From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest)
To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #192
Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org
Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Precedence: bulk


fegmaniax-digest        Thursday, May 27 1999        Volume 08 : Number 192



                               Today's Subjects:
                               -----------------
  Star Wars AsciiMation                        [Tom Clark <tclark@apple.com>]
  Re: Star Wars AsciiMation                            [mrrunion@palmnet.net]
  Re: Star Wars AsciiMation                       [Eb <gondola@deltanet.com>]
  Re: Star Wars AsciiMation                [Capuchin <capuchin@teleport.com>]
  howard, howard beware              ["Capitalism Blows" <etews@hotmail.com>]
  Re: howard, howard beware           [Ethyl Ketone <meketone@ix.netcom.com>]
  Democrassy.                              [Capuchin <capuchin@teleport.com>]
  goodfellas song                          [Joel Mullins <skmull@swbell.net>]
  Re: goodfellas song                                        [overbury@cn.ca]
  some RH news (very little)           [Griffith Davies <hbrtv219@yahoo.com>]
  Re: goodfellas song                  [amadain <sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu>]
  Howard's End                [Christopher Gross <chrisg@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 11:41:02 -0700
From: Tom Clark <tclark@apple.com>
Subject: Star Wars AsciiMation

It  just blows my mind to think someone has enough free time to animate 
Star Wars in ASCII characters... 

http://www.fortunecity.com/tatooine/lucas/339/page1.html

- -tc

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 14:55 +0000
From: mrrunion@palmnet.net
Subject: Re: Star Wars AsciiMation

Tom Clark wrote:
> 
> It  just blows my mind to think someone has enough free time to animate
> Star Wars in ASCII characters...
> 
> http://www.fortunecity.com/tatooine/lucas/339/page1.html

Eb, you crazy nut!  :)

Mike

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 12:56:18 -0800
From: Eb <gondola@deltanet.com>
Subject: Re: Star Wars AsciiMation

>Tom Clark wrote:
>Eb, you crazy nut!  :)

http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/pswayne/claudine.htm

Eb

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 13:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Capuchin <capuchin@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Star Wars AsciiMation

On Wed, 26 May 1999, Eb wrote:
> http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/pswayne/claudine.htm

Man!  Check out that third sideline/headline/thingie!

"Anita Bryant as wholesome as, well, O.J."

Right ON.

Hoping to someday be as wholesome as O.J....
J.
- -- 
________________________________________________________

J A Brelin	<Capuchin@teleport.com>		Capuchin
________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 14:14:20 PDT
From: "Capitalism Blows" <etews@hotmail.com>
Subject: howard, howard beware

<No need to apologize!  You have as much right to continue this thread as 
Eddie had to start it.  And I'm sure Eddie will back me up on THAT point, at 
least.>

except that, i wasn't intending to start a thread.  honest!  i merely 
thought it was a good piece, and passed it along.  believe it or not, i 
didn't expect it to be so controversial.  i just thought it good common 
sense.
the truth is, i really don't have the time to get into this (too busy 
protesting this fucking war, natch).  so i'll keep this as brief as 
possible.
although, i have written a 3,500 word article on the subject (which was 
intended to be used in a project that's since been scotched for lack of 
funds).  if anyone wants a copy, e-mail me offlist, and i'll fire it off to 
you.


<What about Sarajevo?????? A city that hosted the winter olympics less than 
ten years before it was made rubble, without electricity, water, wood in the 
winter, gas and a population held hostage due to the snipers posted around 
the city. Serbian paramilitary snipers. The serb military on hills around 
town shelling. What about bombs in marketplaces in Bosnia and Croatia??? The 
villages leveled, people rounded up into camps or executed on the spot.

Years of it Eddie.>

but that was zinn's whole point.  do two wrongs make a right?
also, remember that we more less supported milosevic right up through most 
of last year.  we denounced him here and there, but when push came to shove, 
he was, "a man we can deal with."  remember too that it wasn't just serbs 
attacking bosnia, it was croats, too.  moreover, the largest instance of 
ethnic "cleansing" so far has been the "cleansing" of 150-200,000 serbs from 
the krajina, by the croats, facilitated by the united states.  and the u.s. 
is currently blocking efforts to bring the generals responsible to justice.
the point being, the united states doesn't act on principle.  never has, 
and, presumably, never will.


