US Army brutality in Kosovo

[AKDejaVu]

 

You can bet that half South american people hate USA. You earned it, sorry but it is that way.

You mean Central America don't you?  We don't do as much in South America.. that's pretty much Europe and Asia's stomping grounds.  A little dabling in Columbia.. but not what you'd think.

I've actually been to South America (3 countries) and Central America (2 countries) and felt firsthand how they view Americans.  With the exception of Panama (understandably so).. we're pretty much viewed with whatever the overall mood is.  Usually that's pretty good.  Seldomely is it much different than they view their own people.  To be honest.. we weren't really considered much while we were down there and it was fine for everyone.

Of course.. there will always be those peole from outside the US that have a massive chip on their shoulder, but I haven't noticed them to predominantly come from any one country.  So far... this forum shows them coming from North/South America, Europe and Asia.  Of course, Spain seems to sport some of the bigger chips.

AKDejaVu

[RAM]

Humm, well, I have met several people from Chile, Argentina, Paraguay and Venezuela. I can tell you that none of them had a good view about USA, and one (the chilean) really disliked it.

And that about Central America, not South america...Again, USA was VERY involved in Chile's and Argentina's coups and Uruguay's repressions, not to talk about Colombia.

I dont understand well your comment about chips (for me a chip is a metal thing used in PCs  ). I guess you say that I dont like USA.

I like some things about USA. I dislike others. I have my own point of view about USA and its people. And I share it here. You are free to like it or not, but at least respect it.

If I took the comment badly, sorry. I repeat, for me chips are for computers, not for my shoulder  

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 09-22-2000).]

[Toad]

Originally posted by RAM:
but only and purely USA own interests. Political, economical and propagandistic reasons.

Sorry, my friend...not quite.

First of all, the US didn't just act unilaterally or without consulting the UN/Western Allies. Many, many times our actions were the results of a world consensus.

Often we did serve what we perceived to be "our interests". What were some of those? Perhaps "world peace"? "World economic stability?" Yes, we benefit from those too.

Are you saying that things that benefit the entire world are of no value if they also benefit US interest?

It's easy to "cherry pick" issues and demonize the US but it simply doesn't show the whole picture. Our 55 years, while not perfect, have led you to the world as it is today. Would you prefer the world as it was between WWI and WWII? We DIDN't lead then; we followed the lead of the major European powers.
 

Would you have preferred Stalin to lead the world after WW2? What a nice "human rights" guy he was! I'm sure he'd have done better than we did though.

And that after 50 years WANTING the job, now is a bit problematic to say "i want to resign". You wanted the job, you got it.

I disagree. I think it is problematic for YOU not myself and the ever-growing number of Americans who are sick and tired of this thankless task. We won't be asking your permission; we'll just be bringing our troops home where they belong.   (Image removed from quote.)

Beyond that...we never, ever wanted this job. We filled a vacuum because after WW2 there WAS no one else.


You feared communism expansion and did ANY thing in your hands to stop it

"You" being the US? Are you implying that the US was the only country concerned? How do you explain the formation of NATO? Oh, of course! We MADE them join!

all is nonsense in this matter. Because I am referring to the 1962-75 Vietman conflict. all you have said dont explain what happened in 1960s in VIetnam.

Now THERE'S a bit of NONSENSE!   (Image removed from quote.)  If you don't understand that the history of Vietnam from French Colonialism up through WW2 has a DIRECT "cause and effect" relationship with what happened in the 1960's when Kennedy started our involvement....then there is absolutely no point in even discussing ANY History with you.

Diem eh? lol, that was the president of one of the most corrupt governments in the world,

Ah, so the "good" governments of the world only deal with other "good" governments? What and whose standard shall those governments use to judge "good"? How will you deal with "corrupt" governments? Ignore them? Try to improve them? It must be true then that nothing of value can come from dealing in any way with "bad" governments?

