Free Republic

...it's all War defined in terms of the state holders' concerns (however they define to be).

These are not cynical or empty words. They reinforce anyone who speaks against states that initiate wars of aggression.

Colonel Donahoe draws on the Balkans for an easy metaphor.

"Moktada is like Milosevic....He'll do anything to stay in power."

This is the muddled thinking that the Great Power brings to the ongoing war. It is a good example of "easy" thinking: meaning, stupid and facile. But the Great Power respects nothing, except its own power, and is continually scouring the hostile land looking for someone to demonize, whether it is a Castro, Ortega, or Chavez, or, yes, Milosevic; but not a Rios Mont, D'Aubisson, Izetbegovic, Tudjman, or Sharon. The Colonel draws on an easy hypocrisy.

...the region (Kosovo) had fallen behind in efforts to create a multiethnic and democratic society.

The American-led attack on Yugoslavia in March of 1999 created the catastrophe of Kosovo, and did not solve it. The illegal attack, and the turning of a blind eye to the ethnic Albanian terror attacks on the Kosovo Serbs and other minorities, created the belief that independence was very close. So the attacks, and dynamiting of churches has continued, making the words fallen behind in efforts especially pathetic and empty of meaning. The healthiest entity in Kosovo is Camp Bondsteel, which flourished while relentless attacks drove off isolated Serbs, Roma and Gorani, and forced the remaining ones to huddle in protected enclaves. Great Power intervention in the Balkans usually creates a disaster that may take 50--500 years to resolve. The Serbs cannot be removed from this equation.

I seem to recall the 1908 crisis when Austria-Hungary annexed it (Bosnia-Hercegovina) from the Turkish Empire.

The Turks had already been driven from Bosnia-Hercegovina in the late 1870's, coinciding as it did with the Russian defeat of the Turks in their war of 1877-78. More than just a few Serbs took part in the uprisings which drove the Turks from Bosnia. What was their reward? The Congress of Berlin (1878), among other decisions, gave Bosnia-Hercegovina to the Austro-Hungarians to administer (that is, to swindle and strangle). Serbia, as an independent State, growing in strength and stability set a "bad" example for the people's around her (Afterall, freedomm is Empire's cancer). Austria was beside itself with hatred for Serbia and annexing Bosnia-Hercegovina was a statement directed against Serbia, as well as an attempt to resuscitate its empire, corrupt and dying at its core.

The former Yugoslavia--land of mass graves. Does anybody like anybody over there??

For much of the post-WWII years of the 20th century, the peoples of Yugoslavia lived and worked together, not in perfect harmony, of course, but strong enough to create an identity in which many were proud. Tito gave the new Yugoslavia its identity: one that could say "No" to Stalin, while receiving the favors of the US. It was the time of the building of the modern Yugoslavia and ethnic tensions could be controlled and sometimes transformed in the great work of rebuilding and creating. The mass graves generally are found after war. During times of relative peace, people may simply "disappear," only rarely to be found, as in the Central and South American countries (too numerous to list) that killed its own citizens during the 1980's. There you could look for mass graves and ask the same question. War unleashes horrifying atrocities; ethnic conflict can be worse but not always: see the American Civil War.

...listening to them and their friends describe their hatred...

Are you sure you were in Belgrade among Serb friends, listening to their hatred for Bosnian muslims and ethnic Albanian muslims? Not Belgrade, maybe your own state of mind?

...senior sources in the Kosovo government have told the BBC that they believe the Serbian Orthodox Church has tried to keep the monuments in ruins as long as possible...

The BBC reporter faithfully records the comments of the "senior sources," giving the comment weight, without asking unpleasant question--such as: Why is a fortified K-For checkpoint still needed to protect the monastery at Decani and the monks therein? It must be true of the evil Serbs that they allow the ruins to exist in order to make the "Kosovo government" look bad. (Some of our people (ethnic Albanian extremists) wrecked it, of course, and we accept no responsibility: so why don't you fix your church and make us look good--even though you better keep your safety checkpoint, or our people will plant bombs again!

Further BBC reportage: In just a few months' time, negotiations are expected to begin on the final status of Kosovo. It may soon gain independence from Serbia.