<And while I know that a large portion of the population does not support 
Milosevic and the paramilitary groups, that still does not deny 8 years of 
agression. Belgrade never felt a shell as it bombed Bosnian villages into 
the stoneage!>

again, i think you're missing the point.  does revenge bring justice?  we 
never felt a shell as we bombed the holy hell out of indochina, killing 4 
million people, displacing half the population, and defoliating an entire 
country.
does that mean some third party should come in now and start bombing the 
hell out of american citizens, to teach us a lesson?  and would it right the 
wrongs if they did?


<The point is that Milosevic and his paramilitary need to be stopped. Is 
bombing the answer???>

don't disagree with this point.  but i hear it time and again, even from 
people that i'm working closely with on opposing the war.  and here's what 
bugs me about it: why aren't the same people making this point also making 
the point that turkey's repression of the kurds (which was on a *much* 
larger scale than serbian repression of ethnic albanians) needs to be 
stopped?  why aren't they saying that the brutal occupations of east timor 
and palestine need to be stopped?  the death squads in mexico and colombia?  
for that matter, the repression of ethnic minorities in the united states?


<- and another thing... I've seen a lot of the world where "communism" spent 
a good 50 years. It sucks Eddie.>

where did this come from?  when have i *ever* said *one* good word about 
communism?  (although i'm sure you're aware that a very large majority of 
russians say they were a lot better off under communism than under the 
current yeltsin/imf dictatorship.)
but even agreeing that communism sucks, that doesn't give us a right to go 
invading communist countries...


<ps: if you are going to flame me (and go ahead)>

well, i don't consider stating that i disagree with your arguments because 
of xyz a flame, and hope that you don't, either.


<Despite your opinion of Clinton and NATO, I strongly doubt that they have 
targeted a single civilian.>

perhaps not.  but they've certainly targeted civilian *institutions*, which 
is a major, major war crime.
additionally, i think zinn's motor-car analogy here is a good one.
what's been really sriking to me, though, is not just our cavalier attitude 
toward the destruction of serbian infrastructure, which is kind of to be 
expected; but our attitude toward the people we're supposedly trying to 
*save*.  we initially said we'd take a few thousand refugees...and station 
them at *guantanamo*!  we say things like, "if there were [albanian refugee] 
civilians at a military target, we didn't put them there," as if that's 
supposed to make anybody feel any better.  we're bombing *albanian refugees* 
almost every week, and while we've always got some great excuse (viz., "it's 
not our fault"), our next steps are generally to *intensify* the bombing.
and this whole bit, killing the 87 refugees last week.  what was the excuse? 
  that they were using them as human shields?  what in the fuck?  this is 
totally illogical, isn't it?  the implication is that we didn't know they 
were there.  uh, then what's the point?  i mean, from the serbian angle.  
how can you call them "human shields" if nobody knows about them?  the point 
of using human shields --never mind how despicable we might find the 
practice-- is that it's to *prevent* bombing of a given target.  so, there's 
the flipside.  if we *did* know in advance that they were there, that means 
we *intentionally* bombed them anyway!  wonderful!


<Does Friedman really want to punish each and every Serb?  And no mercy?>

this probably isn't the exact quote, but a few weeks into the war, he said 
something like, "two weeks of surgical strikes hasn't accomplished anything. 
  we need twelve weeks of less-than-surgical strikes.  give war a chance."


<After the war, steps were taken to purge both societies of Nazi and
Militarist elements, respectively.>

we've been all down this road before, but, this statement is incorrect, in 
the main.


<And there are plenty of *actively* guilty Serbs - Milosovic, anybody in his 
government, anybody that ever voted for him, the army, the police, the 
paramilitary units, any political party that will have anything to do with 
him, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Serbs who will not sell food to ethnic 
Albanians, etc. - the list is long.>

without agreeing or disagreeing with your conclusion, let me ask if you 
apply it to anybody that ever voted for clinton?  or any other american 
president from fdr on down, who were all war criminals?


<If the Europeans wish to claim that they live in a *truly* civilized part 
of the world,  then they must stop Milosovic - and he has been (and will 
only be) stopped by force.  And as the U.S. is part of NATO, we must help 
them.>

weird argument.  first, it's really not the responsibility of europeans to 
"stop milosevic".  it's falls under the un's purview, yes, but that's 
different.  besides, the united states expressly forbid the matter being 
taken up in the un.  but even if we accept your position that "europeans" 
must stop milosevic, since when does that mean *nato*?