You don't agree with Kissinger's "Realpolitik"? Dealing with the world as it is, not as you want it to be?


VIetman happened because USA put its nose in a hornet's nest. And of course you got the nose VERY red.

It happened because Kennedy supposedly believed in the "Domino theory". And if you think we couldn't have won it militarily, you're foolish. However, the politicians ran the war, a mistake that was highlighted and that we learned from.

Knew about the declaration, and the people involved. Didnt know the date and location. Again, it doesnt explain Korea.

Again, it shows that YOU don't understand History. This is the starting point of the Korean conflict; it took a few years to mature.

was Japan right to take Saipan because fell into its "defence perimeter?"

You miss here too. Acheson's declaration that Korea was OUTSIDE the US defence perimeter was taken by the North Koreans as a statement that the US WOULD NOT fight over Korea. It made their action MORE likely.

Come on, this are wasted words, the thing is that USA had its nose kept into a FOREIGN country because, again, communism threatened to win a victory....YOU WERE THERE because OWN reasons. nothing to do with korean people.

US troops left Korea earlier under Truman's order. They returned when North Korea invaded. We were there because, once again, it was American Foreign Policy to oppose Communist expansion. Are you saying that was a bad Foreign Policy? You think history to date has shown Communism imposed by force to be a GOOD thing for a country? Once again, we were not alone in this belief; it was shared by the Western Powers. Go look up the list of who sent troops.


Still if you want to respect the very same organization you just created then you MUST comply with its resolutions (or lack thereof).

On June 27, 1950, two days after the North invaded,the United Nations asked member nations to aid the Republic of Korea. That was when Truman ordered U.S. air and naval forces to help South Korea.

If you have OTHER information, I'd like to see it.


Noone called USA into Korea, UN did when USA had already sent troops there.

I'd like to see your source information that backs this statement.

Still you WANTED the policeman role. You wanted it for 50 years, and sorry ,it is something that now can't be stopped.

Oh, I think we'll be able to get that done before too long. People like you are making it easier all the time! Thanks for the help!   (Image removed from quote.)

In short words: There was terrorism against US interests and soldiers.

Yes, and under International Law, we were barely within our rights. There are studies that point this out, too.

But is another example of same thing, toad.

Not at all. Here (Greneda) we acted unilaterally, without support from our Western-world allies. Despite the "fig leaf" cover of having the Organziation of Eastern Carribean States ask us to intervene and also supply some   (Image removed from quote.) "troops".

All we needed to do was escort any US or other "foreign" nationals out of there. We WAY overstepped and it wasn't like the other instances above.

Didnt know that the congress is in it. Glad , mighty glad to know it. BUt I doubt that 27 years after it there is much more than an apology to do. Still deserves a salute.

Yeah, thanks. BTW, what did Spain ever do for the natives of the new world that they exterminated? You guys did apologize, right? That would deserve a salute.

Point is that an apology IS all you can do, basically. You can't go back and rewrite or change History.


(after all Salvador allende's assasination is IMO, one of the grimmest moments in XX century).

Not even close. How about the Holocaust...and not just the Jews, either..all of them, the gypsies, transvestites, political dissidents, etc.

Allende was sad...but nothing to compare with that.

CIA supported Argentinian militar dictatorships up to 1980s....All in all, US policy on South america has been a whole disaster, of unmeasurable proportions.


Yes, a huge mistake. I agree.

As bad as what the Spanish did to the Incas, Mayans and Aztecs in South America? I'm not sure. Well, enough time has gone by that most people have forgotten about that little Spanish pecadillo...perhaps someday they will forget the US made mistakes as well. I guess the Spanish were just acting in their own interest.........    (Image removed from quote.)

And I wont start about Nicaragua (sandinists)

I flew quite a few intelligence missions there when the Sandinistas were throwing out Somoza. A fine bunch of fellows, those Sandinos...  (Image removed from quote.) Your heroes, I guess?

wich was,exactly, the benefits on USA military doing the Yugoslavia bombings?...the weapons they tested?...the weapons they USED in real combat?...

