US Army brutality in Kosovo

[Suave1]

 

Originally posted by funked:
1.  Sad to see that killers (soldiers) are being used as policemen.

How true, this is waste and misuse of resources . This is a job better off left to marines and mp's not soldiers . This has a negative effect on these units, training them to be killers, destroyers and avengers and then giving them the mission of civil policing and guarding is taxing on these units that should be training for war . It used to be marines and mp battalions would be deployed to quell civil unrest, and if infantry and artillery battalions had to be deployed they would start killing untill the problem was fixed and then come home, not stay around fulfilling a civil affairs mission .

[Toad]

 

Originally posted by funked:
1.  Sad to see that killers (soldiers) are being used as policemen.  WTG Bubba.

Bingo. Only I would say "combat troops" instead of killers. Gotta be PC, now don't we?  

The US doesn't have a huge force of "policemen" to deploy around the world. I don't believe our combat troops are suited to that job AT ALL.

Further, I no longer see huge threats to world peace that require US combat troops to be permanently stationed outside of the US.

So, it's time for them to come home.

Since WW2 we've kept huge numbers of combat troops stationed overseas, paid for out of the US budget. Had just SOME of that money been spent on our domestic problems, I think the US would be in a far better situation than it is right now vis-a-vis some important domestic issues.

IMHO, someone had to do that job during the Cold War. We were the only country able to take on the task at the time.

We did it as well as we could, we weren't perfect, it cost us a bundle and now it's not necessary. No regrets, no whines but the time for it has passed.

Should problems break out, let the locals handle it to the extent that they can.

IF and that's a BIG "if" the US then needs to get involved, we still maintain the capablity to deploy amazing firepower in short order.

I do, however, also support clarification of the Executive Branch's authority to commit US troops without Congress being involved. It's a fairly gray area right now.

If there's concern about not having a "world policeman", you folks can always hire a force, just like any big city does. Please don't call on the US, however. We've done our hitch for a while and we're due some R&R.

Surely some other outfit can handle it for the next 55 years?

 

[Boroda]

Was this girl Serbian or Abanian?

The whole "peacekeeping" operation in Kosovo is a comedy.

Serbs could have done the job. KFOR is a circus.

Leonid, was it a special topic for me?  

------------------
With respect,
    Pavel Pavlov,
    Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS

[Staga]

Sure, Let Russians do it.

Or Finnish;
Just sit down and look how mighty Finnish army again kicks the bad guys prettythang

uhmmm...
Send more Hornets and ammunition, please ?

     

Boroda:
You wanna go digging some graves?.
Well Serbs were quite good in that job.
International Criminal Tribunal of former Jugoslavia

Here are the charges against former Jugoslavian leaders, Karadzic and Mladic.

[This message has been edited by Staga (edited 09-17-2000).]

[Boroda]

Staga, you probably watch Clingon News Network too much.

Even the pro-Western NTV shows someting wery different from what you see on TV.

The world is very much different from what the US shows you.

BTW, don't you know that Russian peacekeepers have much more losses then the "UN" troops? "UN" has shown itself 50 years ago in Korea. And now it's just a US puppet.

------------------
With respect,
    Pavel Pavlov,
    Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS

[funked]

Yeah all those mass graves in Kosovo were just irrigation trenches.  I think the 2,100 bodies exhumed from those ditches must have just fallen there.  I'm sure the Serbs had nothing to do with it.  

I'm sure it was all fabricated by the US because we really like to spend billions of dollars and risk thousands of our soldiers' lives to screw around in a piddly little barbaric nation.


[This message has been edited by funked (edited 09-17-2000).]

[Staga]

Boroda would you like to show me the truth of Kosovo ?
I really would like to hear your opinion about those graves and charges against Serbs.

[Jigster]

Yanno what's really funny?

After WWII everyone griped that someone could of done something to prevent the rise of Germany and nobody did.

Then all the allied nations blamed the US for remaining in isolation, where they could saved countless allied lives by commiting earlier (in theory of course)

From that point, the US tried to kill that old reputation by stepping in every chance they got.

Genocide starts again, we vowed "Never again!" and commited.

You do what people ask and they hate you even more.

sigh.