<A postgrad in our department who is writing a PhD on Albania visited
Pristina in 1992. When he entered the Grand Hotel - the principal hotel in 
the whole of Kosovo - he noticed a sign which read "We do not serve dogs or 
ethnic Albanians".

This was in a province where 90% of the population were ethnic Albanians.>

right.  and who has the u.s. supported?  first milosevic.  and now the kla 
(which, near as i can tell, is pretty much analagous to hamas.)  thugs, in 
other words.
who have we *not* supported, *ever*?  the rugova government, which had been 
carrying on *effective* *non-violent* resistance to the milosevic regime 
since *1989*, and we *never once* gave them the time of day, even refusing 
to allow them to be seated at dayton, as we chose only to deal with 
milosevic.


<What is needed in Kosovo is an international force on the ground to
guarantee the human rights of all Kosovars regardless of race and religion.>

well, there was such a force there.  the osce monitors.  one can argue that 
it wasn't as effective as we would've liked.  but they're all gone now.


<I don't know whether high-altitude bombing is an effective way
of achieving this or not.>

mike, what are you saying?  90% of the ethnic albanians have been displaced! 
  800,000 in exile, last i heard!  milosevic's crackdown was a *direct* 
response to the bombing, and, *everyone* predicted this would be exactly the 
result of the bombing.  including wesley clark.  is milosevic to blame?  
yes, absolutely.  but so are we, if we *knew* (well, assumed, anyway) that 
this would be the result.


<We are in a situation where our *only* choices are to accept Milosevic's 
actions in Kosovo or attack Milosevic's regime>

um, here's another choice: negotiations!  we refused.  we issued an 
ultimatum at rambouillet, and that was that.  we rejected the un.  we broke 
international law (only the security council is allowed to authorize the use 
of force), we REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE.  yes, there was an offer from the 
serbian parliament on the table.  it more or less agreed to everything in 
rambouillet, EXCEPT allowing a nato force to patrol THE ENTIRETY of 
yugoslavia.  (the language is really pretty incredible, and i encourage 
everyone to read the thing.  just do a web search for "rambouillet 
agreement" or such like.)  they wanted it to be a un force.
and here's still another choice: do nothing!  that wouldn't be making the 
situation any better, but the situation now is MUCH MUCH MUCH worse, thanks 
to our "solution".


<It is *possible*, at least, that one atrocity will prevent an even greater 
atrocity.  Zinn completely ignores this possibility, not even giving it the 
attention necessary to deny it.>

theoretically it *is* possible, but, um, chris, have you been watching the 
news???


<For the past two months the Western media have been FILLED with stories and 
images of suffering caused by the bombing.  In fact the ratio of coverage to 
suffering in Serbia is probably far higher than the ratio of coverage to 
suffering in Kosovo>

hmmm, that's certainly hasn't been my impression.  i'll leave it at that.


<If one day NATO accidentally bombed a hospital, then the next day
*delibrately* bombed another hospital, would Zinn really think there was no 
important difference between the two attacks?>

won't speak for zinn, but i'm afraid i can't see much difference, if the 
"accident" was predictable, and if, as i mentioned above, our response to 
the "accident"s has been more of the same, only at greater intensity.


<But as I said above, we are in a situation where attacking Serbia is the 
only course of action that has even a *slight* chance of stopping the ethnic 
cleansing in Kosovo.>

chris, let me ask you if you *honestly* believe that?  you know, even if 
people (not the planners, who've established, on the record, that they never 
for a moment believed it) believed that to begin with, how could they now?


<We can either kill a unknown number of Serbian soldiers and civilians to 
possibly save most Kosovars, or we can sit back, do nothing, and guarantee 
that tens of thousands of Kosovars will be killed and the rest will never 
see their homes again.>

2,000 were killed last year.  which, horrible as it is, is preferable to 
what they're getting now.  and again, the rugova government *had been* 
effective.  the serb resistance to milosevic, which is now in a shambles, 
was gigantic.  there were monitors on the ground.
instead, serbia bombed completely to rubble, and all of the ethnic albanians 
out (or soon to be) of kosovo.  in other words, we accomplished milosevic's 
goals for him (the media is finally admitting this, even if the pentagon is 
not).