Nice try. The ONLY thing we tried there that hadn't been "proved" beyond a doubt in Desert Storm was the B-2. Are you saying that the only reason we flew that bombing campaign was to test the B-2?

Like I said, keep it coming Ram.

Guys like you are the best hope we have of getting all the US troops home!


  (Image removed from quote.)


[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-22-2000).]

[Toad]

Deleted...accidentally doubled.

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-22-2000).]

[AKDejaVu]

Well.. damn ram.. I didn't know you'd "talked to people from South America".

Hell...

That's much better than actually going there.  WHAT WAS I THINKING?

It must be really great to be able to sit 8000 miles away and levy judgement on things based on heresay.

And.. having a chip on your shoulder is a figure of speech.  It requires someone have a serious inferiority complex.. then dares someone to point it out.  That pretty much sums you up.

AKDejaVu

BTW Toad.. great post.  I think Europe loves having the US around.  That way they can say "forget about what we did to the world for the last 1500 years... LOOK WHAT THE US IS DOING RIGHT NOW!  Of course, they aren't commiting genocide, repressing religion or anexing countries to their "empire"... but that's just a matter of time.. RIGHT?

[Shade324th]

RAM,...I got no problem with you....you've always seemed like a cool guy, and I don't mean to piss you off...but I gotta say....

 

Originally posted by Jigster:



OTOH it's nice how some nations of the UNO send just a enough troops to claim credit in peace-keeping operations but not enough to gain notice when they are yanked when things go sour.


- Jig

 Stick that in your pipe and smoke it...

Man, Jig....after taking 30 mins to read through this...those words sum it up for me
!

[jmccaul]

Ok waht happened in Yugoslavia was a civil war, why is it then just the other european countries responsiblity? Because there closer, because they are on the same land mass? it's no more the UK's, France, Russia etc. responsibility than it is the USA.

Also why is it when saddam hussien invades kuwait it's NATO's responsiblity to protect the free world from this evil dictator but when he's attacking iran he's just someone to sell arms to? You guessed it OIL. If yugoslavia had oil you would soon see the US, UK etc there to help preserve world freedom.          

[Toad]

 

Originally posted by jmccaul:
Ok waht happened in Yugoslavia was a civil war, why is it then just the other european countries responsiblity? ....

If yugoslavia had oil you would soon see the US, UK etc there to help preserve world freedom.          

To your first question, IMO, simply because it's THEIR turn to pull the wagon a while. Lord knows we're due a break.


In answer to your second statement, sheesh, do a little reading!

It might have slipped by ya  , but US and UK troops have been in Kosovo and Bosnia since the beginning of UN involvement.

As of 12JAN00, there were 6100 US troops in Kosovo out of a total of 45,000. UK had 3100. About 36 countries contributed troops, Iceland and Luxembourg lowest with 2, US highest.

As of May 2000, these countries had troops in Bosnia:

NATO:
Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, UK and USA.

Non-NATO : Albania, Austria, Argentina, Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Morocco, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden.

Total troops number: Initial SFOR - 32,000 approx. Following 1999/2000 restructuring - 20,000 approx.

Like I said, do a little research for pete's sake!

[AKDejaVu]

 

Also why is it when saddam hussien invades kuwait it's NATO's responsiblity to protect the free world from this evil dictator but when he's attacking iran he's just someone to sell arms to? You guessed it OIL. If yugoslavia had oil you would soon see the US, UK etc there to help preserve world freedom.

LOL!

1) I do believe that the idea of Sadam controlling such a large chunk of the world's oil supply had more than just a few people worried.  As a rule, anything that has global economy ramifications gets everyone worried.

2) What the hell is the US doing over there then? We don't have any troops there?  Where did they go?  They were supposed to go there.  I know we had troops in and all around there about 4 years ago.  I wasn't too far away (thank God for long-range reconisance).  Could it be that someone is that blind to something going on not that far away?  Come now.