- Jig

[funked]

I say bring em all home.  Let the barbarians kill each other off.

[StSanta]

funked:

Don't you think that it is likely that one or several of the following things would happen if the US troops wer ebrought home:

the US economy would get at least an initial boost. Or rather, the government would, which in turn one way or another would help the US, either by direct tax cuts, extra benefits, or paying the loans. Once again, Americans will be able to afford three McDonald burgers a day, and one heart surgery bypass to go along with it.

Some American soldiers will be happy since they won't have to go away from their loved ones. Others will be a bit disappointed as they hoped to see and do cool stuff, and not just train and stay home. Varies with each individual soldier.

American public would be happy in a way because no American GI's would die outside its own borders.

Parts of teh American public would be dismayed and shocked as the US watch atrocities being committed - they'll feel like they're the big kid on the block and they ain't stopping some of the nasty buggers from taking it out on the smaller ones. ut, they may or may not be in a majority, doesn't really matter for the same of this argument.

Americas armed forces will undergo a reduction in size, since less is needed when external bases are non existent. Some leftwing politicians will argue that for a national defence and strategic defense of interests, much less than what the US armed forces have now is needed.

American international influence, and with it the power to gently or violently prod partners/enemies of interest will be reduced. Smaller nations will know of America's reluctance to get involved with "internal affairs", which is a nice euphemism covering everything from genocide to just plain old opression.

American options will be a bit limited - they're no more a police force, and their options will be conventional warfare, or (as now) peace enforcement through the UN. With low intensity warfare being the norm rather than the exception, flexibility is lost.

Trouble *will* spread, and sooner or later the US will face a direct threat to its national security. This not only includes military threats, but also drug trafficing and things such as the AIDS epidemic in Africa and similar issues. Since these problems are not caught when in their infancy, a larger amunt of resources will be needed to control them.

In an ever increasingly international community, I don't think isolationism is the key for success for a big and powerul country that wants to stay influential.

Blaming Clinton for US troops stationed abroad is sort of silly too - there's been troops at foreign bases since the end of the second world war. The US have also created some issues that they need to deal with - don't start something if ya cannot finish it (Iraq).

America's committment to the world could be a great deal smaller without a huge negative impact on its influence, I agree. But, for us old cynics, it's just the same politics that have been played out throughout human history; nations protecting their influence, and in many cases using big fancy words to justify it.

I believe what yer advocating is a no BS approach - let the world know you'll do what's in your best interest, and enough of this altruistic nonsense that waste valuable American resources, since it appears to be a neverending problem that cannot be stopped by external forces anyhow. I.e we'll protect our oil supply, so we can get cheap gas, and if there's a secondary win, cool, we can use it for propaganda purposes.

Just some thoughts.

------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime

[Naso]

And, StSanta, in you scenery you forgot to mention the European community.

Without the big boy in the block, the second big boy will become more influent, and the EC will start to be a REAL superpower, not enemy of the US but strong enough to talk with equal power.

Remember, the US enter in Kfor when the Euro decide to start the operation anyway, with or without the US help.

Think!  

[Hajo]

LOL Europe handling it's own problems <G>  For hundreds of years europe has been the most unstable area in the world.  for a reminder how about World War 1 and World War 2.  Europe has never been able to solve it's problems, read your history books!  I admit Europe has taken more responsibility for what goes on politically in that arena.  World War 2 for instance England so graciously gave permission to Germany to take the Sudatenland, gee, wasn't that swell of them to give them something they didn't own!  Chamberlain as I recall was the culprit!  They appeased germany hoping WW2 could be avoided.  As for desert storm.....the coalition wouldn't have been created if it weren't for the US.  The US kept it together and assembled it.  And after scud missles were launched on Israel, it was the US who kept the Israelis' from attacking Iraq and staying out of this War.  If the Israelis had launched missles aimed at Iraq during this crisis World War 3 could have been a possiblity.  Yes.....the US makes mistakes, we all do......but give the US credit for being born with a spine! France as of yet hasn't developed one.
By the way when there is a natural disaster anywhere in the world the US is always there to help.  Earthquakes, floods, etc.  And we in the US when we suffer Earthquakes, massive floods etc. handle it alone! WE're not perfect, never will be, If someone else has the resources to have the responsibility of being looked to as the most powerful  nation on earth, please send in your resume!  Can you feed, supply medical and disaster services? Can you send troops to help keep the peace and police those who wish to use their armed forces to take what their neighboring countries have, including their civilians personal property?  Remember folks it's the people of the US who provide those services through their tax dollars and by participating in the Military.  Get off the US's back!  If the rest of the world could do the same, the US wouldn't have to!  And I for one am getting tired of bailing everyone else out, and getting spit on at the same time because "we are americans" To other countries who whine about the US....Grow some balls! develope a spine!  If you can do it better....by all means do so and present it to the world so we all can be witness to that fact!  As a US citizen I would be more then happy to step back and let someone else carry the load.

