haven't been answered "just not to my liking." (A favorite one-liner around here.)

I'll save the biggest question - FOR YOU....

You wrote:
morally unprincipled person.

I think that issue is disposed of. What a terrible, shocking, outrageous insult.

Yes, I think it's a horrible insult and deserves an apology! To be honest, I can't think of too many things worse than to be called a "morally unprincipled person"!

[JasonBerry]

31. Just So I Don't Get Flamed For "Leaving."

I have a Saturday night to live. I have to leave or I would be happy to continue this discussion. Though I will say, it's a shame we can't just disagree without being called, "morally unprincipled."

[Julien Sorel]

32. You imply it with every post

where you call Clark a war criminal yourself, so spare the weak attempt at outrage. It's just digging the hole deeper.

[JasonBerry]

35. Haven't left YET

Can't let that go by....


Are you saying that what I think of Wesley Clark - the public man is the same as what YOU CALL a fellow DUer because you disagree with them?

There are many good DUers here that promote Clark with ALL THEY HAVE, but I don't dislike them, or call them "morally unprincipled." Take Pepperbelly for instance. There's a nice guy. He argues strongly for Clark, but never lowers himself to petty name calling. There are others...Dove Turned Hawk is a good poster....he stands up for his man, but I can't imagine DTH calling me "morally unprincipled." There ARE issues we can disagree about without thinking one or the other is a morally bankrupt individual.

Oh, and what you called a, "weak attempt at outrage"??? I wasn't weak or attempting to be outraged -I sincerely WAS outraged.

Have a good weekend.....I AM gone now.

[Julien Sorel]

37. I support Clark.

You repeatedly call Clark a war criminal, etc. That implies I condone such behavior, when you should know better. Or else I'm simply ignorant of this blizzard of crap that is thrown in my face every day.

[juajen]

41. You just don't understand how boring this conversation is

I, for one, am so tired of hearing it over and over, I'm checking out now. Bye, all.

[Code_Name_D]

34. Translation:

I can not impeach your facts, so I will just belitle your inteligence.

Yep. Real convincing. :eyes:

[Donna Zen]

36. Did I defend Milosevic?

Yes, in the above post.

What matters to me is that the illegal bombing of Yugoslavia caused the death of thousands of civilians and caused hundreds of thousands of people to flee their homes (which was then blamed falsely on Milosevic).

This of course is disputed by the record.

A new stage began in late July 1998, when a “large-scale counter-offensive by Serb security forces” helped them re-establish control over a number of key areas, while intensifying a “campaign of terror and intimidation” including the forced displacement of the civilian popu-lation. As a result there was an “increasing need for humanitar-ian relief assistance” during the summer of 1998 even as the civilian population’s greatest need continued to be physical security.

When Sadako Ogata, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, ar-rived in Kosovo in the last week of September 1998, over 300,000 persons were already displaced inside and outside the Kosovo prov-ince. The central conclusion of Ogata’s mission was that “no just and lasting solution” could be found without a fundamental change in Belgrade’s attitude towards the Kosovo Albanians. Without this change, Ogata believed, the “ability of the international community to protect dis-placed persons was clearly limited” and the large-scale humanitarian operation, led by UNHCR, and which involved private relief agencies such as the International Rescue Committee and the Médecins sans Frontières would face increasing difficulties.

http://www.fsk.ethz.ch/documents/studies/volume_5/chapter_03.htm

Note the date: 1998 before the war; however, the operations intensified the following year. Also, never would I dream of defending the KLA in all of this, since both of the sides mirror the other in ugliness. The KLA (shown in your picture...which I suppose was meant to be inflamatory) had agreed to disarm. That picture is from the signing of an agreement, why you would blame Clark for their failing to up hold their part of the bargain and do so is not logical. You are correct that we had labeled the KLA as terrorist, and while some of the NATO partners had argued for the arming of the KLA to act as a proxy army that would keep NATO out of the civil war, that position was never adopted. The official policy remained one of non-cooperation. The KLA did pass communications via the Albanian Army about the Serbian troup movements.

While negotiating the Dayton Accords, it was Milosevic would refused to discuss Kosovo, not the US. It was Milosevic who moved 25-40,000 troups in Kosovo, not Clinton. It was Milosevic that refused an agreement at Rambouillet that would have averted war while allowing him to keep some (10,000 iirc) Serbian troops in country and bring in NATO troops as peace keepers. That is, without war.

In 1989, it was Milosevic who ended Kosovo's autonomy and the following year abolished the parliament and government of Kosovo. Violence breeds violence breeds KLA's.

The US has a nearly flawless record of ignoring the humanitarian concerns of the people of our world. We ignored Bosnia and watched many innocent people get slaughtered. We ignored Rwanda and 800,000 were macheted. The only time we do intervene is for oil. In the case of Kosovo, NATO was prodded into action because of its embarrassment over Bosnia.

Has the peace been won. Not hardly...are the KLA bad...very...However, if we had done nothing would it have been worse? Now be honest. Remember Slobo is on record saying that he would "kill them all." The one thing that we can be sure of is that four years later, had we done nothing, the shrillest critics of this war would be the loudest voices of condemnation in a chorus accusing the US of caring little for the plight the poorest in the world. In which case, I would join them.

As to all the web sites that second guess and condemn NATO, they would be all writing to condemn NATO if the alliance hadn't acted. That's what they do.

BTW, the general who failed to curb in and disarm the KLA is also in that picture: the oft mentioned Gen. M. Jackson of hyperbole and Pristina Airport fame. He later appears leading the British troops in Iraq.

[Code_Name_D]

38. Very abuly said. A belated welcome to the DU. n/t

:)