<It's a tragic situation any way you look at it, and there are no good
options, only choices between bad ones.>

true enough.  but we chose the *worst possible* option, and it was illegal 
and has been accompanied by major war crimes, to boot.
and let me just say that if some third party had gone in without un 
authorisation, and brought some semblance of justice to the region, then i 
probably would've been in favor of such an undertaking.  but can anybody in 
their right minds have *ever* believed that the u.s. would *ever* bring 
justice to *any* region in which it was meddling?  can anybody give *one* 
example of the u.s. having done so?  (actually, there's a lot more to say 
about u.s. culpability in the deterioration of justice in the region from 
the early '80's, but i won't subject you to it, except to note that we're 
really in no position whatever to claim any sort of moral high ground here.  
but *that* probably goes without saying, anyhow.)
and that's really the most important point for american citizens:  if we 
care about the people of kosovo, or the balkans generally (or any other 
region, for that matter), then the BEST thing we can do for them is to put 
all of our energy into getting the united states OUT of the region, 
entirely.

oh and jeme, democracy doesn't mean "majority rule", it means decision by 
*consensus*.

by the way, we're still bombing iraq every day.



http://leb.net/iac/
http://www.beograd.com

Who gets the benefit of this war?  The bondseekers, the capitalists, the 
railroads will profit by this war.  The new bonds give the basis for new 
banks and their power is prolonged.  The privileged classes all benefit by 
this war.  It takes the attention off economic issues and perpetuates the 
unjust system they have put upon us.  Politicians profit by the war.  It 
buries the issues they dare not meet.  What do the people get out of this 
war?  The fighting and the taxes.  What is the United States doing in this 
war in the first place?  True, Spain is oppressing Cuba.  But so is England 
oppressing Egypt, Ireland and India.  France is oppressing Siam and 
Madagascar.  Turkey is oppressing Armenia.  Should we then take up arms 
against all the oppressors of the world?  We would most likely end by 
becoming oppressors ourselves.  The Spaniards and Cubans were bushwhacking 
one another and killing from three to five men at a battle.  We have gone 
down there and killed more in three months than they have killed in 13 
years.  If they were starving before the war, who will feed them after the 
war?  What are we going to get out of this war as a nation?  Endless 
troubles, complications, expense.  Republics can not go into the conquering 
business and remain republics.  Militarism leads to military domination, to 
military despotism.  Imperialism smoothes the way for the emperor.
     --Tom Watson, Governor of Georgia, 1898




_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 15:17:22 -0700
From: Ethyl Ketone <meketone@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: howard, howard beware

At 2.14 PM -0700 5/26/99, Capitalism Blows wrote:
>where did this come from?  when have i *ever* said *one* good word about
>communism?  (although i'm sure you're aware that a very large majority of
>russians say they were a lot better off under communism than under the
>current yeltsin/imf dictatorship.)
>but even agreeing that communism sucks, that doesn't give us a right to go
>invading communist countries...
>
You are right Eddie. I stand corrected. Just that, living here in sunny
California, right next door to the Peoples Republic of Berkeley, I get
tired of hearing the continual whine: US = bad, Communism = good. So I
jumped to the conclusion that if you are anti-US, you are pro-communism.
Thanks for reminding me it is not so black and white.

And yes, alot of former soviets feel they were a lot better under
communism. At least under communism you got paid whether you worked or not,
you got a pension and housing was cheap because it was state owned. The
biggest problem in these countries is the lack of infastructure to start
any kind of working economy.  And the "elite" who were given the special
treatment under the former regime are now miserable just like everyone else
so there is a lot of anger at current governments.

But all the younger and/or entrepenurial people I have met in any former
communist country, from the Baltic to the Adriatic, want to know how to do
business.  Capitalism and Guns. That's what they want to talk about.

The funny thing about all of this is that 3 years ago, when I was in
Macedonia and Albania, the word was that Kosovo was going to "blow" any
minute. Everyone knew it. So why did we wait until 3 years later to start
peace negotiations??? And in 1990, when I first visited Romania, I was
advised not to go to Yugoslavia because it was a powderkeg on the verge of
civil war. Again, if I am hearing this on the street, NATO and the west
must have this info. So why, again, weren't negotiations started 2 years
before the war started???