[Dowding]

Get it right - England is part of Great Britain, which combined with Northern Island is the UK. England is only one country in the Kingdom.  

Chamberlain was wrong, with hindsight, to appease Germany. But everyone (including the US) was so afraid of another World War, they'd do anything to avoid it, even if it meant giving some obnoxious dictator a bit of land.

The Sudetenland had a high proportion of Germans in it anyway - this was how the world could justify Hitler's actions - he wanted Lebensraum and unification for all German people. It wasn't until too late that the world (including the US) realised that he wanted so much more.

And BTW, Britain stood alone against Germany for years without US intervention and we were prepared to fight to the death. Churchill even had a speech prepared which called on people to 'take one with you' in defence of the British Isles. All Europeans must be grateful for what the US did in the war, but w/o Britain, Nazism would BE Europe.

Surely its obvious that the key to a stable world for America to exist in, depends on a stable Europe? Fortunately for us all, the US government realised this and has hand in European affairs ever since.

[Toad]

 

Surely its obvious that the key to a stable world for America to exist in, depends on a stable Europe? Fortunately for us all, the US government realised this and has hand in European affairs ever since.[/B]

So let me see. If the US wants a "stable world to exist in" then the US basically has to be deeply involved in the affairs of other governments? We get to be the world's policeman?

Lucky us!

Guess we can't expect the rest of you sophisticated, civilized, morally superior, "old world" countries to behave yourselves and keep the peace without us.  

The US is continually "b*tched at" for getting involved in the affairs of other nations, simply because NO ONE...not a person or a nation...likes someone meddling in their affairs. It is impossible for ANY country to meet all the expectations of the world community as a perfect "world policeman".

It such a damn easy job that we are eager to retire and let someone else have this cushy job. We've done our share...and more. Let's see someone else handle it out of THEIR budget for a while.

It's my perception that the "common man" in the US is sick and tired of having to be the "world's policeman"....just to have a stable world.

In fact, it's when we stray outside our own boundaries that we stumble. The rest of the world doesn't accept our values or our methodology in problem solving. We expect what works for us to work for everyone. (A faulty expectation, IMHO...our history is SO different from the "old world".) It's simply a "no win" situation.


Santa (BTW, this isn't a personal engagement, but you have summed things up for the "other side" pretty well, so I'll clip your text to make things easy) may think we have some "need" for influence..."a big and powerul country that wants to stay influential." but if there's much sentiment like that remaining, it's in the minds of some outdated politicians. (We do have plenty of those yet!)

I doubt there's many average citizens in the US that fear that: Trouble *will* spread, and sooner or later the US will face a direct threat to its national security. This not only includes military threats, but also drug trafficing and things such as the AIDS epidemic in Africa and similar issues. Since these problems are not caught when in their infancy, a larger amunt of resources will be needed to control them.

This nation has a history of rising to the crisis. If anything, it is our forte. When a problem truly and finally needs solving, we put aside our differences and pull together.

Given our technology, military, economy and (luckily) two huge oceans on each side  ....I think the average American is quite ready to face the future without being the "world's policeman" or trying to force "stability" on an unwilling and unready world. Direct threats to our national security notwithstanding, I feel the "average joe" thinks we can handle ourselves and our future quite well.

[ygsmilo]

"Walk quietly and carry a big stick."

Modern translation=

A ripple from a Trident can solve a lot of foreign policy issues.



------------------
JG 2's current cannon magnet

Milo