US Army brutality in Kosovo

[jmccaul]

Toad you say : Bring troops home and give us a break from being the worlds policemen.

I say : they are there protecting there own intrests in the main with pecaekeeping secondry(nothing wrong with that).

P.S. You imply it is only the US doing peace keeping work but the truth is all many countries do there share by saying let others take over for a while you suggest other countries are not pulling there weight. I expect you got this impression fro your insular media      

[Boroda]

Sorrow, sorry - but you are a fuking stupid.

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

[Sorrow[S=A]]

??

Casre to expand on that Boroda?
Or just to leave it as a cheap shot and run?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Dowding:
You make some excellent points, Toad. But I don't agree with some of them.

"Agreement" is not the important thing in these discussions.

The really important thing is that we all can discuss issues like these without bloodshed.   (Image removed from quote.)

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

Well, you undoubtedly agree that it was NOT a clear-cut case of external agression as was the case in Kuwait.

Further, you will probably agree that without such a clear-cut situation ANY organization made up of essentially every country in the world is going to be slow in acting.

This is simply being realistic. You have to accept the world as it is, not as one would like it to be. Huge bureaucracy = slow action.

The combatants had very strong nationalistic feelings and could use the history of their peoples to justify hostilities.

Sort of like Northern Ireland? Sort of like Palestine? Sort of like every area of "neighbor against neighbor" conflict in the past 100 years?

If you think about it, the UN has to act carefully. You wouldn't want it any other way, either.

Would you have liked the Blue Berets to jump in every time Northern Ireland had an incident?

Should they be leaping into Spain right now over the Basque political killings?

No, Dowding. Some issues are in fact INTERNAL issues.

Even on the questionable ones, like _possibly_ Yugoslavia, it takes time to build a world consensus to act. While this may seem terrible, hasty action may be much worse. Remember the shooting of a certain ArchDuke in Sarajevo earlier in the century? You got some hasty action there, didn't you?

The UN can't act without a mandate to do so either from the General Assembly or the Security Council. Nowadays, one is rather unlikely without the other anyway. Further, it simply takes time to build the consensus to order the action.

The world as it is. Realpolitik.

 

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'...If they could enter the conflict then, why not in the months before?

I disagree here with you as well. In the history of man's inhumanity to man, that attack was pretty small potatoes. Tough on the dead and injured but measured on the scale of world atrocity...a mere blip.

No, I think what moved the UN to act was that this incident made it clear that diplomacy was not ever going to work. Therefore, there finally WAS a concensus to  move on to military action. I think you will also remember that this was NOT unanimously supported. IIRC, Russia and several other countries still didn't want intervention.

Still that act brought about the concensus that allowed the UN to act...and the previous lack of same is why the didn't act earlier. (IMHO)

 


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.

The external agression is specifically the type of thing the UN is supposed to act against. Of course, in your ideological belief system the West is EVIL  (Image removed from quote.) and always has ulterior motives. So, you seek to say it was simply over "the continued supply of oil" as if that were EVIL.

The continued supply of oil is in the best interest of just about EVERY country on the globe that doesn't have oil supplies of it's own. If this WAS the sole OR primary goal of Desert Storm, and I DO NOT believe that it would probably still be considered a viable reason to act in the UN.

Look at the support the action HAD in the UN! Look at the number of nations that sent AID or TROOPS.

Who do you want to blame for the EVIL MOTIVE of a "continued supply of oil"? Let me guess...it was the Evil US, right?  (Image removed from quote.) Yeah, along with just about EVERY other country in the world.  (Image removed from quote.)

human rights violations that were occuring in Kuwait before Iraq got involved, for instance the widespread use of torture against dissidents of the regime.

Dowding, are you SERIOUSLY going to compare Human Rights violations in Kuwait with Human Rights violations in Iraq? Quit while you're ahead chum; you're grasping at straws to try and make some sort of case that we should NOT have intervened.  (Image removed from quote.)   (Image removed from quote.)  (Image removed from quote.)

Kuwait wasn't perfect. What country is when you look back through history. Kuwait, however, CLEARLY has a better HR record than Iraq; they haven't gassed any Kurds for starters! The world as it is, Dowding.

the Chechnya conflict is very revealing, especially when looking at international relations. NATO wouldn't dare get involved here

I'm beginning to wonder about the value of that "free" (somebody paid, amigo) education you got.

Allow me to ask you 4 questions:

Is Russia a member of NATO?

Is Chechnya a member of NATO?

What countries and what countries ONLY is NATO authorized to defend by the NATO charter?

Lastly...Why then has NATO had nothing to do with that conflict?

You should be able to figure this out pretty quickly.

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...the malevolent 'Big Brother' image can't fit with the perceived kindness shown to Europe since WW2 or in other foreign policy decisions.

I would never pretend to know what makes Euros tick. I've never lived there longer than a month at a time and I did not grow up in that culture.

Similarly, I don't have any idea what you are talking about with respect to posts in the O-Club about a "Malevolent" US government. Maybe you need to point me to some of those specific posts to clear this up.

