OK, hows about a good ol' fashioned West-interfering-in other government thread? Might get this place back to its usual flaming self.
Let's start with four words:
NATO
Kosovo
Milosevic
Airstrikes
------------------
"Breen. Try saying it. Bre-een. Rolls nicely off the tongue, doesn't it?"
[This message was edited by RW on March 23, 1999.]
Reminds me of the way my dad used to "settle" fights between my brother and myself:
"Okay, if you want to settle this you guys can go outside and fight until only one of you is standing... Then HE'LL have to fight ME."
A smart kid (which Milosevich apparently is not) realizes that this would result in annihilation, so the fighting ends.
------------------
*I only SEEM Normal*
He needs to die, I just hope it's as horrible a death as the one he's putting those innocent Kosovan citizens through. What he's doing is genocide, nothing less so the bastard needs to be brought down a peg or two.
However, I fear that the strikes will strengthen his position in Serbia. He's clever. A murderer yes but still clever.
------------------
"If it should become necessary to fight, could you arrange to find me some rocks to throw at them"
If it was a case of saying the USA is the only one capable of inflicting pain on Milosovic I'd disagree. So, tell me, why is the USA in Europe?
------------------
I drink therefore I am.
-Descartes
Here's something for you, Serbs..... We don't mercilessly kill innocent civilians.
Fact (not sure if completely true): After the Bosnia incident, the Serbs started to arrest Kosovo separatists. Two Serb police were killed when several separatists tried to flee. The next day, 24 innocent civilians were executed by police of being suspected separatists, and suspected murderers. Feel free to correct me on this one.
------------------
I can resist anything.......
Except Temptation
World War III
The first started in that same region, by largely the same people. Only thing the situation needs is a Hitler.
------------------
Wheeelersburg Correctional Facility
Inmate #05301999
Judging by the news on the net, bombs will start dropping any hour now. I am rather curious how much of an effect they can have on Serbia's resolve and how much damage (if any) Serbia can do to NATO. It is interesting that NATO commanders have been saying that they expect to take losses from Serbian air defences. NATO may have gotten itself into a war where it expected just a short strike or so.
Am I the only one who is concerned that NATO is organizing this action and not the UN? Technically, NATO has no responsibility to countries outside of its membership, and at least the UN has the appearance of being a little more than an American and British puppet. The Americans have really crippled the UN (by, for example, not paying the dues they owe), I suspect because they grew tired of not getting their own way all the time.
------------------
"Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you."
-Commander Riker, USS Enterprise
------------------
"I'll turn everything around and confuse you. I'll fix it so you can't remember what was true."
--
They Might Be Giants
------------------
Risk is our business! That's what this starship is all about....that's why we're aboard her!"
I say: Strike now, because you said you would. Better anything than yet MORE prevarication and bumbling over endless "final warnings".
World War 3? Naaaah. Not on a Wednesday....
------------------
"To appear in an Ernie Wise play...is the final accolade"
"Look at me and say that"
"Accolade."
"AH-hahaha!"
They tried to appease Hitler, look what happened.
They tried diplomacy with Saddam, look at what happened. (although it does now seem that the diplomacy with Iraq was just a front for sending spies into Iraq as arms inspectors)
The situations that occurred in Rwanda and Zaire
If you tell them that you're very angry and condemn them, they'll just laugh in your face - the only thing that they understand is force, and I think it should be given to them in droves.
------------------
"If it should become necessary to fight, could you arrange to find me some rocks to throw at them"
[This message was edited by Orion Syndicate on March 24, 1999.]
PR man for the Serbian army
------------------
"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...
Good, a resume of what I think:
The U�K (or KLA) is just like any other terrorist separatist groups, and I do not agree with anything they stand for, but the Serbs have no right to start ethnical cleansing in response to their actions. they are not just fighting the U�K, they kill innocent civilians. For that alone, they should be punished. But why do the other nations insist that Serbia agrees with a possibility of Kosovo becoming independent in the future? They never offered the IRA such a thing, or the ETA. I get the feeling their hate towards Serbs makes them partial.
------------------
I can resist anything.......
Except Temptation
------------------
"Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you."
-Commander Riker, USS Enterprise
Now tell me again, why is the USA involved?
------------------
I drink therefore I am.
-Descartes
A friend of mine once speculated that it was all to do with the oil deposits under the caspian Sea. He said the best way to exploit the oil was via a pipeline west, to the mediterranean where you could put it on tankers. Of course, this pipe would need to pass through, you've guessed it, the Southern Balkans. And if that whole area is ablaze...
Well, that was his theory. Just an interesting aside.
BTW, aren't you Americans a little patronised at your President saying "Go find it on the atlas and look at it"? Or are the American public really that introverted?