I keep looking for the ulterior motives. The reasons the western
governments have to have these countries at each others throats.

Never trust the media. From any side.
OK, back to painting my kitchen.
- - Carrie

"Questions are a burden for others. Answers are a prison for oneself."
****************************************************************************
M.E.Ketone/C.Galbraith
meketone@ix.netcom.com
carrieg@blueplanetsoftware.com

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 15:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Capuchin <capuchin@teleport.com>
Subject: Democrassy.

On Wed, 26 May 1999, Capitalism Blows wrote:
> oh and jeme, democracy doesn't mean "majority rule", it means decision by 
> *consensus*.

What the FUCK planet do you live on, eddie?

I love you like a brother (better, in fact, considering how I feel about
my brothers), but you're loopy.

What do you think CONSENSUS means?  Consensus is reached by the agreement
of MOST or ALL.   And don't kid yourself into thinking you'll get the
agreement of all on anything EVER.

There will always be a person who does not agree to some rule set before
him.  For every law that restricts action there will be a person who
cherishes that right and will not permit infringment.

Unanimous rule exists only in anarchist states or very very small
populations.  So either we have no law (and just TRY getting social
programs or even worker's rights guaranteed in a society without law) or
tiny little tribes who cannot coordinate and cooperate because there will
always be dissidents.

So is democracy unanimous rule or majority rule, eddie?  Either it's
impotent or oppressive.
J.
- -- 
________________________________________________________

J A Brelin	<Capuchin@teleport.com>		Capuchin
________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 02:48:32 -0700
From: Joel Mullins <skmull@swbell.net>
Subject: goodfellas song

Hey, I need some help again.  What's that song in Goodfellas that's
playing in the bar scene when De Niro, Pesci, and Liotta beat the shit
out of that guy that ends up to be still alive in the trunk later?  You
all know what scene I'm talking about right?  The lyrics to the song are
something like:

"way down below the ocean
that's where I'm gonna be."

Anyway, I'd like to find out the name of the song and who sings it.

Thanks
Joel

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 09:06:33 +0000
From: overbury@cn.ca
Subject: Re: goodfellas song

I've never seen the movie, but the song is Donovan's "Atlantis".

> Hey, I need some help again.  What's that song in Goodfellas that's
> playing in the bar scene when De Niro, Pesci, and Liotta beat the shit out
> of that guy that ends up to be still alive in the trunk later?  You all
> know what scene I'm talking about right?  The lyrics to the song are
> something like:
> 
> "way down below the ocean
> that's where I'm gonna be."
> 
> Anyway, I'd like to find out the name of the song and who sings it.
> 
> Thanks
> Joel


- --
Ross Overbury
Montreal, Quebec, Canada

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 08:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Griffith Davies <hbrtv219@yahoo.com>
Subject: some RH news (very little)

From Allstar:
Peter Buck, Scott McCaughey Begin Work On New Minus 5
May 26, 1999, 1:40 pm PT

The Minus 5 -- a loose Seattle-based collaboration
consisting of Scott McCaughey (Young Fresh Fellows,
R.E.M. sideman) and whoever he has around at the time
- -- has begun work on their third full-length album in
several Seattle studios. 

This time around, McCaughey's project includes
R.E.M.'s Peter Buck, former Posie Ken Stringfellow,
ex-Presidents of the U.S.A. drummer Jason Finn,
Barrett Martin of the Screaming Trees, Jeff Tweedy
from Wilco, and Steve Berlin of Los Lobos, among
others. 

In addition to that star-studded gathering in Seattle,
former Mott the Hoople keyboardist Morgan Fisher is
recording his contributions from a Japanese studio,
Robyn Hitchcock is helping out from London, and
ex-Smithereens drummer Dennis Diken is laying down
some music from Hoboken, N.J. 

The working title of the new album is Let the War
Against Music Begin, and it's tentatively slated for a
January 2000 release on Malt/Hollywood Records. 

Meanwhile, McCaughey and Stringfellow will be hitting
the road with R.E.M. all summer. 

