open Democracy News Analysis - Milosevic the Hero?, - Comments

MrSteve on "Milosevic the Hero?"

MrSteve — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 13:00:53 +0100

I am not quite sure how to respond to that. You are trying to tie my feelings of being a world citizen with the actions of Victorian Britain. Very odd. Try not to confuse individuals with the actions of their countries, especially when those actions predate their birth by a century. I never voted for Disraeli you know :)

jayfromtexas on "Milosevic the Hero?"

jayfromtexas — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 21:58:25 +0100

MrSteve, I admire your cosmopolitan egalitarianism. However, when your nation had the chance to employ it, you instead chose to enslave the world. If you had power again, you would undoubtedly do the same. Your self-righteousness makes you a fraud. Europeans can never be trusted with any real power.

MrSteve on "Milosevic the Hero?"

MrSteve — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 21:41:20 +0100

Perhaps the idea of being a "World Citizen" should be promoted over and above localized patriotism. The idea that "they" are worth less than us is an enabler for war in the first place. I have come to consider myself a world citizen and view my Britishness just as an accident of birth.

Matt Murrell on "Milosevic the Hero?"

Matt Murrell — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 19:55:16 +0100

I think it's one of those issues where emotion will always trump rational argument. In theory the protection of civilians should be put first. However, it would ultimately come to down to whether one of them, the faceless and the foreign, should be protected at the expense of one of us, one of our sons and daughters... The tabloids would have a field day if our troops were put in "unnecessary" risk. The chances that they'd be deployed when they were really needed would decrease significantly as well. It's a tough issue.

MrSteve on "Milosevic the Hero?"

MrSteve — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 19:46:37 +0100

...the general public would agree that the safety of our people should come first They probably would but that idea really needs challenging, especially since the people we would be putting at risk are soldiers rather than civilians.

Matt Murrell on "Milosevic the Hero?"

Matt Murrell — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:57:45 +0100

Rather like with the issue of "detaining" suspected terrorists - they always say they can't release the evidence as it would compromise our intelligence services. Taking any politician's word for something is never really advisable. Yes, this bothers me a lot and no-one ever mentions it, certainly not the media. It's a difficult point to argue. I think if push came to shove the general public would agree that the safety of our people should come first, so the media's really on a hiding to nothing if they push the point too far.

MrSteve on "Milosevic the Hero?"

MrSteve — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:46:58 +0100

The standard trick is to say that you have evidence but its so incredibly sensitive you can't release it. ..which is why they pursued the far more dangerous (for civilians) policy of aerial bombardment. Yes, this bothers me a lot and no-one ever mentions it, certainly not the media. The decision to minimise military casualties at the cost of maximising civilian casualties is taken all of the time in Iraq (and other conflicts).

Matt Murrell on "Milosevic the Hero?"

Matt Murrell — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:11:17 +0100

Steve, I think we're broadly in agreement. The handling of the Kosovo campaign has been highly criticised, and rightly so in my opinion. As far as I understand it (and my knowledge is quite sketchy - John Kampfner's 'Blair's Wars' is my main source) there were reasonable grounds for the international community to step in. Human Rights reports show that ethnic cleansing was going on - though nowhere near the scale claimed. Emphasis on the important of NATO is seen as one of the main reasons for going to war. A number of people were starting to question the need for the organisation, Kosovo was seen as a way of demonstrating its relevance. Europe, led by our very own Blair, relied on US forces as always. However, the Clinton administration were reluctant to commit ground forces, as American causalities in war in deep, dank corner of Europe would have been a PR nightmare, which is why they pursued the far more dangerous (for civilians) policy of aerial bombardment. Without access to the relevant documents, its always difficult to judge the decisions made by our politicians (other than whether they chime with general opinion). On how they handle situations, especially when a wealth of expert opinion is available, I think we're in a far better position to judge.

MrSteve on "Milosevic the Hero?"