AKDejaVu

[Dowding]

 

Originally posted by jmccaul:
If yugoslavia had oil you would soon see the US, UK etc there to help preserve world freedom.          

Do you remember that spitting image sketch back in 1992. You got two Bosnian soldiers talking over the sound of shellfire.

Bosnian 1 - "The serbs are coming - they'll be in Sarejevo within a week. What can we do?!!!"

<Bosnian 2 picks up spade and startes digging without a word>

Bosnian 1 - "What are you doing, digging more trenches?!!!"

Bosnian 2 - "No, I'm digging for oil. It worked for Kuwait!!"

<Bosnian 1 picks up spade and helps his comrade>

Without oil the developed world dies; we'll do anything to protect supplies, and hide behind moral justification, no matter how dubious.

"It might have slipped by ya , but US and UK troops have been in Kosovo and Bosnia since the beginning of UN involvement."

Toad, I suggest you do some reading. The international community took no real action in Yugo. for years, yet literally days after Kuwait was invaded, the internation community was 'in'.

If you can't see the difference in the policy boils down to oil, then there's no hope for you, friend.  

There's something that's been nagging me for a while, while reading through this topic and others. If the US is so altruistic in its pursuit of foreign policy, then why all the fuss when it comes to 'Big Brother' and the insidious influences of your government at home? It doesn't make sense to me that the government should be so 'nice' to foreigners, yet supposedly so 'nasty' to its own people. It just doesn't add up to me. BTW, before anyone attacks me for slagging off the States, I'm not; I'm just interested on your thoughts on the subject.  

[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-23-2000).]

[jmccaul]

My point is the US (quite rightly) hasn't got troops stationed around the world purely to help other countries it is there to protect it's own intrest.

Also can you honestly compare mobilizing a huge invasion force to liberate kuwait to what happened in bosnia where there was an attempt at genocide which was a far worse humanitarian situation than in kuwit but i didn't see NATO uniting to force the serbs out of bosnia like they did to Iraq at kuwait. I simply do not know how you can compare the two.    

[Toad]

Dowding: Toad, I suggest you do some reading. The international community took no real action in Yugo. for years, yet literally days after Kuwait was invaded, the internation community was 'in'.

Well, old chum, prior to the "breakup" of Yugoslavia into smaller states you are talking about the internal affairs of a nation. Even after the breakup of Yugoslavia into small "historically independent" states   much of the problem was in their internal affairs.

The UN rarely gets into "internal" affairs very quickly. It wasn't designed to deal with those situations. The bloodshed has to get so major that EVERYONE is embarassed.

...and if you are a "major power" the UN won't do anything at all. Chechnya is considered an "internal" affair even now and the bloodshed has been huge.

Kuwait, on the other hand, is aggression against a UN member by an external military force. This is EXACTLY the situation the UN was designed to deal with. Remember the "never again" of WW2? That's what the UN was designed to avoid.

Did oil play a role? Absolutely! Is this not a legitimate concern and policy goal for the entire world?  So if it's a "GOOD" thing for the world and the US both, it's still a "BAD" thing?

What DejaVu said in his "Point 1".  

So, the short easily understood reply is: The UN is charted to deal with external aggression against a member nation. Internal slaughter of a nation's own citizens by a member nation is a different situation entirely.

For some pre-bedtime reading, may I suggest the UN Charter?  

If you can't see the difference in the policy boils down to how the UN operates, then there's no hope for you, friend.  

If the US is so altruistic in its pursuit of foreign policy

I've not said that. I've said we OF COURSE acted in our own interests. Every nation does. HOWEVER, I think our interests can be and often HAVE BEEN in the best interests of most other countries as well. World Peace, for example is a mutual goal.