------------------
"To appear in an Ernie Wise play...is the final accolade"
"Look at me and say that"
"Accolade."
"AH-hahaha!"
Introverted we are not. STUPID, many of us are, unfortunately. I blame this on the people who are so damned all-fired-up about teaching "self-esteem" in our schools (while the "real" world doesn't give a damn about it, as we all know), or whether we should teach "creation science" along with real science, that they forget to teach simple things like "Geography."
I heard more accurate map information sung by Wakko on "Animaniacs" than I did in all of high school. Fortunately, I'm a map nut, so not only could I point out Kosovo to people, but I can tell them where Tannu Tuva was, as well.
That said.. Serbia still sux.
------------------
*I only SEEM Normal*
[This message was edited by First of Two on March 25, 1999.]
A- World War I was not started by Serbia, but in Serbia. World War I was started when an expansionist power, Austria-Hungary, attacked Serbia, thereby provoking a Russian response(odd, normally the Russian treatment of other Slavs is to murder them...) which led to the Germans(remember, Austrians are ethnically German) going to war with the Russians, who were allied with France. The UK, in their standard policy of protecting the mouth of the Rhine and attempting to prevent anyone from getting continental hegemony, went to war with the Germans.
B- Clinton is misusing this as a didactic. An expansionist power(much like NATO) who was threatening Russia attacked the Serbs. Russia stuck up for their 'Slavic brothers' and mobilized. There is absolutely no chance that Slobo will be the next Hitler. Why? He has no Wermacht! Even with the Waffen SS, even those cheese-eating surrender monkeys known as the French could've beat him back. I'd wager that Poland could repel a Serbian attack right now. Even if Ho Chi Milosevich obliterates Kosovo, there is little chance of a World War III. What is more likely is a repeat of World War I, ie, pissing off Russia.
C- What legal right does NATO have here? They are committing an act of war without any attack on NATO! If Slobo had been exterminating Turks... yeah, I can see that. But Kosovars? Nyet, they're not in NATO.
D- Why is the US there? Let's say that this is needed for Europe, and that NATO has a right there. Why is the US there? Now, aside from the arguement that NATO is useless to America now, let's tackle the issue that in an attack on a non-member country, the US has no obligation to go. Actually, I believe this is the perfect opportunity to let Germany go at it. We've been holding back the best soldiers known to man for over 50 years. I say we wind up the Germans, point them towards the Balkans, and let them go Heydrich on Serbia's ass.
E- What strategic purpose is the US accomplishing? Now that you've got your morality arguements out on point D, gimme strategy here! This is really a rehash of points A and B in part, but still....
F- What is the strategic plan? I think we're all a little hungover from the Iraqis. This is not Achmed and his mule drawn tank. These are European soldiers(who 50 years ago gave the Nazis a bloody nose) with Soviet technology. So, fighting in the Balkans(tough terrain), you expect to defeat the resilient Serb army without heavy casualties? And once the air strikes fail, do you go in on the ground or do you let Slobo do what he wishes?
G- Why can't I get some good local marmalade?
H- With the money we spend trying to stop Ho Chi Milosevich, we could send how many kids to college? Maybe that is why the US has troops over there. The European countries realize that good educational systems are important, so they are providing for their next generations. Let the capitalists from the US do it, they're too stupid to figure out the importance of education over pointless wars.
I- Why on Earth would Ed Wade and Terry Francona even be considering keeping Torrey Lovullo over David Miller? Miller goes to Cleveland if we don't keep him, Luvullo goes to a Beer League if we don't keep him.
J- Can we avoid a US Sucks/US Rules type debate? I freely acknowledge that the US has the best military and economy. Pleaee move beyond that.
K- Why on Earth are the Oscars so long?
L- Did I ask too many questions?
M- I agree with RW on this one, but I think I can answer it better. The pilot was not Dutch, he was Deutsch, they just spelled it wrong :-)
N- Who here is ready to get blown up? Don't take my word for it, take the Department of Defense's. You can bet your ass this raises the likelyhood of terrorist action.
O- As for the cultural patchwork in the Balkans, I think we should first look at the rafter in your eye instead of the straw in Slobo's. Get Westdorp out of there, that'll help things.
P- Bill Clinton as Adolf Hitler. What do I mean? Well, they're both agressors. They've both taken action against a non-agressor nation(and as much as you may dislike Serbia, Kosovo is their's, per the Dayton Accords, and they may do with it what they like under international law).
Q- Oil in the Capsian may have been a viable option 30 years ago, it's not now. Oil is as plentiful as corn. If anyone was stupid enough to go to war over it, they should be shot by a firing squad of Neville Chamberlain, Harry Truman, Woodrow Wilson, and Lloyd George.
