1864-5: William Tecumseh Sherman's western armies burn a trail throughout the states of Georgia and South Carolina, mercilessly destroying the countryside and, well, being pretty brutal on the population.

1899-1902: The US territory of the Phillipines rebels for independence from the foreign power. Americans brutally put down the insurrection, committing quite a few massacres.

July, 1943: Operation Gomorrah. 791 Allied bombers released high-explosive bombs and large numbers of incendiaries on the unsuspecting inhabitants of the German city of Hamburg. The Hamburg Fire Storms raged for two days, destroying almost 3/4 the city, rendering 1,000,000 homeless, and burning alive 40,000 people.

February, 1945: Dresden. That should say enough. If it doesn't, how about 135,000 dead? Or, the fact that it was not a military target in any concievable way?

1941-1945: World War II baby! We lit up those Japs like there was no tommorow! Granted, the US killed a hell of a lot of civilians, but, this is war, right?

Vietnam- Come on, you're an American, surely you're not culturally illiterate enough not to know what happened there.

Iraq- Aside from the shameless bombing, look how many people die from those wonderful sanctions.

The US has a history that would make Slobo Milosevich blush. I'm not saying that means you can't get involved, but don't condemn his actions while saluting the US flag.

Baloo- Thank you. Try to catch me in my Junker mode, it's quite comical.

Cargile(again)- Yeah, you're the superpower. So was Britain and Greece and Rome. I mock superpowers. And I hope like hell your weapons can defend you when your government really screws up.
Oh, and how powerful are you when your planes go boom? Or, how powerful were you in Vietnam? Or Somalia? What a pathetic imperialist nation.

(In other words, now that I've made a fool of myself, I need to come back) >;-)

------------------
"That is the exploration that awaits you: Not mapping the stars and studying nebulae, but charting the unknown possiblities of existence." - Q, All Good Things...

And knowing that we don't share the same views of the American Civil War, I won't get into all of that "poor southern folk" folderol.

I will say this however. As we move through thousands of years of history, isn't it about time we got off our collective asses and stopped killing each other!

---

Let me tell you now
Ev'rybody's talking about
Revolution, evolution,
masturbation,
flagellation, regulation,
integrations,
meditations, United Nations,
Congratulations.

All we are saying is give peace a chance,
All we are saying is give peace a chance.

Or how bout this one:

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

-John Lennon

---

If you really stop and think about it, the whole idea of the nation state, and the nationalism that is synonymous with it, is fairly new in human history, as is the concept of organized religion and the organized killing that stems from both of those ideas.

That's not to say that there are not evils in the world that need to be opposed (read Hitler)...and that there not ideals that need to be defended.

I'm not sure that NATO really needs to be bombing at any rate. The simple act of droping a bomb on SAM sites does not change the ideology that started this whole bloody mess in the first place. But in our ever shrinking world, it is hard to sit on the sidelines and watch the slaughter of innocent people.

There is no room for that lest we are to remain petty race. Might as well give over to the next species and stop searching the stars.

Spoken like a true liberal.

------------------
I drink therefore I am.

You say you are supporting international Law. You are saying that because Kosovars are citizens under a sovereign nation, and that NATO and the USA have no right to be involved. You are saying that Milosevic(correct spelling) has the right to do whatever he wants to his citizens.

Take the Nuremburg trials. We took the head Nazis, tried them for war crimes, and executed/incarcerated them. We set the precedent, internationally, that the Holocaust would NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. The Jews in Germany were killed off, executed by their own government. Is this any different to what's happening in Yugoslavia? I don't think so.

By acting in Yugoslavia, we are sending a message that ethnic killing WILL NOT BE TOLERATED for all the reasons that the Nuremburg trials were held.

Now tell me, why, if you appeal to international law, are you applying a double standard?

Now - I agree that the precident is correct, and that the end effect of that precident is what matters. What I won't swallow is the image of the white knight.

Now, if we can just brush aside the law when we see fit, that doesn't leave a very healthy precident either! This is a complex problem..let's not pretend otherwise *L*.

------------------
I drink therefore I am.

-Descartes

Which brush is bigger? Violating antiquated notions of "national sovreignty" (yes, I personally believe the concept is becoming more and more obsolete in an era of globalization and global cooperation) or allowing unfettered termination of a people?

I don't believe the knight is white, either. He's probably medium metallic grey.. so's life. But nobody will follow a grey knight, so he has to paint his armor white to get anything done.

Have I mangled my metaphors enough?

Oh, and let's PLEASE not start the "Poor, much-maligned, misunderstood Confederacy" thing again.
(at least, not in this thread. it's getting long as it is.)

------------------
*I only SEEM Normal*

Now, onto the Nuremberg thing. Firstly, although this is not completely relevant to the arguement, I should mention that they did not just kill Germans. If you want to focus on the Jews, Poland lost 90% of their pre-1939 Jewish population.

Unfortunately, I don't have my complete Nuremberg Trial records handy. However, most of the charges were related to waging an 'agressive war' which had already been spelled out in many other treaties, including the Hague. Yet, I don't view that as superceding of international law, per the UN. If someone can show me where the UN has authorized member nations to act as an agressor without the consent of the security council, I will gladly admit that I was wrong.

