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.