Malevolent, as defined at my little state University means: 1) having, showing or arising from ill will, spite or hatred.

Who has posted that the US government is spiteful or acts out of hatred?

The domestic discussions I've been here involved in center around the role of government with respect to the individual and to the States. This discussion has been going on here since our Constitution was ratified. In fact, this issue was basically the prime cause of our Civil War.

Some (like me) think like Thoreau that "that government governs best which governs least". (An opinion that was probably favored by most of those who left Europe early on to come here.   (Image removed from quote.)  ) Some feel that "the Federal government knows best. Do what we say.
 
Now, we in the States argue this alot. This basic issue plays a role in almost every "national" decision that is made.

But "malevolent US government?" Where did you see that claim?

We all pretty much like it here. We enjoy what we consider to be our freedoms, though you may not value some of them at all.

Do you see a huge exodus from the US? US citizens leaving in thousands looking for a better life? No, in fact you see the reverse, and they come from all over the globe.

Are you just trolling, then?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Sorrow[S=A]:
but undoubtedly the US wanted to see how their planes worked in a more hostile enviroment than Iraq.

Sorrows, either you're trolling or Boroda has a point.

You think we would send our troops in harm's way to TEST EQUIPMENT?

If so, there obviously isn't anything to discuss.

[Toad]

Originally posted by jmccaul:
I say : they are there protecting there own intrests in the main with pecaekeeping secondry(nothing wrong with that).

Well, heck, I'm just a poor hick from Kansas.
I see peacekeeping as the US troops PRIMARY mission.

Give me a little help here, okay?

What big threat to US National Security exists in Bosnia or Kosovo?

What solely US interests are the troops protecting there? After the fighting, the whole region is essentially destitute.

In short, what interests does the US have there OTHER than trying to keep the peace?

P.S. you suggest other countries are not pulling there weight. I expect you got this impression fro your insular media      

No, I'm not suggesting that. If you look in my earlier post, I pointed out exactly who was participating. BTW, I found those facts in my "insular media".   (Image removed from quote.)

I'm saying that over the course of the last 55 years (the post-WW2 era) the US has done the LION'S SHARE both physically with troop deployments and monetarily overall.

In the overall balance it is time for OTHERS to handle the main job and WE'LL be the back up for a while...say 20-50 years or so.   (Image removed from quote.) That gives us time to work on our problems.

Of course, I'm always willing to learn. Show me where I'm wrong. BTW, how many troops did the UK keep on the Continent full tme for NATO deployments? Please compare and contrast that for me with the US participation through the years. I don't get that info from my media, but I'm sure you do!

 (Image removed from quote.)

[Naso]

<jump in>

 

Originally posted by 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?

LOL Dejavu, why dont go back more? say 2000 or 3000 years? The Evil is in Europe, the diddlying communist and imperialist continent, where all the wars started and all the evil born.
Thank God we have the United States Of America (God bless it), the nation of heaven, seeker of peace, unique place where is real freedom, the perfect society without stains in his history...
what?...
ehm...
well...
My secretary just tell me they dont have stains in history because they dont have history (he is a damn communist)..
So what are you suggesting, you want negate the US right to build his own stains in history??
you... you... freedom violator !!!

(Sorry, i could'nt resist to troll a bit  )

BTW, read between the lines of my troll, and maybe we old evil eritage keeping Europeans are trying to avoid you repeat the same mistakes we made century ago, but, you know, the child learn only when he burn himself, that the fire is dangerous.

WOW, what image, a child with an M-16 in his hands,   .

We know perfectly what we have done in the past and we try to not forget, even if you force the thinks to compare for example the Roman people with the actual Italian people, quite different after 2000 years, but the think scaring us is you are pride of evrithink you made, wrong or bad, just because US did it.

And finally you say we had to be grateful for your help after the 2nd WW, even if you had advantage from this, i agree this, and say: "yes we thank you, thank you a lot... can we stop to be your potato?".

Last think, if we have to feel guilty of the facts committed by the former english or spanish or germans 1500 years ago, you are not descending (better: the white part of you) by the same people??
Or you dropped from outer space for God will??

just some toughs-trolls.

<jump out to cover>

[Dowding]

Toad - I thought we could discuss this without getting personal. I don't like people putting words in my mouth, and then forming arguments on what I supposedly said.

 

Of course, in your ideological belief system the West is EVIL  and always has ulterior motives. So, you seek to say it was simply over "the continued supply of oil" as if that were EVIL.

The west is evil? Please tell me where I said this, and please don't make wild guesses as to what my belief system is. The point I was trying to make (and this is true for my comments about Yugoslavia) is that the world hides behind moral arguments which often really don't hold water; the lack of honesty is what I object to, often not the true disguised aim of any action undertaken. For the record, intervening to maintain an oil supply is something I agree with, since it maintains a power structure which I honestly believe is the light amidst so much darkness, whatever its faults. But you seem to know my mind better than myself, so that will probably make little impression on you.