If you want to punish Milosevich, you do it through the UNITED NATIONS. NATO has no right to do what they are doing. Britain, America, and the other nations(including my beloved Germany) are agressors. Clinton himself is now a war criminal. It hurts to say this, but, the Russians are right. A war crimes tribunal must be formed soon to prosecute the leading NATO members. Moreover, an emergency session of the Security Council has to be called.

Now, I will offer you Americans and Brits this alternative: dissolve the United Nations. All members of NATO pull out of it, effectively ending the existence of the UN. Once that is accomplished, revise the NATO charter giving it complete military jurisdiction in every area of the world, including the right to act as an agressor(or you can just redefine that).

As it stands now, NATO is violating international law. I ask, if they do it, why do we have international law? I think it is only a small jump to the conclusion that what Milosevich is doing is not wrong, just immoral to your standards.

Calling in the UN would accomplish nothing. All the UN would do is issue a bunch of political non-sense, and in the end, be nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Before condemning what is occuring, perhaps you should use some sensible moral judgement.

And:

quote:

---

I think it is only a small jump to the conclusion that what Milosevich is doing is not wrong, just immoral to your standards.

---

Well, most of the world would seem to agree that it's immoral. And if you do not, then perhaps you should take a long hard look over your moral viewpoint. It appears that it is in need of an update.

Now, if I remember, I used to get quite a bit of fire thrown my way for defending terrorism. Suddenly, though, these Albanian terrorists are innocent people.

Look at Vietnam. US troops catch fire from NVA out of a village. US troops head into the village. US troops set the village ablaze because their might be NVA troops there. Pretty simple.

Do I feel Milosevich is a fine upstanding man? No. Do I feel he has the right to eliminate the KLA? Yes. Do I feel he should exterminate the Albanians? No. Do I feel NATO should support the KLA? Absolutely not.

Of course, should I have expected the same people that don't understand WWI to understand WWII? Nyet.

BTW, your vote is recorded, 1-0 in favour of dissolving the UN.

Second, the UN is not International Law. The UN was set up to mediate between the countries, and to enforce International Law. This does not mean that all of International Law is the UN.
NATO has every right to be there. They are enforcing International Law, where the UN has failed. NATO is upholding the precedent set in Nuremburg, that ethnic cleansing will not be tolerated, as I have stated in my previous post.

Third, You obviously haven't not heard of the atrocities committed in Yugoslavia.

Dusan "Dusko" Tadic, Bosnian Serb, tried and found guilty of 11 out of 21 charges in connection with the murder, torture and ill-treatment of Moslem and Croat internees at Omarska camp in Bosnia, for participating in the persecution of Moslems in the course of 'ethnic cleansing' and deportation of civilians to Omarska, Keraterm and Trnopolje camps.
Nineteen Bosnian Serbs - Zeljko Meakic, Miroslav Kvocka, Dragoljub Prcac, Mladen Radic,Milojica Kos, Momcilo Gruban, Zdravko Govedarica, Gruban (no first name), Predrag Kostic , Nedeljko Paspalj, Milan Pavlic , Milutin Popovic, Drazenko Predojevic, Zeljko Savic,Mirko Babic, Nikica Janjic, Dusan Knezevic, Dragomir Saponja and Zoran Zigic, charged with committing atrocities against civilians at Omarska camp, Prijedor district in Bosnia. Camp commander Meakic also charged with genocide.
http://www.igc.apc.org/wcw/

These are only a few examples. Prove to me(and everyone else) that this has nothing to do with what happened in Nazi Germany.

Fourth, the KLA are not fighting for freedom, or their own nation, but for Self-Determination. They want a say in their government, something they have been denied.

Fifth, I'd prefer if we could discuss as adults, and not resort to pointless insults and namecalling, thank you.

------------------
"That is the exploration that awaits you: Not mapping the stars and studying nebulae, but charting the unknown possiblities of existence." - Q, All Good Things...

Now, as for what you said about Nazi Germany, reread my post. I never said atrocities were not being committed. I said they were in retaliation to terrorism committed by the KLA. That is different from exterminating people due to ethnic or religous reasons. For one thing, the latter is bad strategy. The former is brilliant, yet ruthless strategy. Milosevich, for all you can say about him, is carrying out the proper strategic move. Of course, as Churchill acknowledged, sound strategy and sound morality oft conflict.

You believe that the Nuremberg Trials are enough precedent. They are NOT. NATO only has the right to act in response to agression against a member state. There has not been one. Kosovo is NOT a member state. The US does not even recognize it as a SOVEREIGN state.

If you all wish, I will find the section of international law which pertains to that.

Jeff, you didn't vote! Should I count your statements as being in favour of no UN?

Which raises an interesting question. DT, you're stating that Kosovo is not a sovereign state, and therefore does not share the rights a true state does, correct? My question is, at what point does a state become sovereign? Obviously, no one thinks that every group that declares itself to be a state automatically becomes one. But based on what? Recognition by surrounding countries? Recognition by the majority of countries around the world? Recognition by the powerful countries of the world?

------------------
I drink therefore I am.

-Descartes