R- What do you intend to do with Albania? Read the NATO Charter. In it, there is a clause which states that an attack on any member nation demands an attack by the other members against the agressor(to simplify). Greece _IS_ a NATO member. Albania has made public their intentions against Greece. So ya help them now and then bomb their ass in three years? Good idea.
S- Hey, look, it's future President George H.W. Bush Jr! Shall we begin calling him Ike now? (think about the possible parallels if the war in Serbia escalates....)
T- Why are we picking on Serbia? Why not Russia? I care a lot more about the Chechens then I do the Albanians. According to Bill Clinton, it is the US' duty to handle such matters. Well, Russia did the EXACT same thing the Serbs are doing. So, once we're done beating up the little Serbs, are we going to go and kick their big brother? Or, can you say hypocrite, Mr Clinton?
U- Who wants to kill some Virginians and then some Filipinos? (think about it before you respond to this one folks)
V- Hitting Saddam really worked, eh? Not a good example to give. And if I may AGAIN hit that moronic Hitler comparison, when Slobo invades two sovereign nations(and conquers them) give me a call. Of course, I don't think most people understand that Kosovo is NOT a state! It is the PROPERTY of Serbia.
W- Why do I feel I need to talk for so long?
X- The X factor will definitely be Russia. If Russia starts fighting with the Serbs, I'm behind Clinton on this one! Screw the US Armed Forces, I'd gladly liquidate NATO just to see Russian soldiers lying dead.
Y- Why? Because we like international law!
Z- If anyone can actually respond to all of these, I will send them... well, something.
------------------
Day, after day
I get angry and I will say
That the day, is in my sight
When I will bow, and say good night
-------
Violent Femmes
Y: You gladly toss international law aside when it serves your purposes. Besides, no true believer in realpolitik cares much for the concept.
X: Yum, racism. That's sort of the problem here, don't you think?
W: Well, it's more typing then talking...
V: Land can be owned. People can not. Does genocide justify action? Yes. So where is the international community in Africa? Damned good question.
U: I'm sure there are some folks up for it. We usually keep such people confined to mental institutions or Idaho.
T: Comparing Chechnya to Kosovo is nonsensical. If this were merely a civil war, I would agree with you. However, this is a war that is killing huge numbers of civilians simply because they refer to their god by a different name. Let's take your international law, which you claim to swear by. Targeting civilians is illegal. But that's exactly what's going on here. (You could also argue that Chechnya did a fair job of holding off Russian on its own.)
S: Oh boy, continuing the Bush legacy. (Actually, I rather like some of what I've heard about his work in Texas, but who knows how much of that you can believe.)
R: The idea is to keep fighting OUT of Albania, thereby short circuiting a war.
Q: Within 50 years or so there will be no more oil anywhere. (Based on the last statistics I looked up.) Claiming that oil is cheap or unimportant is a grave error. Oil is the blood of the 20th century.
P: Again, international law does not condone genocide.
O: The "balkanization" of the United States? A threat, perhaps. But irrelevant to the matter at hand.
N: Terrorism is the warfare of the future, I'm afraid. Are you saying that we shouldn't do something for fear of retaliation? Chamberlain had the same idea.
M: Perhaps this was all another dastardly plot of Rupert Murdoch? Misinformation, or some such.
L: These are important issues, they deserve attention.
K: It's all about advertising.
J: Probably not.
I: I don't know. Poker debts gone bad?
H: With the money used to build a few B-2's, we could have a rather nice moon colony. At least the moon colony wouldn't have a problem with the humidity.
G: You live a long way away from any producers of marmalade. Shipping costs add up, you know.
F: Seeing as how even the Soviets couldn't do much with Soviet technology, and that Serbia does not, as you say, present an overwhelming military threat, I don't think we have to worry too much about being outgunned. Now, as to the actual fighting, who can say?
E: All I can give you is the official position, which states that the ability of the Serb army to wage war will be "removed." You can't do that solely with air power, no. Realistically, we'll probably see bombing continue until Serbia back down a bit, and the whole thing resets for a few years.
D: The United States would seem to be concerned with two things. Preventing further atrocities and keeping the situation contained. While there are probably other ways to do the second, the first requires active participation. Should the U.S. be involved in any NATO action that isn't strictly defined by the charter itself? I suppose that depends on your point of view. But it can be hard to maintain alliances by following the letter of the law alone.
C: The function of NATO has changed a bit since the end of the Cold War. NATO stood for stability in Europe. Defense of the balance of power. The end of the Soviet threat doesn't necessarily negate the need to guard European stability. Technically, one could argue that Serbia violated conditions of an agreement with NATO, but you could also argue that Serbia was forced into that position. I'm not entirely clear on the terms under which the earlier peace talks were occuring.
