Page 4 of 5

Movement: Independence for Kosovo

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:01 pm
by kebabdylan_Archive
the kind of justifications that the clinton admin gave for bombing serbia were about as ridiculous and misleading as the bush admin's for iraq. Big difference is that the fallout of the unprovoked and unjust war was not as great and americans didn't get killed.

Movement: Independence for Kosovo

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:01 pm
by clocker bob_Archive
Michael Parenti has more integrity in one sweaty sock than you do, Wood Goblin. If you can't concede that 'exaggeration' was employed by US officials to sell that war, then you are a hopeless dicksucker for the warmongers.

Movement: Independence for Kosovo

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:06 pm
by kebabdylan_Archive
are the two of you going through a break up or something? Seriously, why the name calling?

I'm bowing out of this one now...

Movement: Independence for Kosovo

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:08 pm
by Wood Goblin_Archive
clocker bob wrote:Michael Parenti has more integrity in one sweaty sock than you do, Wood Goblin. If you can't concede that 'exaggeration' was employed by US officials to sell that war, then you are a hopeless dicksucker for the warmongers.


I hope to one day have as much integrity as he does. Perhaps I'll start using Robert Mugabe's state-run media as a souce of how great life is in Zimbabwe. Would that help? It will be in my new book, Don't Believe the Lies That the BBC, Amnesty International, or Human Rights Watch Tell about the Worker's Paradise That Is Zimbabwe! I don't believe Parenti has covered the awesomeness of Zimbabwe yet (or the US's refusal to acknowledge it), so I could beat him at his own game!

Movement: Independence for Kosovo

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:17 pm
by clocker bob_Archive
And time for a thread review for the liar Wood Goblin, who invents a different argument to take the place of the argument he has lost.
clocker bob's first post to the thread ( related to kosovo ) wrote: The Serbs have gotten a raw deal in the US media. The war crimes were exaggerated, the 'tyranny' of Milosevic was grossly exaggerated, the mass graves in Kosovo were exaggerated.


Operative word: Exaggerated. I hope I don't have to define that again.

WG's first reply wrote: What utter shit this is.


Operative word: Shit. As in- there was no exaggeration.
CB's second reply wrote:Don't put words in my mouth.

The sizes of the mass graves were exaggerated. The war crimes of Milosevic were exaggerated. I understand that 'exaggerated' means 'to enlarge beyond truth'- do you understand the word 'exaggerated' to mean that I am saying that the Serbs had clean hands? When you react to words that are not there, you look like a kneejerk apologist.

WG claims that I used a bad source, when the US officials words are on the record wrote: Clever--quote an article that lists ridiculous numbers of dead civilians (100,000-200,000) and then claim victory when the actual number of dead falls short of that.

CB wrote:Thus, a week before the bombings began, David Scheffer, U.S. State Department ambassador at large for war crime issues, announced that "we have upwards of about 100,000 [ethnic Albanian] men that we cannot account for" in Kosovo. A month later, the State Department claimed that up to 500,000 Kosovo Albanians were missing and feared dead. By mid-May U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen stated that 100,000 military-aged men had vanished and might have been killed by the Serbs. Not long after-as public support for the war began to wane-Ambassador Scheffer escalated the 100,000 figure to "as many as 225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59" who remained unaccounted. He considered this to be one of the greatest genocidal crimes against a civilian population. Indeed it was, if true.


Desperate back- pedaler Wood Goblin skims right past the Cohen comment and says that all he read was reports of missing men. How disingenuous can he get?
WG wrote:Fine, some US officials overestimated the number of missing Kosovars--of course, I'll also note that half of those quotes say than the Albanian men "are unaccounted for," which doesn't mean "are dead" last time I checked.

Very disingenuous, apparently.
WG wrote:Did they find 200,000 bodies? No, of course not, but that was a shitty estimate to begin with. (No, I don't particularly care who made that estimate.)"


That about says it all. Wood Goblin won't concede that US officials exaggerated the casualties in Kosovo. He'd rather foam at the mouth about Michael Parenti- Michael Parenti reported the US officials' words, you lying apologist! Dispute those words as not being examples of exaggeration!