- -- Kevin Raub

I liked the last Minus 5 CD, "The Lonesome Death of
Buck McCoy".  Since it featured many of the same
musicians that performed on Mark Eitzel's "West" and
Tuatara's "Breaking the Ethers", "Lonsome Death..." is
a nice companion piece to this odd group of CDs.

Perhaps they can mount a similar tour.  When I saw
them, Tuatara opened, then Mark Eitzel got on stage
with Tuatara as his backing band for a few tracks. 
The band exited, leaving just Eitzel to perform by
himself for a few songs.  Then Tuatara came back on
stage, this time lead by Scott McCaughey (who had been
performing the whole night anyway), this time as the
Minus 5.  It was a great show, and it had no pauses,
the trasitions were seamless.  Maybe Robyn could hook
up with this machine and do some touring with them.

griffith

ps - doubtful that I am going to Largo next month

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 13:15:06 -0600
From: amadain <sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: goodfellas song

>"way down below the ocean
>that's where I'm gonna be."
>
>Anyway, I'd like to find out the name of the song and who sings it.

Donovan, "Atlantis".

I love the way he gets that catch in his throat when he says "Hail
Atlantis!". It fills me with glee :).

Be forewarned that I have the "Goodfellas" soundtrack and it IS NOT on
there (licensing issues?). It is also not on "Donovan's Greatest Hits".
AFAIK, it isn't on anything other than the album "Barabajagal" and probably
the recently issued two-disc set.

Love on ya,
Susan

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 15:21:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher Gross <chrisg@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>
Subject: Howard's End

On Wed, 26 May 1999, Capitalism Blows wrote:

> the truth is, i really don't have the time to get into this 

Who does?  For me, at least, half the fun of these debates is the feeling
that I'm playing hooky from my job!  Ne'ertheless, I too will endevor to
be brief (or at least non-encyclopedic).

> why aren't the same people making this point also making 
> the point that turkey's repression of the kurds (which was on a *much* 
> larger scale than serbian repression of ethnic albanians) needs to be 
> stopped?  why aren't they saying that the brutal occupations of east timor 
> and palestine need to be stopped?  the death squads in mexico and colombia?  
> for that matter, the repression of ethnic minorities in the united states?

This is a good question, in itself; but is it really relevant?  

> we initially said we'd take a few thousand refugees...and station 
> them at *guantanamo*!  

Actually, the Guantanamo thing made perfect sense.  Our goal is, ideally,
to get the Kosovars back to their own homes.  Putting them up in anything
but temporary accomodations would mean accepting them as permanent
refugees, thus undermining that goal.  (I'm glad they got upgraded to Ft.
Dix, though.)

> mike, what are you saying?  90% of the ethnic albanians have been displaced! 
>   800,000 in exile, last i heard!  milosevic's crackdown was a *direct* 
> response to the bombing, and, *everyone* predicted this would be exactly the 
> result of the bombing.  

The crackdown in Kosovo was not a "response" to the bombing.  It was FAR
too well planned and supported to have thrown together after the bombs
started falling.  Besides, the ethnic cleansing had already been going on
for quite some time, just in a slower, quieter fashion.  What the bombing
*is* responsible for is making the Serbs speed up their ethnic cleansing
campaign.  This most likely means that the Milosevic regime is rushing to
complete as much ethnic cleansing as possible before the bombing makes it
too costly to continue.  And that is a (tragically ironic) indication that
Milosevic himself thinks that bombing could stop him.

Nevertheless, bombing hasn't stopped him yet.  Therefore it has indeed
failed at its goal.  Nevertheless, the bombing *is* hurting the Serbs, and
I think there's still a chance that they will give in.  If we stop bombing
and don't invade, then there's no chance at all.

> <We are in a situation where our *only* choices are to accept Milosevic's 
> actions in Kosovo or attack Milosevic's regime>
> 
> um, here's another choice: negotiations!  we refused.  we issued an 
> ultimatum at rambouillet, and that was that.  

I don't accept this characterization of Rambouillet.  The NATO/Kosovar
reluctance to compromise may have seemed like an ultimatium, but you
should remember that they had already compromised a lot to get the Serbs
to Rambouillet in the first place!  In particular, the Kosovars had agreed
to drop their demand for immediate independence; since independence is
actually their main goal, this was a *huge* concession for them.  It was
Serbia that refused to make any real concessions (though some might think
they were right to do so).  