B: Again, if we're talking strictly about the external threat posed by Kosovo, the issue doesn't lay in a Serbian invasion of Central Europe, but the area acting as a flashpoint for war between other powers. Yes, U.S. actions are antagonizing Russia. But without those actions you could easily see a war break out in the region anyway. Attacking now is a risky gamble. Waiting is a risky gamble. I can't say for certain that this is the right decision. Waiting around for more people to die certainly doesn't seem like an alternative, though.
A: Exactly the situation that could occur again if fighting continues. The strategy right now seems to be to use force to stop the fighting now rather then using more force to stop it later.
If you want to use international law, you have to use all of it. You can't combine it with moral relativism and claim the high ground.
Futhermore, it's a good thing there are only 26 letters in the alphabet.
P.S. As a reward to responding to every letter, perhaps Odelay could get an extra point or two?
P.P.S. Don't you think now would be a good time to plug your endeavor?
------------------
"The record of my unspeakable crimes, in previous lives, in previous times, indelibly stains the pages of history."
--
They Might Be Giants
1) Russia continually violated the Geneva Convention in Chechnya. If you were at all familiar with that situation, you would realize that, by your moral highground, a war should've started.
2) Oil is unimportant. Stop reading those "A Democratic Party for the New Millenium" pamphlets you are so fond of.
3) Do you even know who Carlos Westdorp is? Obviously not.
4) Soviets never got to use those weapons against NATO.
5) Mr. Johnson, you can have one war, not both.
6) I don't pretend to take a moral high ground. I take the realistic viewpoint.
7) Terrorism is indeed the warfare of the future. Total war is the warfare for now. Milosevich is only putting down the KLA. You want to sit around burning Atlanta and setting fire to My Lai and bombing the hell out of Hiroshima and Dresden. God forbid a non-American exercise his right to conduct war the way he wants!!
8) Yes, you responded to all the points, but you responded like LBJ, so you get nothing :-)
9) I wouldn't plug my venture here, don't want it to be swarming with Democrats :-)
Just call me Hangman....
------------------
Day, after day
I get angry and I will say
That the day, is in my sight
When I will bow, and say good night
-------
Violent Femmes
------------------
"The record of my unspeakable crimes, in previous lives, in previous times, indelibly stains the pages of history."
--
They Might Be Giants
I also feel that I should point out now that I have no reason to defend Serbia. Quite the contrary, I despise Milosevich and Serbia. They're Russian lackies, and as anyone can tell, I despise Russia. Hence, I should be calling for these bombings. The more dead Russian allies, the better. Yet, I strongly feel morally opposed to them.
------------------
Day, after day
I get angry and I will say
That the day, is in my sight
When I will bow, and say good night
-------
Violent Femmes
I like NOWA better.
Daryus, come on man. Why is the USA involved? Where have you been? After WWII the US and the USSR were in competition to see who could take over the world. You can't be blind to that logic?
Well since the Soviets collasped, the US is in the lead to spreading democracy and capitalistic values, and we enjoy soliciting other countries into thinking we got a good thing going. We pretty much are winning the Take Over the World game.
And really, there hasn't been anything really good on US news channels since the OJ Simpson trial. We need some airstrike bombs to entertain us. It makes us feel strong and powerful to know our hard earned income taxes have been used appropiately to bully a smaller, weaker country. We want to shake up the world and say, "Look at me ya b*stards!" It's 1999. Who would have thought that an upstart country founded by pilgrims and criminals, and run-aways would have taken the world by storm in a matter of a few hundred years. We are the Roman Empire of the New World Order man! Hail Caesar! (Wouldn't Clinton look good in olive branchs?)
But really folks, in my solipsist point-of-view, this is just a fulfillment of my appolcalypse fantasy. Sorry.
------------------
The best thing about being a solipsist is that I'm the only one here.
--Paul Cargile
If you want to apply the Geneva convention to certain situations and use this as an excuse for action or if you go in because of the genocide, how do you justify not doing anything about the other situations. Oh yeah, they're 'sorry' about not doing something in Rwanda - fat lot of good that's gonna do the people now dead and their families. They complain about human rights abuses in Iraq against the Kurds and bomb them. The Chinese have got one of the worst human rights records around. What's being done there? Iraq was attacked because they're small and easy to beat because they couldn't resist very well. But with China it's Oh you're very naughty people, I'm very angry with you? Come on. I realise that China is too big to be bombed, but this hypocracy that's going on is just mad. How do you choose who lives and who dies, and how can you tell people, that they're not important enough, so they can die.