Kuwait is a good example, despite everyone's focus on the oil. The entire world benefits when external agressors are checked. Or maybe we should revert to Neville Chamberlains approach? We could have let Saddam keep Kuwait if he promised to leave Saudi alone I guess. What sort of message would that have sent to the wannabe-Hitlers of the world?

Our internal squabbles over Government policy are just that. You don't see anyone killing Government officials here like the Basques are doing, do you?

We argue over the meaning of the Constitution. So? We have elections and press on.

We don't murder people in the thousands just because they are of a different faith.

The nice thing about the US is that what revolutions we have occur through the use of the ballot box. Remember the term "Reagan Revolution"? Like him or not, he changed many things. That happened because we peacefully elected him, not by gunfire.

jmccaul:

My point is the US (quite rightly) hasn't got troops stationed around the world purely to help other countries it is there to protect it's own intrest.

Well, that is not the point you made.

See above; sure we have troops around the world to protect our interests. Does that mean they are not simultaneously protecting the interests of other countries and, in fact, the world? You gents seem to say that US interests and Global Community interests are ALWAYS diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive.

Is World Peace not a goal of the rest of the world?  

In any event, time to bring them home and let you "armchair world policemen" take a turn on the beat. Enjoy and watch the dark alleys!


Also can you honestly compare mobilizing a huge invasion force to liberate kuwait to what happened in bosnia where there was an attempt at genocide which was a far worse humanitarian situation than in kuwit but i didn't see NATO uniting to force the serbs out of bosnia like they did to Iraq at kuwait. I simply do not know how you can compare the two.

Neither can I, but you and Dowding seem to be trying to compare them.

You can't compare EXTERNAL armed aggression against a UN Member Nation by another UN Member nation to INTERNAL genocide. They simply are not the same and both the UN Charter and the NATO charter are designed to deal with EXTERNAL aggression.
 
I'm not saying oil wasn't a factor. I'm saying you guys need to understand the difference in the Charters with respect to External Aggression and Internal Persecution.

Have a NICE day!

 

[Dowding]

You make some excellent points, Toad. But I don't agree with some of them.

   

Well, old chum, prior to the "breakup" of Yugoslavia into smaller states you are talking about the internal affairs of a nation. Even after the breakup of Yugoslavia into small "historically independent" states      (Image removed from quote.) much of the problem was in their internal affairs.

The UN rarely gets into "internal" affairs very quickly. It wasn't designed to deal with those situations. The bloodshed has to get so major that EVERYONE is embarassed.
[/B]

Yugoslavia, as you point out, was a federation of nation states - I don't think the UN can hide behind the excuse that it was somehow a civil war, as though this somehow justifies its total inaction. The combatants had very strong nationalistic feelings and could use the history of their peoples to justify hostilities. It wasn't truly a civil war, unlike the English or American wars; it wasn't 'brother against brother' or 'father against son', more like 'neighbour against neighbour' (where each neighbour possesses a particular national identity - sounds like the definition of a cross-border war, to me). The 'senate' of Yugoslavia had completely and irrevocably dissolved, and the representives had retreated to their ethinic origins. Surely then the UN should have realised what was going to come.

Remember that one of the key sparks to the conflict was Germany's recognition of Croatia as a nation state.

As to your last point in the quote; it was noticeable how quickly the international community got involved once the 'Market Square Massacre' reached the world's media wasn't it? What happened to the UN's supposely unbreakable decree about 'internal disagreements'? I'm convinced that if this had not happened, or if it had gone unreported, then NATO would not have got involved. The war would have remained an 'Internal dispute' and the world could have continued to hide behind the high moral values of the UN's mandate, and its approach to 'international' conflict. If they could enter the conflict then, why not in the months before? Like you say, embarrassment at the event played its part; is was nothing to do with UN trying to be true to the principles mentioned previously, if it was, surely they would have honored them.

