Re: Kosovo

Dear Majid,

Although I find myself very much in your line of thinking, and i see all
your points about the reasons for the war in Kososvo, I must disagree.

Yes, war has mostly second meanings, and no, nobody should take the
humanitarian/moral motivations of NATO to seriously.

But although past actions (2nd Gulfwar) or even refraining from actions
(Kurdistan, etc.) had very clear geopolitical, economical and racial
meanings and reasons, this time i fear that there is no superiority of Nato
over it's own actions.

Looking back at the process of negotiations, at the reluctance to act, at
the fear to get involved, and at the seriousness of the situation in Kosovo,
it seems that NATO has involved itself in a 'humanitarian' action it never
desired. Nato does not want war with Serbia, because this theoretically
brings us to the brink of a 3rd world war. But as soon as Nato started
talking tough, it got involved in a dynamics that would bring only losers.

The longer Nato waited to intervene, the tougher the situation got, and the
more face would they loose by not intervening. But, at the same time, the
longer the intervention was postponed, the worse where the results of this
passiveness. And, finally, and most cinically, the longer Nato refrained
from intervening, the worse would be the results of intervention.

This war today knows only losers, and is for me the maximum prove of the
worthlessness of the rationale of hate that we built our societys on.

cheers,

c.