Killing people is wrong, even if Kosovo does belong to Serbia which I believe it doesn't. The Kosovars want independence, so they should have it. If you commit to one situation, you have to do something about the others also because otherwise any credibility you have is lost. That's why these small nations hate the West so much: Just barging in, picking and choosing battles that suit them.
There's my two penny's worth, Peace.
------------------
"If it should become necessary to fight, could you arrange to find me some rocks to throw at them"
I remain a supporter of the NATO action in Serbia, and I want a lolly too.
so, DT:
A - WW1 was precipitated by the assassination of ArchDuke Ferdinand in Sarajevo by a Bosnian Serb gunman. There then followed a grim and escalating "Hey! Don't you hit my friend! THWACK!" scenario.
But WW1 history isn't at issue here.
B - I agree Milosevic is no Hitler in terms of sheer military power and personal charisma. But he is the man most responsible for the Balkan wars of the 1990s and the policy of "ethnic cleansing" is undefendable.
As for pissing off Russia, well frankly the Russians can spin on it. Their economy can't support their domestic population, let alone fund an extended military campaign in another country. As for the nuclear threat, they would never be that dumb.
C - NATO has the same right as a man in the street who intervenes when he sees someone else being knifed by a mugger. The right to take action to safeguard innocent lives. The right to try and end the bloody litany of atrocities paraded on TV.
Are we only to do anything if NATO itself is targeted? By that token America had no right to intervene in the fight against Nazi Germany, and indeed neither did Britain when Poland was invaded in 1939.
D - America is there because it's a memeber of NATO and because action to stabilise the Balkans is in its interest. Also, the American government values its allies in Europe and realises it pays to have SOME friends in the world community.
E - As already stated by others, the Balkan conflict could escalate to engulf the whole region. Refugees could swamp European nations, arms races would flare up as countries went to the aid of their friends, financial markets would be endangered by increased miltary spending and terrfied investors.
F - Ideally a demonstration of force would be enough to convince Serbia to accept a peace accord over Kosovo. Sadly this seems unlikely. I agree it is probable that some level of ground force may be required. NATO should not flinch from doing what is necessary just because the chances are some of their soldiers may be killed by enemy fire.
G - I don't know, have you tried Lemon Curd? It's quite delicious.
H - This is a facile argument. Money will be spent on military equipment regardless of whether any actual hostilities are going on. We could also open hospitals by scrapping NASA, or by not funding "blue-sky" scientific research at Universities, or by not funding art galleries.
I - I have no idea who the hell you're talking about. I can only suggest that they all sat round a table to discuss it, and decided it was best for everyone.
J - The US is. I can live with that.
K - Self-congratulatory nonsense added to a brew of self-serving egomaniacs being honoured by jealous peers for making supreme contributions to the moronification of society. Or it could just be because all those comercial breaks slow down the proceedings.
L - YES
M - I am ignorant of his true nationality & so cannot say.
N - I can't speak for Americans, but I believe I speak for the British public in saying we're made of stern enough stuff to cope with what comes our way.
O - Westdorp? 404 Reference not found.
P - I'll assume your comparison is meant in a sarcastic way. Any genuine analogy is both ludicrous and deeply offensive.
Q - Oil is in no way as plentful as the sweet corn of the fields. Sol is correct in warning of an impending energy crisis. Oil is indeed the blood of our society. It may not seem that way to Americans with all the gasoline so incredibly cheap there, but in the UK you need only see how the Gulf War affected Petrol prices to see how much we depend on oil.
R - What about Albania? It's not the issue. The action is designed to prevent humanitarian disaster in Kosovo and halt the spread of ethnic cleansing. Any other sucker tried it, I'd like to think we'd stamp down hard on them too.
S - Again I cannot comment. The question of the next president is a matter for Americans to decide.
T - While you say you care for Chechens more than Albanians, some of us value every human life as equally important. I refer you to the reply my right honourable Solar System gave some moments ago. And the risks you take in going toe to toe with Russia are quite different to those you take wth Serbia.
U - *looks around* I dunno about you guys, but I don't think this crap is all that funny.
V - Kosovo is indeed part of Serbia, however it is a region where the majority of the population oppose this state of affairs. Again, I refer you to Sol's answer.
W - I could say something uncharitable a this point.
X - Oh for F### sake....
Y - Interntional law is a point I wanted to address. A lot of people have complained that all this bypasses the mechanism of the UN and is unprecedented. Well then, let me quote the man himself, Tony Blair, who said with admirable clarity:
"People say - and I understand - you can't be self-appointed guardians of what is right and wrng. True - but when the interantional community agrees certai objectives and then fails to implement them, those that can act, must."
