The international community did condemn the activities of Serb military and paramilitary forces, Kosovar ethnic cleansing being the final affront. However, the United Nations Security Council was powerless to execute let alone authorise military reprisals, due to the veto power wielded by the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China.

Therefore, only NATO was the only military force capable of deterring Serbian and Yugoslav forces operating in Kosovo. The involvement of the United States was obvious because: (a) Western European forces were integrated with Anglo-American forces operating on the continent and American forces could not be excluded anymore than the former Warsaw Pact could exclude Soviet forces; (b) the lingering principle of "collective security" and American ties to Europe meant that Washington had to support its "allies"; and (c) it was deemed necessary to flex American military muscle to deter any attempt at Russian or CIS interference, which invariably would be in support of Belgrade.

Aside from any crimes he may have committed, Milosevic understood first-hand the Muslim threat. U.S. involvement, thanks to Clinton foreign policy, served only to benefit those the American military are now fighting in the Middle East and provide them an opportunity to invade another European nation.

Milosevic was a Socialist and a war criminal.....What was going on in the balkans had been happening long before he ever rose to power....Even before the communists rose to power.....That does not excuse his actions, but it's proof that this was not the U.S. nor NATO's war to fight......Again, President Bubba is to blame for that one!......

NATO and the US seem to have really had no idea what they were doing when they entered the conflict...

You all can thank Bill Clinton for that!

I am pleased that the nation-state of Serbia was not found guilty of committing genocide. I am of the opinion that Belgrade was actively involved on two fronts, namely to maintain the Yugoslav state and to ensure that all Serbs in the former Yugoslavia achieved national self-determination in a united and homogenous Serbia. Over time, proponents of the former were both drowned out by nationalists and realized their project was impossible. I also believe that Slobodan Milosevic was responsible for those actions committed by all Serbian military and paramilitary forces during his tenure, whether by complicity or conspiracy, under the principle of ministerial responsibility.

However, neither he nor his country should be convicted of war crimes by the International Court of Justice because:

1. The Yugoslav Republic was a multinational state created by the architects of Versailles as part of a cordon sanitare around Weimar Germany, and as such contravened the principle of national self-determination
2. Evidently, only authoritarian rule could suppress the strong desires for national self-determination voiced by Yugoslavia's constituent peoples
3. The legal proceedings against Mr. Milosevic were false because it was, for all its pomp, circumstance and expense a "kangaroo court," and any conviction would be merely "victor's justice"
4. Serbia (I am excluding Montenegro) was a sovereign state after the dissolution of the Yugoslav Republic and as such recognised no higher authority
5. The ICJ is for obvious reasons undemocratic and unaccountable
6. There was clear and present villification of Serbia for purposes benefitting foreign powers

For these aforementioned reasons, I am also against the execution of Saddam Hussein. No such proceedings, including the Nuremburg Trials are legitimate; in contrast the trials of Charles I and Nicolae Ceaucescu were legitimate in the sense that they were conducted by their own people. Furthermore, at least the justice served to Ceaucescu and his wife was cheap and quick and did not seek to pretend as though it was an episode of Law and Order.

Firstly, there can be no question that "war crimes" were committed by all sides, namely the Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks (Muslims) and Kosovar Albanians (also Muslims). Secondly, Serbian activities were not qualitatively worse than those of their enemies, however, Serbia had the advantage of numbers and a controlling interest in the Jugoslav National Army.

The dispute over Kosovo, contrary to the opinions of major Western media outlets, is not a new one. Many here are aware that during the Second World War, the National Socialists sought allies of convenience in many Islamic peoples, especially those Arabs under Franco-British dominion. During his struggle to crush resistance in Yugoslavia and Greece, Hitler allied himself with the Albanians who were similarly agitating for aggressive military expansion. Under German auspices, the Albanians "ethnically cleansed" the Serb territory of Kosovo and began colonising it. While this process came to a halt in 1945, Tito's strong rule could not reverse the demographic damage done at the expense of what was part of the Serbian ancestral homeland. Given these circumstances, and given that by exporting its excess population, Albania is continuing the cause of "Greater Albania" in Serbia and Macedonia, the postwar reaction of the freed Serb nation was understandable.

There are a number of debatable reasons why Serbia was villified:

1. Historically Serbia was under Russian influence, Tito's isolationism notwithstanding, and Moscow continues to be protective of the state
2. Serbia is an Eastern Orthodox country and seen as non-Western, unlike Croatia which is Catholic
3. There is a proposal for a series of oil and gas pipelines to be built in the Balkans, and one that could be realized without Russian or other involvement if a NATO/UN force was occupying the territory in question

NATO and the US seem to have really had no idea what they were doing when they entered the conflict.  I had a job last year down there and made a point of asking everyone that would listen what they thought about NATO intervening.  The responses I got were pretty much like this.

1) when things fell apart they fell apart fast and the conflict started erupting everywhere.

2)   NATO and the US did the wrong thing and made things worse.

3)  Nobody could really explain (or I failed to understand) what the correct action would have been only that the US seemed to do the exact opposite.

I didn't really sense any US hostility really.  Actually quite the opposite.  My personal conclusion is that no outsider is really capable of really understanding that conflict.  I read about it but still don't get it.

Not to mention the stamp of "collective guilt" that was almost put onto Serbia today. Really, you should have been living in Serbia, possibly isolated from the Balkan war, but still be branded in the press a genocidal bandit who should repay its "debts" to the Bosnian government. Or what about the U.S. state Virginia, which seems to be tangled up in its "white guilt" .

The whole Milosevic (travesty of) trial and sudden death stinks to high heaven. Milosevic turned himself in well aware that he could defend himself competently in this so-called court of law. I would love to read an unbowderlised transcript of proceedings.

The drug dealers and prostitutes in The Hague dearly mourned Milosevics passing. Thank g-d they rounded up some Congolese to try before the economy completely collapsed.