Tresy Kilbourne,

        First of all, I don't think that attempts to minimize the damage inflicted
by Milosevic and the para-military groups have been very effective.  The
mass graves that have been found, even if they were the only ones that
exist, are enough to inspire outrage.  However, I think you get into trouble
when you try to conflate two different arguments and, because they have some
surface features that contradict each other, avoid dealing with either one
on its own terms.  Actually, Tresy, if you take a close look, the reason
that NATO loses on both counts is not on account of some Orwellian use of
language, but because the destruction and death rained down from the skies
by NATO forces has such a heavy burden of proof to live up to.   It is up to
NATO apologetics to justify such acts of terror-- acts in direct
contravention of international law, and the UN charter, not to mention the
blood of innocents caused directly by NATO bombs.  I think such a case could
possibly be made in some imaginary scenarios.  However, the burden is a
heavy one, I think.  Especially if you take into account the presence of the
OSCE monitors, the apparent willingness of the JNA to effect a troop
withdrawal, and the willingness of the Belgrade parliament to consider armed
peacekeepers.  Clearly, there were other options on the table.  NATO
leadership chose a path of action that directly caused horrible death and
suffering on its own, and appeared to create an environment in which
monsters in trucks on the ground had a free hand to rape and burn.
        Making war is a serious business, and, in a democracy, might involve a
significant amount of well-informed debate (I think that we would all agree
that that kind of debate did not occur in the US).  Those who thought that
war was necessary, especially when self-defence was not an issue, would have
a very tough case to prove.  NATO and US apologetics must provide a picture
of the world in which heavy atrocities were committed and were mitigated or
halted after military action.  In other words, it is not up to those who
disagree with bombing civilians to prove their case, especially when all
parties agree that the atrocities escalated significantly after the bombing
commenced.  It is up to those who believe that bombing bridges, tv stations,
oil refineries, refugee convoys, hospitals, apartment buildings did
accomplish something positive to make their case.  And it better be a strong
one, as most of these acts are considered war crimes under the Geneva
conventions, no matter if they were intentional or merely "collateral
damage".  It is not enough to poke holes in the arguments of those who
oppose state sponsored slaughter.  Defending the bombing actually involves
making an affirmative argument, especially if you want to bring words like
"moral" or "humanitarian" into the picture.

Soren