The UN has agreed the human rights of the Albanian-speaking majority in Kosovo must be protected. The veto ature of the Secuity Council paralyses it from taking any concerted action, because the Russians care more for sticking up for the serbs than they do aout the bodies piling up on the ground. NATO has, quite correctly, decide to screw the Russians and take action itself.
Another argument is that NATO is being hypocritical in intervening here while Africa burns. This is true! The failure to act in Rwanda is deeply shaming for the UN and its members. But just because someone doesn't act before when they should have, do you try to stop them acting now when another situation arises? That's CRAZY!
Z - Lolly, please...
I'll be on holiday now, so unable to further debate this for a while, but I will say this:
Hooray for NATO! Three Cheers for Clinton.
NATO hay have ulterior motives bubbling in some CIA office somewhere, but what was happening in Kosovo was WRONG. Now let's hope the Serbia Government opts for a peaceful settlement as soon as possible to stop more casualties.
Thank you for watching.
*BLIP!*
------------------
"To appear in an Ernie Wise play...is the final accolade"
"Look at me and say that"
"Accolade."
"AH-hahaha!"
Think about it. Anyone check the NATO member list lately? Guess who joined NATO coupla weeks ago.
Poland
Czech Republic
And either Austria or Hungary...
Now as to what this means, I am not sure, but I'll get back to it...
------------------
"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, the reason I'm trumpeting about America is this - it's not your continent. Get off it.
Orion - well said. I'm sure if I got my way (which I won't) the USA would turn it's attemtion to China. That I would support...why? Well they are the worst of the worst when it comes to this type of thing. But, the USA isn't willing to put itself at risk by tackling China. Right now you can make money from that nation...but I'm sure, when the time is right America will exact it's vengeance on them too.
Jeff - It was Hungary.
Now, I find this interesting. People are trumpeting about the UN. The UN of course is a sham in many senses. But let's start with the Security Council. 5 Members sit on it permanently - and all 5 have a veto. So what's the point of having one!? Nations pretty much do what they like, this is just some lame form of justification. Is anyone stopping China proliferating nuclear weapon to it's little lapdog Paksitan?! I think not. Or stopping the transfer of nuclear weapons tech from India to Vietnam? Nope. Or for that matter preventing nations like Eritrea and Ethopia (nations that can barely feed themselves) from spending all they have on military equipment? No again. It's a joke.
I'm against this action primarily because people are violating laws they helped to build (such as sovereignty laws) with a mixed bag of lame justification for attacking. There's no consistency! Ok, if you were to attack the serbs, the go attack China and kick them out of Tibet Or try to invade Kashmir and mediate there. Now I realise the above two examples are nigh on impossible due to the losses any force trying to move in would suffer. The point is that without consistent doctrine and law enforcement there will be no fairness. Favourved nations will get away with it...and smaller weaker ones will suffer.
------------------
I drink therefore I am.
-Descartes
A- Mine is closer to the truth.
B- Good Hitleresque logic.
C- Read some history. Germany DECLARED WAR on the US. Ignoring any signed treaties... Germany was the AGRESSOR. When you tell me how Slobo is the agressor...
D- They're alienating enough others ones.
E- Sure thing Lyndon.
F- Yes they should.
G- No, but I will.
H- Exactly, defense spending should be cut. The Cold War is over.
N- Well, if Brits don't care about terrorism, that's a good thing. You certainly have incurred enough of it.
O- Am I the only one who reads Carpenter?
P- Part sarcasm, part truth as to how they are both agressors.
Q- I don't go by oil prices, I go by economic reports.
R- Ignorance on the part of the masses. Albania is a worse threat than Serbia can ever be.
T- So, intervention only when it is convenient? Shame Hitler declared war on us. By your logic, if he did not, we should've let him use the reprisal weapons and burn your island to a cinder.
U- And it wasn't funny when it happened then, either. Or, if I should refer to your country's glorious past, why don't we kill some of my Irish brethren?
V- That doesn't mean anything. Ireland! Confederacy! Jay will help me with this one, I hope.
Y- NATO should be absolved immediately. It is useless in the post-Cold War world. Moreover, it is hypocritical. Such an organization can never earn the respect of the informed person.
Very good points Jeff. Russia feels that NATO, like Austria-Hungary, is an expansionist power. Yeltsin may be Clinton's drinking buddy, but he's not going to be in power much longer.
Ya know, there ARE the ingredients for a World War, just not the way you would think. Fools like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton are running around half-cocked with large forces, organizations like NATO and the UN are trying to find themselves, economies are falling, and the two giants(Russia and China) are about to have administration changes. One of those, Russia, is even wounded. The next century should be fun.