Movement: Independence for Kosovo

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:20 pm
by clocker bob_Archive
Wood Goblin wrote: I hope to one day have as much integrity as he does.


Me too. You never will, as long as you refuse to see the promotion of that bombing campaign as full of exaggerations.

Movement: Independence for Kosovo

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:21 pm
by Wood Goblin_Archive
Fine, I'll concede that some US officials overstated the number of dead/disappeared in Kosovo. Yes, that was wrong of them to do. I will NOT say that they exaggerated the number, because that attributes intention that neither of us can prove exists. For example, there are many estimates as to the number of civilians to have died in Iraq. If somebody uses the highest estimate of dead, it does not mean that they're necessarily trying to mislead others.

But you also put "tyrant" in quotes, so I'm not the only one who should be admitting a mistake here. Dude was a tyrant, no irony quotes, no waffles.

Movement: Independence for Kosovo

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:22 pm
by clocker bob_Archive
kebabdylan wrote:are the two of you going through a break up or something? Seriously, why the name calling?

I'm bowing out of this one now...


Don't bow out, you're adding a lot to the thread. I'm surprised Wood Goblin hasn't gotten around to calling you 'utter shit' also.

Movement: Independence for Kosovo

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:41 pm
by clocker bob_Archive
Wood Goblin wrote: But you also put "tyrant" in quotes, so I'm not the only one who should be admitting a mistake here. Dude was a tyrant, no irony quotes, no waffles.


I will not admit a mistake, because the definition of tyranny is a matter of opinion, unlike the hard numbers of mass deaths that I called exaggerated and you called a simple clerical error or some innocuous term.
Serbia and Yugoslavia under Milsoevic do not fit my criteria for a tyranny. I'm not alone on this.
In her book Fool's Crusade Paris-based journalist Diana Johnstone contends that Milošević's actions during the conflict in the Balkans were no worse than the crimes of the Croats or the Bosnian Muslims, asserting also that the massacre in Srebrenica has been exaggerated. Johnstone's intellectual independence has, however, been called into question by claims that she is a long-standing friend of Milošević's widow, Mirjana Marković, and thus biased in such judgments. There is no evidence to support this and Johnstone says she has never met Marković in her life.

Political scientist Edward Herman endorsed Johnstone's findings in his review of Fool's Crusade in the Monthly Review [10].

In another book, The New Military Humanism, Noam Chomsky, who at times writes collaboratively with Herman, disagrees with Johnstone's views on Milošević, the Serbs, and Srebrenica in particular. Whilst Chomsky believes that the massacres at Srebrenica did occur, he does not believe that Milošević was involved in it, pointing to the Dutch report that claimed that he was horrified to hear of it.[12] He has described Milošević as a "terrible person", but still believes that he was not a dictator and that his crimes have been exaggerated whilst the crimes of the C.I.A.-backed KLA have been ignored.[13] In a 1999 interview, Chomsky sparked controversy with his view that to call the deaths in Kosovo a "genocide" was "an insult to the victims of Hitler".[14]


In my view, a tyranny must have a dictator who is widely unpopular with his own people. I don't believe that Milosevic was ever more widely hated by Serbs than the imperialist powers acting to crush them were hated by the Serbs, so in that regard, Milosevic was a popular leader. He appeared to me to be a standard issue war president, and not even close to a war criminal. If Harry Truman was the leader of a country that could have been turned on by the world community and not the US president, he would have been far more deserving of punishment for war crimes than Milosevic, for either Hiroshima or Nagasaki, never mind both together in a month.

Movement: Independence for Kosovo

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:04 pm
by Wood Goblin_Archive
I'm not kidding when I write this: after taking a few minutes to reflect on the matter, I realized that I had overreacted in my initial posts, and that I should have just waited a bit to post and to chill out.

And then I thought to myself, "Besides, it's not as if he quoted Diane Johnstone."

When I have a chance tomorrow, I'll find my friend's review of her books. You're citing apologists for a tyrannical regime. And I'll also add that Milosevic doesn't even meet your definition of tyrant: he wasn't the leader of Serbia before this crisis started; he was the leader of Yugoslavia. So yes, he proved to be quite unpopular.