This is the little seed that this type of reporting sows, a type of wish-fulfilment fantasy, that is meant to create the fertile ground where the "fait accompli" may grow. This reporter would never dream of making the same statement about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, going on for over half a century, with no end in sight: that is, "negotiations are expected to begin on the final status of Palestine. It may soon throw off the Israeli occupation and gain its independence." No! Not from the BBC, or any American media outlet, but each finds "Kosovo independence" so easy and logical. The years pass, but still the Great Power(s) try to exert their will in the Balkans.

The US military wants a free hand in its "hot pursuit" of terror. It will be answerable to no nation for any crime it commits in their country. As Abu Graib illustrates, only the lesser ranks will face punishment, while the policy officers are untainted (it does take a stomach to look at yourself): In Kosovo, in the full demonizing of the Serbs, all crimes led directly to Milosevic; it was all so obvious--to the US, that is, even sending a diplomat to walk up the ravine at Racak. The US knows how much they have politicized the indictments of their chosen enemies and do not want to swallow similar medicine. The more the US becomes a rogue state the less it will want to be troubled by the strictures of the "rule of law"--and there really is no reason to parse the meaning of that phrase.

"Ever hear the saying that rules are made to be broken."

Paul, the US does not want to be constrained in any way when it decides to use force when and where it sees fit. Being constrained means the US would have to answer not only to those it attacks, but to its own people who want to believe in the honesty of American motives. This is a serious problem because the average American, like the average or common people of all countries of the world, are not evil and have consciences and do not want to hurt other innocent people. Therefore they must be kept uninformed or they would not willingly folllow brutal policies. Countries give up part of their sovereignty when they sign a special agreement with the US, instead of adhering to the ageements of the ICC. No one beleives that the UN or its courts are perfect (and a strong case could be made that the US supported political prosecutions in its pursuit of the Balkan demons, primarily Mr Milosevic)--but the UN does try to help refugees all around the world, and it still is a forum where smaller countries can go with their grievances in the hope of obtaining some degree of justice.

The failure of the United States to support the ICC is a disgrace to a country that claims to believe in the rule of law. According to the AP, The United States opposes the court, claiming Americans could be subject to politically motivated prosecutions. The AP offers the US its limp support, not informing the reader that the ICC has statutes that protect against politically motivated prosecutions. Also, the country of the accused has the first opportunity (and the responsibility) to bring to trial the accused. Then, there is also the very limited area of war crimes to which the court has jurisdiction. The AP explains nothing of this, only leaving the reader with the impression that "the always honest and honorable US fears that the lesser ones will try to pull them down." The outcome is the pathetic forays of the US around the world, attempting to obtain the palsied signatures absolving it of future war crimes, no matter the type or degree. Why does the US need a Croatian signature (and if you do not sign, you do not get the military hardware or other economic aid=that is, you will be strangled up to a point)? This is how the last remaining superpower wants to run the world. Good Luck!

Bosnia should not go to Iraq. Why take part in this publicity stunt? The US always rewards itself for its interventions, usually with permanent military bases, and easy lucrative deals to its corporate giants. Why grovel, and send 50 as fodder for the insurgency--or death by "friendly fire" when they fail to see the hidden checkpoint.

Reports of massacres and images of mileslong lines of refugees fleeing into neighboring Albania and Macedonia compelled the world to act.

In this statement the former U.S. Secretary of Defense frames history in the exact mold as presented by the the US Defense and State Departments and the U.S. Media: That is, by extreme distortion, and by outright lies.

Of course, he knows more accurately what occurred: that a sovereign State was threatened with violence (Rambouillet), and that bombs were dropped in the middle of a major Capital (Belgrade) and other targets beforethe long refugee columns and rumors of massacres made excellent copy for the media= The "reports of massacres": Sec. Cohen's "600,000 boys and men, missing and feared dead." The desperate lies that were needed to bring on the other Nato signatories, so that the real violence could begin: the "humanitarian violence" against civilians of all ages, whether on simple little commuter trains (Grdilica), convalescent homes (Surdilica), or innocent ethnic Albanian refugees returning to their homes (Djakovica): All of this violence occurred because of the Rambouillet threat! An article such as Carlucci's is an attempt to create a climate; it seems in this case, an attempt to create markets--and World Bank debt, in the form of tiny statelets that will have to serve a master.