------------------
Field Marshal Military Project
http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net
------------------
Day, after day
I get angry and I will say
That the day, is in my sight
When I will bow, and say good night
-------
Violent Femmes
quote:
Now, the reason I'm trumpeting about America is this - it's not your continent. Get off it.
Um, might I remind you of a few certain occasions. WWI, and WWII. If we had "Gotten off your continent", you would be speaking German. Because of US intervention, the United Kingdom and quite a few other nations still exist. It wasn't our continent the either, was it?
------------------
Risk is our business! That's what this starship is all about....that's why we're aboard her!"
------------------
I drink therefore I am.
-Descartes
Thomas Paine.
------------------
"The record of my unspeakable crimes, in previous lives, in previous times, indelibly stains the pages of history."
--
They Might Be Giants
*sarcasm*
------------------
I drink therefore I am.
-Descartes
[This message was edited by Daryus Aden on March 27, 1999.]
This, my friends, is a fib.
The US started out BOTH world wars with a STRONG inclination towards isolationism.
We weren't allied with ANYBODY.
In both cases, the US was eventually pulled in, in the case of WWI by deft maneuvering (Given that the "Zimmerman note" was most likely a sham) and in the case of WWII by the Japanese attack on Pearl harbor. (accompanied by a great deal of begging on the part of the Allies - or have we forgotten Lend-Lease? [never repaid, I might add])
(One wonders what might have happened if Hitler had NOT responded to the US's declaration of war on Japan by declaring War on the US, thus giving them no excuse to enter the European theater... Probably it wouldn't have mattered, since by that time the US government was leaning towards supporting the "Allies" anyway, so WWII would have been an "illegal," "Get off our continent" war, too. )
[Yeah, I bet that's JUST what they would have said.. "Mind your own business, this is OUR war!"]
------------------
*I only SEEM Normal*
[This message was edited by First of Two on March 27, 1999.]
1. Thou shalt not murder. We are going to prevent the senseless destruction of a peoples because it is WRONG.
2. We are setting a precident. We are establishing the fact that we will do as we want to prevent another world war, AND, no one, but no one is going to stop us(although its good to have support every now and then). We stepped on Iraq, and we'll step on Miloslevic. When we're done, we'll move on.
PS- Being at the top of the world has its advantages, but also its disadvantages. We have to put with more criticism than any other nation.
------------------
"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...
'Thou shalt have no other God but the President of the United States of America'
'Thou shalt make for thyself no images aside from the flag of the United States of America'
'Thou shalt not take up the name of the government of the United States of America in any disagreeable way'
'Tho art to remember the sabbath day and to hold it sacred, never bombing Iraq during Ramadan'
'Honour thy President and his lackies in order that your days may prove shrouded in ignorance'
'Thou shalt not murder... unless thou art the the United States of America, in which case you can murder whoever you want, including civilians south of the Mason-Dixon Line, Filipinos, Krauts, Japs, Vietnamese, and particularly those damned Iraqis! If you can't kill them all through sanctions, bomb them occassionally. And also let Russia murder whoever they want... and China for that matter.'
'Thou shalt not commit adultery... unless thou art the President of the United States, whom thou shalt refer to as Ahriman'
'Thou must not steal... unless Ahriman decrees that thou shalt steal from them'
'Thou must not testify falsely against they fellow man as a witness... unless you are Ahriman, in which case not only can you perjur like hell, you can lie about your intentions to bomb the heck out of people'
'Thou shalt not desire your fellowman's house, although his land and oil is fine to covet. For that matter, none of this apllies to Ahriman'"
I like it that way Jeff.
------------------
Day, after day
I get angry and I will say
That the day, is in my sight
When I will bow, and say good night
-------
Violent Femmes
DT: That was a complement, by the way.
--Baloo
------------------
HANDLE WITH EXTREME CARE:
This Product Contains Minute Electrically Charged Particles Moving at Velocities in Excess of Five Hundred Million Miles Per Hour.
<gloat>We are theSUPERPOWER baby!</gloat>
Try to contain your jealousy.
And please DT, the US goverment is not killing ". . . civilians south of the Mason-Dixon Line, Filipinos, Krauts, Japs, Vietnamese. . .". Civilians south of the Mason-Dixon line huh? Sounds like you are refering to all Southerns, me included, so what is that about anyway?
No actually, what are you talking about anyway about all those above mentioned groups?
------------------
The real problem with the United States of America is that is was founded by Europeans, Asians, and Africans.
[This message was edited by Cargile on March 28, 1999.]
[This message was edited by Cargile on March 28, 1999.]
------------------
I drink therefore I am.
-Descartes
DT, how old are you, and where do you live?
------------------
"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...