There are other examples of UN and international community inactivity in the face of conflict. Just look to Africa and the decade long wars there - Eritrea and Ethiopia for example (I think thats right, not sure     ). There are plenty of 'wannabe Hitlers' in Africa, but we don't even get involved politically, nevermind militarily. I still maintain that if Iraq and Kuwait had been in Africa, the huge military response would not have occurred.

I think the moral justification of 'putting down the agressor' was just used to disguise the real reason for intervention, that being the continued supply of oil. It seemed to me that the West tried to make out Kuwait to be some kind of bastion of civilisation over-run by a barbaric horde; it gets interesting when you look at the serious human rights violations that were occuring in Kuwait before Iraq got involved, for instance the widespread use of torture against dissidents of the regime.

As an aside, the Chechnya conflict is very revealing, especially when looking at international relations. NATO wouldn't dare get involved here and the world chooses to ignore the fact that there is very little reporting on the situation there. When the final assault on Grozny took place this year, there was only one reporter in the city. His name is Andrei Babitsky, a Russian, who chose to report on the true situation there. Only one radio station would accept his reports in Russia, the rest of the media carried the official line (like the good old days). He was captured by the Russian secret service and spent time inside a Russian prison (reminiscent of Stalin's Gulags - he heard torture occuring all around him, both men and women). Only the US's timely intervention, requesting information on his whereabouts saved him; Russia had supposedly released him to the Cheychen rebels he had being living with - they turned out to be bandits selected for the 'task' by Russian forces. Only now is Babitsky's story getting out into the Western press.

When I made the point about the altruism of American foreign policy, I was referring to the people who have made comments here about American aid to Europe being 'caring' or humanitarian - this seems to be a widely held view (I might be wrong) - yet it seems from reading in the O club that the US government is also this malevolent controlling authority, trying to stealthyly impose it's will over the American people. I made no insinuation about internal violence Toad - I was just trying to make the point that the malevolent 'Big Brother' image can't fit with the perceived kindness shown to Europe since WW2 or in other foreign policy decisions. And BTW, I am grateful for what the US did for Europe - I'd be a fool not to.

Hajo - what you said about Stalin was largely true, except the 'failure' part. My definition of failure is when you set yourself an objective that you fail to meet. At which point did Stalin decide to rule in a fair-handed, humanitarian and democratic way? The answer is he never did - therefore you can't say he is a failure at something he never intended to do. He always wanted to be a despot. It would be like saying an olympic champion sprinter failed to win gold at beach volleyball.

Jeez, this is a long post.  



[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-24-2000).]

[Sorrow[S=A]]

Hehe, toad you make good arguements  

One thing tho:
Yes nothing new was tested in yugoslavia, but undoubtedly the US wanted to see how their planes worked in a more hostile enviroment than Iraq. They went into Yugoslavia using every bit of air tactics and power they had knowing that they had more sophisticated anti-aircraft defenses in a much smaller area. I think they learned a great deal there- about how well their approaches to the problems worked, about what issues they needed to address and whether or not to retire some of the longer standing planes in the US navy. (I believe the Wild Weasel Phantoms were retired just after the Bosnia campaign, they were no longer effective enough to justify not using F-18's instead) And when reading the reports on the conflict available to us from the armed forces- one gets the feeling they were distinctly disapointed Milsovek (sp?) closed down his air defense radar network before they could kill it  

And beyond a doubt US special forces had a heyday there- like practices in the field except they got to shoot live ammo.

Hehe Jig I agree with Shade-  
Too funny yet too true.

And yes- it's far past the time for US to bring their boys home from Kosovo except a small peacekeeping force. They DID their work there- they deserve to come back. Canada and Belgium can easily take up the slack in keeping the peace and settling the dust. And frankly- we can use the practice. We have been doing this type of intervention longer than anyone else but after Rwanda and Somalia both of these countries need a fresh start to apply what we have learned.

Sorrow

[Toad]

sorry, goofed something up...off to a football game, will fix this Sunday

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-23-2000).]