And then you introduce a little sarcasm with the 'my little' university crack. Nice. But this sets the scene for a little patronizing comment about Nato. I was only posting what I believe, and if you don't agree with it fine - but don't project it onto yourself as though I was somehow insulting you. That was not my intention, and I apologize if you think it was (can't believe I'm doing the apologizing).

I might have thought about replying to your points but -

 

I'm beginning to wonder about the value of that "free" (somebody paid, amigo) education you got.

I thought you were a clever bloke before this comment, and I enjoyed the discussion. It's a cheap, humourless shot, 'amigo'. I was even going to reply to your post fully. Don't see the point now.

Sorrow - if your post was serious then Boroda does have a point (and my initial thoughts were spot on).

[Toad]

Dowding,

Sorry. It appears to me that you are being obtuse deliberately in order to change the direction of the discussion. When confronted by simple, verifiable policy, like UN intervention in external vs internal aggression, you change direction trying to find _something_ to bang on the US or the Western Allies or the UN or NATO or "Capitalist World" or whoever.

If you are NOT being deliberately obtuse, than I can only think of ONE reason why you would even suggest that NATO should have been involved in Chechnya. If that IS the reason, I'm glad you didn't bother to reply. It saves everyone a lot of time.

Plus, your education WASN'T free. Someone did pay, just not YOU. Most likely, it was thru taxes on the whole of the UK. Complain about high gas tax all you like but if you want "free medical" and "free education" and "free this or that" the money unfortunately has to come from somewhere to pay for the "free" benefits.

You don't see the humor and irony in that? I sure do!  

Cheers.



[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-25-2000).]

[Dowding]

You haven't replied to any of the points I made in my last post, particularly the point that I found some of your comments personal and insulting. Instead, you accuse me of stupidity and then YOU divert the subject onto taxation and education.

Cheers, mate. Have a nice day, now.

[Toad]

Well, what is this?

You want discussion? Back up to the last post of mine you deigned not to reply to and start from there.

It's personal in YOUR mind maybe but not on this end.

What points did you make in that post anyway? (This is getting ridiculous...reminds me of a "Did Not! Did So!" argument)

Every one of your posts implies that the UN/NATO/US/World Whatever doesn't meet your standards for morality/purity of motive/kindness/friendliness/whatever-ness. Go back and read them. All you do is complain about these agencies not doing what you think they should. So I was wrong to draw a conclusion about your POV from these?

Patronizing comment about NATO? No, I am beginning to wonder if you do any research before you post, though. It is TOTALLY OBVIOUS TO THE MOST CASUAL OBSERVER why NATO didn't get involved in Chechnya. Yet you say "the Chechnya conflict is very revealing, especially when looking at international relations. NATO wouldn't dare get involved here" Well, then that's either a troll or an indication of your depth of research/knowledge.

Further, you quote me about the "free education" in your previous post, I reply to THAT and _I'm_ accused of diverting the subject onto taxation and education? I think that's no diversion at all...I replied DIRECTLY to your statement.

I think you are right, however. Not much point in continuing this discussion. <edit> Besides, I just noticed it reached 100...it's too long now.   <end edit>

...and I'm having a great day!    



[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-25-2000).]

[Naso]

Toad, Dowding, please chill out and shake your hands, your discussions are interesting, dont go on personal.

 

[Dowding]

I think you are an all right guy, Naso.  

As for Toad, he is too and I'd love to reply to his post in depth, but accessing this subject takes me a couple of minutes now - my modem is crap and I can't be arsed to wait for it.

Interesting discussion Toad, even though I disagree strongly with the things you wrote in your last post - another time maybe...

'The West is Evil'... huh!

As for Chechnya - I thought it would be blatently obvious to the most casual observer that the part that says 'NATO wouldn't dare get involved here' alluded to my knowledge of the situation, and specifically to the reasons why no intervention took place. Believe it or not, but I thought it was too obvious a point to write about.

But anway, nuff said, see ya around.  

[funked]

Like I said bring them all home.  Obviously the Euros can do a much better job, because all of their soldiers are men of high moral character.  Let's have the rest of the world foot the bill for 50 years.  The reduced taxes here in the US would result in great prosperity.

As for Santa's argument about the post-war US aid being "win-win" economically, it's obvious that he has not taken any economics courses yet...

You need a car, right Santa?  OK I'll give you $18,000.  Then you give me $18,000 back and I'll give you my car.  Good deal for both of us right?  Win-win?

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 09-26-2000).]

[Dowding]

 

Originally posted by funked:
Let's have the rest of the world foot the bill for 50 years.

If my memory serves me correctly (and it might not  ), the US is in debt to the UN to the tune of 10 billion dollars. I'm pretty sure of this. The government won't pay because of all the service it has given around the world.

So it might actually be the case that the world has been footing the bill. As I say, I'm pretty sure of the existance of the billion dollar debt, just not sure the exact figure or the reason why it arose. Will check out.