As Mark states the attack on the Al Amariyah Bomb Shelter took place 8 years before the attack on Yugoslavia. "And that shelter was thought to be an underground C2 bunker--that is why it was attacked." "...was thought to be...": Here is the usual excuse, that attempts to justify the crime, though the many hundreds of innocent show clearly that civilians were targeted.

Mark states that I am anti-American, though my criticism is always focused on unfair, unjust, or hypocritical policies of the US government--and not directed toward the people, or country as a whole.

Joan's pictures make a strong case that the US did deliberately attack civilians in their illegal aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999. Of course, there is always an excuse for each picture: innocent blood flows but it is always unintentional and, in a way, necessary in achieving the noble end of American military power. Rather than attempt to catalog a lengthy list of US attacks on civilians, one war crime comes to mind that has a special level of barbarousness: The Attack on the Al Amariyah Bomb Shelter in Baghdad in February of 1991. From 350-400 innocent woman, children, and old people were incinerated by two laser-guided bombs that entered through ventilation shafts, five minutes apart. Even the US excuse for the attack would never ward off conviction, if by some miracle an indictment could be brought (As you know, there is no statute of limitations on war crimes.). That the US would never intentionally attack civilians: That is part of the Myth, the Sacred Shroud that America attempts to cloak its foreign policy within, even though US History has its hideous periods of slavery and genocide.

(Bardhi) The Albanians in Montenegro are an inalienable part of the Albanian nation. We have a lot in common although we live in different territories....

These words clearly inform that there must be no autonomy for the ethnic Albanians of Montenegro. Autonomy granted, without the sinews that attach to the greater whole, leads only to further drift, harsher rhetoric and irredentism: See, KOSOVO. For Mr Bardhi, where an ethnic Albanian lives, are but mere "territories," not a republic, country or State having a recorded history and a Constitution whereby it defines itself. Autonomy with no attaching sinew can be used to overcome the law of State and Constitution. There will be no autonomy in Montenegro.

Mr Mark, Hiroshima and Nagasaki must not be used in any comparison with the attack on Pearl Harbor. Slavery, a heinous evil, rightfully should be examined, even if the words "free enterprise" are not mentioned. Zinn is not comparing George Washington with Eugene Debs; he uses the life of Eugene Debs to expose how the American worker was exploited to serve the privileged few.

As far as I know, none of the countries, which have emerged from the former Yugoslavia, teaches a balanced history of the Second World War and the Tito era....

The former Ambassador offers constructive assessment. Is Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States" taught in American schools -- for a more balanced treatment of US history?

They need to work to break the link between patriotism, love of country, and war crimes.

This really needs to be said of most countries, not only those of the Balkans. For the Great Powers a war crime is often reduced to a solitary, misguided private from a backwoods state, an isolated atrocity.

Haradinaj was a darling of the Americans during their attack on Yugoslavia in 1999. He even earned free health care when flown to a US base in Germany after being wounded in the attack on the Musaj Family. The US prides itself on "its knowing a little bit more than anyone else," so they must have conducted their famous "vetting" of Ramush Haradinaj, and the atrocities committed in Glodjane in 1998. Is Haradinaj innocent of the crimes of Glodjane? It does not matter to US policy as long as the American people have no knowledge of Glodjane. And are continually fed only the crimes of the designated demon--the Serbs, who must all be punished for the crimes of the evil-incarnate Milosevic, the one on whom all blame in the Balkans can be placed: Behind such a curtain, the US government can throw its weight behind a Thaci, Haradinaj, Ceku, or Remi, as long as they are all working against the US enemy. This policy has been replayed many times throughout the world, with devastating consequences in the US's neighborhood of Central and South America. The first principle of ethnic conflict and its aftermath is: that no quarter is given, atrocities are committed on all sides; and that no lasting justice is reached unless all sides are held accountable.

As one of the US favourites, Haradinaj was flown to Germany to mend his wounds from his clash with the Musaj family Baby Teeth Politico. Mr. Haradinaj wants to barter his 9 AAK seats for a prime minister's post, so does he view his great political acumen: see Musaj Family, for reality check.

With the US floundering in Iraq, Bosnia proffers itself to the failed illegal US attack on Iraq. Nothing will come of this. This is a further example of the US attempting to surround itself with the so-called "coalition of the willing," to try to legitimate their aggression.