To: Patrick E.McDaniel who wrote (1 ) 4/17/1999 2:38:00 PM From: Alan Whirlwind Respond to of 17770
Patrick, It probably does seem odd that so many otherwise hawks are down on this Balkan intervention. Here are some reasons that might help others understand this viewpoint. 1. The Serbs took Nazi bayonets in WWII to safeguard our downed fliers. In one case villagers watched the Germans burn their homes, some with people inside, and yet refused to turn over US fliers to the Axis. 500 of these fliers published a letter of solidarity with the Serbian people after Clinton started the bombing. Bombing these people indiscriminantly (trains, bus stations, playgrounds, etc) is a sorry way to pay them back. 2. This is a European problem. Why don't they take care of their own dirty business? The powers over there have plenty of arms to handle Milosevic. 3. We did not bomb when the Croates forced out the Serbs (500,000). In some cases Serbs were lined up and shot. Milosevic being an aggressor (if one can even sort this whole situation out and pigeonhole to this extent) does not excuse murder and "ethnic cleansing" on the part of Croatia. 4. Our bombs are killing hundreds of civilians and have actually made the refugee problem worse. To deny this is to accede to the desperate sort of propaganda now trying to keep this thing going. 5. There is no end in sight. The Serbs have hundreds of miles of tunnels honeycombing their mountains, some A-bomb proof, well stocked with arms and provisions, courtesy Tito who feared attack from both East and West. Milosevic could disband 2/3 of his army to plainclothes and send the rest to the mountains. Both groups could fight guerrilla war Central American style, only with better hardware to do it with. Thus even occupying the country would have a continuing high cost. 6. I agree that someone should start stopping these things at some point. But we are interfering in the internal affairs of another country. Should Europe have shelled and destroyed all of our ports during the Trail of Tears or when Sherman was marching to the sea? A better approach would have been to send diplomats from all over the world to Serbia to negotiate. Remember, the Serbs were willing to sign the Rambouillet Accords with the stipulation that no NATO troops be stationed on their soil. This was not asking too much and if they failed to live up to the signing, we always could have bombed later if we found it so necessary. 7. One might find the whole exercise suspect. The same yuppie liberals who coddled the Soviets while they killed a million Afghans and sent 5 million refugees fleeing the country, (1979 to 1989) and later allowed 1-2 million Ruwandans to die in mass murders that a few pistol shots could have stopped now want to work everyone up about Kosovo. I don't trust their motives given such inconsistancies. 8. Clinton bragged about his big tax surplus, which was really a Social Security trust fund surplus (of 10 billion) and now wants 9 billion to finance the war. Some of this money will come from funds which otherwise would have been set aside to help victims of Hurricane Mitch who still face disease and death from lack of clean water. Peter is being robbed to pay Paul. 9. Sure, Serbia did revoke the autonomy in the region of Kosovo, but it was in reaction to the smaller Serb population being harrassed and persecuted there. All parties involved here have soiled hands. And now my tax money is used to soil mine. 10. I'm not saying opinions favoring the present involvement aren't valid and humanitarian. I just don't trust anyone running this show anymore. --Alan