At any rate, I don't think negotiating is an option that we still have
left *now*; it's too late for that, whether it's Serbia's fault or ours.  
Now one side or the other will have to effectively concede defeat before
any more negotiations take place.

> yes, there was an offer from the 
> serbian parliament on the table.  it more or less agreed to everything in 
> rambouillet, EXCEPT allowing a nato force to patrol THE ENTIRETY of 
> yugoslavia.  

Are you sure about this?  I don't remember any NATO demand to occupy "the
entirety of Yugoslavia."  Maybe I'm wrong.  Anyway, the Serbs definitely
refused to accept any NATO force in *Kosovo itself*, not just in the whole
country. The biggest concession they ever made was floating the
possibility (not even a definite offer) to accept an international force
provided no NATO countries were involved; and IIRC even that came only
after the bombing started.

(Personally, I think a reasonable compromise would be a UN force that
included *both* NATO nations and Serbia's allies Russia and Greece.  I
doubt either NATO or Serbia would agree to that, though; and anyway, who
would rely on the UN's protection after Srebrenica?)

> and here's still another choice: do nothing!  that wouldn't be making the 
> situation any better, but the situation now is MUCH MUCH MUCH worse, thanks 
> to our "solution".

Well, I did say doing nothing was an option.  It's an option that sticks
in my craw, though.  But you're right, it is the only real option other
than war; and I'm glad that you, unlike Zinn, have the honesty to openly
choose that option.  I respect that, though I disagree with it.

> <It is *possible*, at least, that one atrocity will prevent an even greater 
> atrocity.  Zinn completely ignores this possibility, not even giving it the 
> attention necessary to deny it.>
> 
> theoretically it *is* possible, but, um, chris, have you been watching the 
> news???

I don't think it's *likely*, just possible.  (Thought I made that clear.)

> <But as I said above, we are in a situation where attacking Serbia is the 
> only course of action that has even a *slight* chance of stopping the ethnic 
> cleansing in Kosovo.>
> 
> chris, let me ask you if you *honestly* believe that?  you know, even if 
> people (not the planners, who've established, on the record, that they never 
> for a moment believed it) believed that to begin with, how could they now?

Well, let me put it this way: continuing the war against Serbia can no
longer achieve its original goal (stopping the ethnic cleansing), but it
still has a chance of forcing the Serbs to stop before all of Kosovo is
"cleansed," to accept an international occupation force in Kosovo, and to
destroy a lot of Serbia's military power so they can no longer undertake
aggressive operations (call me ruthless, but I think this is an important
goal).  On the other hand, if we just pack up our bombs and go home, there
is no chance at all of achieving any of this.

> 2,000 were killed last year.  which, horrible as it is, is preferable to 
> what they're getting now.  and again, the rugova government *had been* 
> effective.  the serb resistance to milosevic, which is now in a shambles, 
> was gigantic.  there were monitors on the ground.

The Serb resistance to Milosevic was already in a shambles months before
the bombings. (It was always an unstable semi-alliance of true democrats,
pragmatic nationalists who wanted an end to the wars, and extreme
nationalists who wanted to replace Milosevic but had no quarrel with war
and ethnic cleansing.)  Admittedly, the bombings have made that shambles
even more shambolic.  As for the monitors in Kosovo, they were only a
minor impediment to Milosevic's actions there.

> instead, serbia bombed completely to rubble, and all of the ethnic albanians 
> out (or soon to be) of kosovo.  in other words, we accomplished milosevic's 
> goals for him (the media is finally admitting this, even if the pentagon is 
> not).

We've failed to stop Milosevic, that's clear to everyone.  But are you
saying that he would not have succeeded if the bombings hadn't helped him?  
I don't buy that.  The Serbs were going to ethnically cleanse Kosovo no
matter what.  If NATO had not have attacked, just as many Kosovars would
have been killed and expelled (though more slowly).  The main difference
would be that neither Milosevic nor Serbia would have suffered for their
actions.  Oh, and one other difference: instead of condemning NATO's
warmongering, people would now be condemning NATO's tacit acceptance of
the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo.


- --Chris

ps: Sleater-Kinney tonight!  Woohoo!

______________________________________________________________________
Christopher Gross             On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
chrisg@gwu.edu

------------------------------

End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #192
*******************************