BTW Did I mention my stance on this issue? Yes, I agree we should be giving Milosovitch a lesson. I don't think the USA should be there. Thus - as a challenge I'm playing the crazy role of going against the masses. Ain't it fun! *L*
------------------
I drink therefore I am.
-Descartes
[This message was edited by Jeff Raven on March 28, 1999.]
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.
------------------
Day, after day
I get angry and I will say
That the day, is in my sight
When I will bow, and say good night
-------
Violent Femmes
(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...
(Kidding DT)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.
------------------
My childhood was typical: summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring, we'd make meat helmets. When I was insolent, I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds. Pretty standard, really.
------------------
I drink therefore I am.
-Descartes
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?
Prove to me(and everyone else) that there is no moral reason that the US and NATO are involved.
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*
[This message was edited by First of Two on March 29, 1999.]
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.
------------------
Day, after day
I get angry and I will say
That the day, is in my sight
When I will bow, and say good night
-------
Violent Femmes
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.
------------------
"We choose to do this and more. Not because it is easy, but because it is hard."
-- John F. Kennedy
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.
------------------
Day, after day
I get angry and I will say
That the day, is in my sight
When I will bow, and say good night
-------
Violent Femmes
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...
[This message was edited by Jeff Raven on March 29, 1999.]
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?
------------------
Day, after day
I get angry and I will say
That the day, is in my sight
When I will bow, and say good night
-------
Violent Femmes
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?
------------------
"The record of my unspeakable crimes, in previous lives, in previous times, indelibly stains the pages of history."
--
They Might Be Giants
------------------
I drink therefore I am.
-Descartes
I given my facts, and you have ignored them. Sorry I couldn't educate you.
So you can support Serbia's execution of "intellectuals," and the driving out of Albanian women and children, and the mass arrests of any male over 16, because some of the Albanians happen to be (maybe, remember, it's the Serbs saying this in the first place) terrorists??
OKAY! *sarcasm* Just what I've been waiting to hear! *more sarcasm* By the above logic, the next time some Shiite-head blows up an airliner, we're justified in getting rid of all the Arabs! (Or at least all the Shiite Moslems)
Of course, one wonders what the implications of such logic might be if applied to the terrorism caused by inner-city street gangs...
Speaking of international law.. isn't there something in the Geneva Convention against genocide? Of course, you may believe that if YugoSerbia never signed it, it doesn't apply to them.. in which case you'd be nuttier than my grandma's fruitcake. It would be like saying the prohibition against murder doesn't apply to you since you never voted for the law against it.
My vote: Dissolve the UN, replace it with ME. The leaders of any country who misbehaves to the point of genocide get a plutonium dust bath.
------------------
*I only SEEM Normal*
quote:
If you all wish, I will find the section of international law which pertains to that.
This is not about international law. This is about genocide. You say that Milosevic's actions are because the Albanians are terrorists. Some of them may be. But all of them are not. The Serbs killed one of the men that tried to go with them to the peace table. He was a man who only wanted to end violence, not provoke it. And he was killed for what he wanted. If those people were terrorists, I would agree with you, and what is occuring is wrong. But they are not. Killing innocent people isn't right. Never has been, never will be.
As for saying that I vote for dissolving the UN, you're wrong. I think the UN is a good, if misguided organization. If the UN was actually given some real authority and power, maybe they could control the situation. They don't have the power, so if we don't stop the wrongs, who will?
First of Two:
quote:
The leaders of any country who misbehaves to the point of genocide get a plutonium dust bath.
Right on.
My vote: Keep bombing them until the genocide stops. If we do not stop these attrocities, we would be no better than the ones committing them.
------------------
"We choose to do this and more. Not because it is easy, but because it is hard."
-- John F. Kennedy
[This message was edited by Warped1701 on March 30, 1999.]
Oh, and re: plutonium dust baths.. this doesn't mean nuking. It means grabbing the guy and dunking him in plutonium dust.. not a pleasant way to go... but then again, neither is being lined up, forced to give the Serbian three-fingered salute, then being shot.
Another thing about the law. Sometimes it's more immoral to keep to the law. Here's a true example from my extensive files:
Woman confides to Pastor that she's severely beating young daughter and allowing two men to sexually abuse same daughter.
Pastor, according to what were then the Church laws regarding confessional, *Fortunately, they've since been changed* is not allowed to do anything about this besides dispensing penance and forgiveness.
Pastor, in fact, says and does nothing beyond dispensing standard penance - which ain't much - and forgiveness.
Abuse continues for years. Effects continue until this day.
Legally correct? Yeppers..
And about as morally wrong as you can get.
And the only thing that keeps me from dispensing just punishment on the guy is that he's dead already.
------------------
*I only SEEM Normal*