[amastilovic]

Zoltan was operating in central Serbia (not even in its southern part Kosovo).

NATO bombers (USA bombers in this instance, really) were attacking Serbia, and Zoltan was a soldier operating in his own country, defending it against enemy aggression. How can you raise morality questions against that?

And as I already said, the truth about Kosovo is far from what your media told you. Kosovo is now brought down to two functions only:

1. American army base (Bondsteel) 2. Haven for drug lords, and traffickers of people and weapons. Now they've got their own state in the heart of Europe, thanks to USA lobbying practice which is where all of it originated from.

[philwelch]

During and after the bombing of Serbia, there was a lot of publicity in certain conservative newspapers in America (particularly the Washington Times) about how the mass graves and such had turned out to be a myth, and about Serbia's historical reasons for wanting to hold sovereignty over Kosovo. The main rationale for this coverage was probably that it was a Democratic war, so a Republican newspaper had to oppose. Still, it exposed a lot of good points that weren't widely publicized elsewhere. (There were also the following arguments: that it's not the job of the US to protect Kosovo anyway, that Clinton was trying to distract people from his own problems, and that Clinton was doing a very bad job of prosecuting the war even if it were justified.)

Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether Serbia was in the right or in the wrong in Kosovo. It's just a bullshit argument to pretend Zoltan was doing something entirely separate from supporting the continued Serbian domination of Kosovo and its people. Either Serbia was in the right (in which case Zoltan would have been perfectly justified no matter what) or Serbia was in the wrong (in which case--since the bombing was an attempt to pressure Serbia to leave Kosovo--protecting Kosovo from bombing turned out to be indirectly supporting the domination of Kosovo.)