>Sorry to seem sceptical Ken, but unless
>you know this person or have some way of
>verifying who it is, I am.  I'm watching the
>reports on the BBC, they are outright sceptical about
>the bombing and it's usefulness.  They are specifically
>asking every refugee that leaves Kosovo "Are you leaving
>because of the bombing or because of the Serbs?"  So
>far the answers have been 100% "because of the Serbs."  The refugees
>seem to be behind NATO and their actions.  The BBC
>has been criticized by the British government for
>their stance regarding the bombing.  If indeed this
>post is from a personal friend, I'll take it all back,
>but in my opinion the Serbs are fighting a fairly dirty
>war on all fronts, including the Internet.

Thanks Bill. A number of people have,
quite rightly, raised this point. 

It's very possible there was a propagandistic
element to the report. I should have prefaced the post
with a disclaimer. Then again, I'd like to 
see such disclaimers posted on Pentagon, NATO,
and IMF reports too.

Anyway, the post was offered as an example of
a voice most people are unlikely to hear.
Clearly, I can't verify all the details.
However, when one bombs populated areas,
innocent people are often killed and injured
and the US military/press corps has
already demonstrated their ability to censor this
news pretty much entirely no matter how
gruesome it is (ex. Iraq, Panama etc.) 

That being said, I note that today's New York Times
confirms *some* of what this individual posted
to the Net several days ago: factories *were* 
targeted and the enmity between the two sides has 
been increased exponentially since the NATO 
bombing started. 

Also, according to the Times, Belgrade and downtown 
government offices are going to become *official*
targets. How do you bomb a downtown area without harming
innocent people? "Smart bombs" that can do such
things don't exist, regardless of what
Pentagon press briefings say. 

Rural Albanians no doubt fear the Serbs more
than the aerial bombing, but that's not a 
recommendation for bombing Belgrade. 

==========================================
Note 5/15/99: "The preceding paragraph is an
example of our being taken in by NATO propaganda.
We corrected this later by filing numerous reports
from a variety of sources that demonstrate most
Albanians and others fled to avoid being caught
in the NATO war zone, not out of fear of "Serbs."
==========================================
  
The whole thing is an ugly mess, but according to 
at least one analyst, Michel Chossudovsky, who has
been covering the  Balkans for two decades, today's
horrors were predictable ten years ago and the "democratic
alliance" has done nothing but add fuel to the
fire at every  opportunity. 

At the time of violent, unlawful interventions
like these whether they are in Yugoslavia,
Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Central America, or any
one of dozens of other places, there is
*always* a perfectly plausible cover story
presented that seems to make our actions
both necessary and morally correct.

Years later, when the truth ultimately 
comes out, the enormous human suffering 
created is shrugged off - if it is even 
acknowledged at all. 

The Balkans have socialist leanings,
educational and engineering sophistication,
and oil under their ground. *Every* region
with a similar profile, that is not in nothern
Europe, has been the subject of US violence
(either overt or covert) for one reason or 
another. Can anyone believe this is a coincidence?

We can get caught up in the fireworks of the moment
or we can ask "who is behind the scenes lighting the fuse?"
The coincidence of every region that attempts a
degree of economic independence from the
"free" market "spontaneously" self-combusting
- one after another - leads me to reject
the premise of the US/NATO invasion* and ask 
pointed and skeptical questions.

* It's illegal for US troops to engage in
combat without a formal declaration of
law. It would be nice to see that law
enforced. But that too is not even a
subject of discussion any more. 

Former US state department official William 
Blum has written the textbook on US interventions
around the world: "Killing Hope: US Military
and CIA Interventions since World War II"

Instead of reading the latest propaganda from
the latest blow up, step back and look at
the pattern. It's quite unmistakable.

Consider the trillions of dollars the 
interlocked oil, arms, banking,and
industrial cartels have at stake in an "orderly"
pattern of global economic development. Is it
plausible that these entities, which control the 
US news media and government, would chose to
take a passive  "live and let live" approach to
who is allowed to develop and how? 

Remember the $100,000,000 "chemical weapons" plant
in Sudan we destroyed not too long ago? Even
the NYT and the WashPost had to give up the effort
of propping up that lie. That was the only indigenously
owned pharmaceutical plant in the entire region.
The suffering and economic consequences of that act 
of state sponsored terrorism was never even news
which speaks volumes about the "humanitarian" motives
behind bombing the Balkans.  

This action and others like it can be explained by one motivation:
The "western democracies" are clearing the ground
to make sure that its client states remain sources of cheap
raw materials and markets for expensive finished goods. 

It's same reason the British Empire used violence
to try to retain the American colonies. Nothing's
changed except that our country has, disgracefully,
become the one wielding the club.