Russian (unofficial?) look at Kosovo

C

cornered rat

Moderator
Here's something from the Russian humor archive:

"A group of people in USAF uniform are at the Pearly Gates. The Archangel asks who they are.

'We are US pilots. We died making the world safe for democracy in Yugoslavia.'

'OK, let me check'

Comes back shortly.

'Scram, you lyers! The USAF reported "no losses"'

---------------------------------------
Just wondering how little of the real situation we know. WW2 news were quite a snow job, no reason to think they lost that art.

------------------
Cornered "but cheery" Rat
http://ddb.com/RKBA Updated March 20
 
I've been keeping an eye on some of the other european papers, and they have reported as many as five downed NATO planes, not counting the stealth fighter NATO has admitted to. In their reports they mention it is normal practice for NATO not to admit anything while there is any chance the pilot is still alive. They also hint at the fact that NATO is not being truthful in order to look good while the spotlight is on.

[This message has been edited by Morgan (edited March 29, 1999).]
 
NATO spokespersons always tell the "truth". A spokesman for NATO said yesterday that there has been no humanitarian tragedy compared to current situation in Kosovo since Khmer Rouge Cambodia in 1970s. So according to NATO, civilians did not suffer much in Rwandan genocide or in war zones like Southern Sudan, Kongo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Chechnya etc, and Kurdish people have it so nice under Turkish and Iraqian rule. Also, war and concentration camps in Bosnia were too far and too long ago to remember. Things that happen in Kosovo are terrible, but do all the NATO leaders live in the real world? Ossi
 
Well...presumably the logic is that NATO is only fessing up to the Stealth because there are pictures on Serb TV, and its rather obvious what is sitting there.

Uhm...okay. So, if I was a serb commander, i would damned well be running a camera crew to the crash site of ANY plane that I know to have gone down over the balkans. Sure, the wreckage might be more ambiguous. Sure, nailing a F-16 ain't as sweet as downing a stealth. but Milo cannot be unaware of the hypersensitivity of the western public to casualties.

I'll not discount the possibility of more loses, but I'm betting that the one we fessed to is the only one we've had thus far.

But it won't be the last.

Mike
 
Personally, I would like to update a suggestion from "All Quiet on the Western Front" to present day.

Solve international problems by gladiator fights between "world leaders." My preference would be to make it Milo vs. Bubba at three paces with hand grenades.

Unfortunately, professional courtesy precludes these bastards from going after each other...kind of like chess players that agreee to kill of only pawns and not touch the kings.

------------------
Cornered "but cheery" Rat
http://ddb.com/RKBA Updated March 20
 
I think that POV loses its charm in instances where 'your' leader, though, is acting from a position that you feel is moral and right.

NOTE: 'you' and 'your' are used here in the general sense...not the 'hey YOU' sense.

Not wanting to cloud the issue with opinions on the propriety of recent actions, I'll go back to WWII, the last 'good' war. Would you still have wanted to pit Roosevelt v. Hitler in such a manner? FDR had his faults, he was as political an animal as anyone (more than most...he is responsible for much of the 'federalization' we all hate today)... but WWII was not some petty bickering about national influence or political polls. It was a straight up fight against evil.

Sure, there was politicking going on. Sure, it was political cowardice that led us to that point. But hey, you play the cards you're dealt.

Is it wrong for us to be in Kosovo? I'll reserve judgement on the morality of it all...I still have not decided myself. Certainly Milo and his thugs are evil and should be opposed. The question is _how_. I'm not convinced we're going about this in the right manner to begin with, and I _know_ Clinton ain't exactly pulling it off well.
And I'm so unimpressed with in general Clinton that I could just spit.

Just railing against the tendency to go too far in anti-clintonism. I like to keep it in perspective. The joker will be gone in 2 years anyway (and no, I don't subscribe to predictions of Y2K-induced martial law leading to a Klinton Regime. Call me a liberal. ;) *SNICKER* My friends would love that.)

Mike ;)
 
My though is wishful thinking anyway. It would have been much more efficient to asassinate the opposing pres/dictator/king than to fight the same person's army...but I think that it is not done so as to avoid retaliation in kind. In other words, our illustrious leaders would rather sacrifice millions of their troops and stay safe than to use up a few special ops and open themselves to similar response by the surviving enemy comrades.
 
Serbian air defence crews are happily dying to save their "great" leader. But does bombing them help the civilians in Kosovo a bit if, as Clinton has said, no NATO land forces will be sent in? No war in history has been won from air alone. It takes infantry men to risk there lives patrolling the territory to control it. Ossi
 
Two things:

1. So...you send in some special ops crew to snuff Milo's candle. They pop him and he dies. Then what?

The next guy to take over is likely not gonna be any better, and the nation will be even more predisposed to hating the US. Now, I'm not one to let the opinions of a few murderous b*****ds sway our course of action, but lets not pretend that assassinating him is a big step in the right direction.

This was the major conundrum of the Gulf war. Assassinate Saddam, everyone screamed. Okay. and the guy who takes over for him is gonna be better in precisely what way? ;)

2. Yeah, I commented on this before. Air bombardment has never made a nation reverse its stance on an issue, that I can recall. Usually it makes them hunker down and act as stubborn as mules. Clinton obviously has not looked at recent history.

Aside: a case _might_ be able to be made for the Triploi bombings...maybe. But that was more of a personal attack on Quadafi (sp?). Spec ops could have done much the same thing.

And on a similar note...we now have 3 soldiers in enemy hands. Here we go...

Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top