Saturday, March 11, 2006

Good Riddance

Slobodan Milosevic found dead in cell.

There isn't much more to say here.

Environmental Republican: Say hello to Stalin and Hitler in hell, Slobo. Unfortunately his victims that survived didn't get to see him convicted but they did see his crimes exposed to the world.

Don Surber: He had no weapons of mass destruction. He posed no threat to the United States. He had no connection to al-Qaeda. Still, I am glad the United States and a Coalition of the Willing removed Slobodan Milosevic from power in the 1990s. He butchered thousands of his own people. Now he is dead and I pray the Lord forgives me for my glee. [Comment: If God - in theory, at least - could forgive Slobo's murderous actions, surely He'll forgive our emotionally founded reactions to this tyrant's corporeal end.]

Joe Gandelman: Yes: his highly publicized defiance to the end, and the seeming impotence of the Hague and the United Nations during the trial, mean that he will likely become an inspiration to some. And, given his lawyers' comments, unless the autopsy is definitive look for a slew of conspiracy theories to emerge surrounding his death. [Comment: Chalk up another achievement for the United Nations. (/snark)]

Captain Ed: Milosevic's death cheated the Hague, which had hoped to finally convict the former leader of Yugoslavia of various war crimes. The numerous delays in the trial, which had just "celebrated" its fourth year in progress, had been prompted by suspicious health complaints. It looks like either Milosevic and his doctors told the truth, or perhaps the lies just caught up with him.

2 Comments:

Blogger His Honor the Mayor said...

In regards to Mr. Surber's comments, I would remind him that Yugoslavia had already disintigrated along racial and nationalistic lines before we went in. Yugoslavia, you will remember, had its boundries set by foreign powers with little regard to how the locals felt. Does this sound familiar to Iraq? We didn't invade Yugoslavia prior to its disintigration in order to take out a leader, who like Sadaam, didn't pose a direct risk to the U.S., or stretch the truth to justify going there.
I think that a more suitable analogy for the reason we went to Yugoslavia would be Sudan. Of course, we haven't done much to stop the genocide in Sudan, so the analogy only goes so far.

3:38 PM  
Blogger Bostonian Exile said...

I was going to direct to Don Surber's blog, but I see you have already been there.

Not to nitpick, but I think there is greater similarity than Your Honor is willing to admit. True, Yugoslavia was in tatters compared to its former self, but there is no question that Milosovic was head of the sovereign state of Serbia and Montenegro, also known then as the Federation of Yugoslavia. True, the war in "greater" Yugoslavia had disintegrated the nation, but that's not really the nation in question for NATO's purposes. If you can distinguish the Kosovars from the Kurds, I'll be astounded.

Moreover, at the time of the NATO intervention, the military action was widely unpopular in the U.S: among conservatives because it seemed a half-hearted war effort headed by someone who had no grasp of military command, and among progressives who lamented the deaths of innocents. Despite the opposition to the military action in Kosovo, history proved it to be the correct action. That may yet happen in Iraq.

Lastly, (as a tangent) "stretch[ing] the truth"? Has His Honor retreated from the position that Bush lied to bring us to war? Even if not, does it really matter to the ex post comparison of the relief brought to the oppressed ethnic group whether their benefit was the primary political selling point for the intervention?

I'm not saying that the analogy is perfect, but I do think it's closer than you might care to admit.

4:14 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home