Does this quote show that you are genuinely open to discussion on this issue?
"The impartiality of his "history" writings must also be called into question by his political position in opposition to the 1999 action."
I'm also opposed to the 1999 action in Kosovo. I have no idea why that disqualifies me from offering evidence that you asked for. Nor does it make me a Milosevic apologist. I suggest we stick closer to the discussions at hand rather than trying to brand each other with political labels and smears in some ideological battle that frankly I don't have the time for.
I made it clear that there were two groups opposed to the 1999 NATO action. One was clearly on the Serb side either out of a personal connection or from sympathy for the Serb cause. The diary makes it clear that there are national/ethnic myths that pervade Serbian politics and which Milosevic played on. The other group were those who one might expect to be opposed to any military action either because of religious belief (Quakers for example) or other pacifist views which could include scepticism about the official line to persuade the US body politic to support the action. Given the lies about Iraq from Bush, this scepticism can seem justified however Bush's deceit does not make Clinton's case invalid. After the experience of a UN force with a limited mandate being unable to stop the massacres in Bosnia, there was overwhelming support in the rest of Europe for far more robust terms of engagement in Kosovo. The USA had to be virtually dragged into acting. Anybody like a historian who is interpreting primary sources has to be viewed critically. I for one would question David Irving, a well known English historian, when he was commenting on the Holocaust or writing a history of WWII.
The main body of this diary gives as neutral a history of the region as is possible. Bringing in comments clearly affected by the propaganda of one side without critically examining it, as you did with your theory of why the Serbs became a minority in Kosovo, had to be challenged.
Serbs do appear to have a national self image of an oppressed group against who all others plot. You only have to look at the debacle of the country's entry into the Eurovision Song Contest this year to see it made manifest and sooner or later you will be claiming the referendum later this year which is likely to result in the independence of Montenegro was the result of a plot by the west against Serbia - but that no doubt will form part of the next diary.
Now I presume from your comments you fall into the second group of protestors I identified. Choussodosky is clearly approaching the situation with pre-formed opinions. You make very extensive references to his works whenever you comment on the Balkans. The article I quoted, which I will remind you HE has re-published on his web site this week, shows clear sympathy for Milosevic (note his criticism of the "demonisation of" ) If you are going to comment adversely on the motives of one side, I think it essential that you do so by using a neutral or unbiased commentator. Choussodosky clearly is not and unfortuantely I have not been able to find further details of his family history as he is merely described as "Canadian". Were, for example, his family to have emigrated from the Balkans and carried the Serb national myths with them, one would find a reason behind his obvious sympathies. His whole body of work on the Balkans seems one sided (or you have quoted selectively from his work to support that side and I have not found any "balancing" commentaries on his site from him)
You erect straw man after straw man in your argument. Critiquing American politicians according to who funds them may be a fun passtime, but it gets this conversation nowhere. Be specific. How is Jack Kemp's comment about Western financial involvement in Yugoslavia subverted by his campaign contributions? Who is funding Kemp's apparent "pro-Yugoslavian" views? All American politicians take money Does that mean you should just ignore absolutely everything they say?
Second, you describe those who oppose the West's actions in Kosovo as either Serbian nationalist sympathizers or Quaker pacifists or skeptics? Does this seem like an honest argument to you? I have no idea why you brought Bush's Iraq into this. Seems to me Albright's actions on their face are repugnant enough. I don't care for politicans who squelch already agreed to peace plans and then watch smugly as thousands die.
Third, the USA had to be dragged into acting? Um, it was France and Germany who frowned on Albright's exploits in Rambouillet (quite rightly!). It was Albright who screeched at Colin Powell, "What good is your army?" It was the US who pressed the war, while France (the peace conference's host) clearly thought a peace offer had been made. You need to revise your opinion on this.
David Irving? What? What? What?
Fourth, then you write this drivel: "Bringing in comments clearly affected by the propaganda of one side without critically examining it, as you did with your theory of why the Serbs became a minority in Kosovo, had to be challenged."
What is my theory of why the Serbs became a minority in Kosovo, again? Where did you challenge the professor? All I see is that you engaged in character assassination. You didn't challenge anything one bit.
As for the rest, Eurovision or what nonsense you write, I see you have trouble sticking to the specific arguments at hand, and most of your retort constitutes an attempt to smear me with any boogeyman you have at hand, AIPAC and David Irving and some sportscaster I never heard of. Frankly, this is all beneath me, and it's the end of my participation in this discussion with you.
I tried to talk specifics, this is my third attempt to generously offer a way of getting to the bottom of things, and all I get are vilifications.
I don't have the time.
You can have the final word.
I lifted part of the Wikipedia entry for Jack Kemp simply because it shows that he has a record of being a right wing Republican who is against organisations like the IMF and World Bank for purely ideological reasons. The independence and validity of his expressed opinions can certainly be called into guestion when you examine the piece I quoted on the Israeli security wall which are bizarre to say the least and can only be the line fed to him by the Israeli government as it is challenged by many Israelis, let alone virtually every government outside of Israel and the USA.
You will also note that I linked to those items I quoted. I asked you for a link to the Jack Kemp letter you quoted and you still fail to do so which means the extracts you print cannot be put in context. The link you did give goes to an article by Michel Chossudovsky. My obsevervation of his own reposting of a 1999 article he wrote which justifies Milosevic's action at a time when the Serb Socialists are trying to create a martyr myth around the murderer is highly indicative that Chossudovsky is a massacre justified, if not denyer.