MrSteve — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:54:16 +0100

Ahhhh... I might just have had a moment of clarity. Are you arguing that it wasn't justified on the premises given, as opposed to not being justified on any terms - which is a far more wide-ranging and philosophical issue? The premises given was "prevention of ethnic cleansing". 1. I do not believe they thought there was any large scale genocidal/ethnic cleansing activities going on. 2. If there was, a large part of their bombing campaign was still unjustified, i.e. TV stations, factories etc etc. Can I say for certain that bombing TV stations is unjustified on any terms? Tricky...but I would say no. A TV station most likely contains civilians. This is the sort of analysis you need to attack the statements of politicians, but they never pursue such things. Dimbleby just moves on to the next topic.

Matt Murrell on "Milosevic the Hero?"

Matt Murrell — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:42:13 +0100

Steve, It came about because I had trouble getting a email address with my full name I know the problem. The question then remains whether they really believed genocide to be taking place at the time. Ahhhh... I might just have had a moment of clarity. Are you arguing that it wasn't justified on the premises given, as opposed to not being justified on any terms - which is a far more wide-ranging and philosophical issue? I may have been reading more into your original statement than was intended. Which brings us back to the issue of confusing terms.

MrSteve on "Milosevic the Hero?"

MrSteve — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:23:03 +0100

Steve, (Is that your first or second name? Apologies if I'm not addressing you properly...) Actually its my first. It came about because I had trouble getting a email address with my full name. For example, when you stated that the bombing of Kosovo was unjustified, do you mean that people shouldn't have supported it in the first place, or that on consideration of the consequences they can't support it now? Aha, a causality issue. Clearly in retrospect it was unjustified since there was no genocide. The question then remains whether they really believed genocide to be taking place at the time. They knew the KLA was killing serbs and that serbs were killing Albanian Kosovans. It was clearly much more of a mini civil war situation with two sides. Also, based on recent deceptions, I would say no, they did not really believe it. Even if they did, bombing TV stations would not have saved Kosovans. I suppose some might argue that bombing the TV station would remove the propaganda so that the Serbian people could rise up and overthrow Milosevic. But I think it is fairly obvious that bombing the civilians would make NATO the enemy, not Milosevic.

Matt Murrell on "Milosevic the Hero?"

Matt Murrell — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 13:57:39 +0100

Steve, (Is that your first or second name? Apologies if I'm not addressing you properly...) Are you trying to point out that "reasonable" is subjective? To be honest, I'm trying to figure out my own position, rather than putting forward a truly coherent argument. I do think, however, that a lot of us use short-hand terms like "justified" without having a really concrete definition of it. A number of the arguments here seem to spring from the fact that we can use these terms differently. Our language can also be a little loose. For example, when you stated that the bombing of Kosovo was unjustified, do you mean that people shouldn't have supported it in the first place, or that on consideration of the consequences they can't support it now?

MrSteve on "Milosevic the Hero?"

MrSteve — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 04:32:05 +0100

I realise this could seem annoying, but I'm going to ask you to define "reasonable"... Are you trying to point out that "reasonable" is subjective? Possibly. Then again, you could just ask the following question. Did it save more lives than it took? I don't think the answer is yes. The bombing killed a fair few civilians (16 in the TV station bombing alone) and made the situation worse.

Matt Murrell on "Milosevic the Hero?"

Matt Murrell — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:04:40 +0000

I realise this could seem annoying, but I'm going to ask you to define "reasonable"...

MrSteve on "Milosevic the Hero?"

MrSteve — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:03:22 +0000

Could you define: "justified"? To me Justified = "A reasonable response given the situation. "

Milosevic the Hero?,

MrSteve — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:16:55 +0000

I was quite surprised at the top-rated postings on BBC have your say. (Granted we can't trust them because of their insistance of censoring things, but even so...) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2E9429CC I thought it was reasonably clear that he was a war criminal, and that was that. I am now not so sure. I have largely just accepted the western media view, and a lot of people seem to have contrary views. I need to have a read! Here are the top 3 rated posts. Added: Saturday, 11 March, 2006, 14:13 GMT 14:13 UK The biggest war criminal of the former Yugoslavia was not Milosevic, but Izetbegovic. It is Izetbegovic who invited Al-Qaeda/islamic terrorists to the region in the early 1990's to start a campaign of terror against non muslims. And all the western leaders fell for the Bosnian muslims playing the role of the victims to perfection. Read the rest of this post...
read more