We predicted it..."We need ground troops"

  • Thread starter Thread starter DC
  • Start date Start date
If not NATO with a large portion of US support who?

If we do not intervene in the "civil war" of a sovereign nation state how will the senseless killing be stopped?

It appears to this soldier that the US role in the NATO action is the humanitarian one.


It may not be palatable to send young American fighting men and women into this mess, but it will speak volumes about US resolve. If we expect to lead the international community into an era of democracy we need to demonstrate that action outside of immediate selfish self interest is possible.

Very undesirable place to have to fight, but it does not appear to me that we can morally standby wringing our hands while this murderous regime "cleanses" Kosovo.

What a marvelous euphemism, "ethnic cleansing", Hitler needed publicists with this spin doctorey acumen!

Hey sorry for hte diatribe, but this guy Milsoevic is a bad guy and needs to be stopped and if we do not act, who will?

------------------
Ni ellegimit carborundum esse!

Yours In Marksmanship
http://www.1bigred.com/distinguished

michael
 
Coronach
You think we get a lot of perks for doing this kind of stuff?
I strongly disagree. Have you ever traveled outside the US? I don't mean Mexico or Canada, (most common) but I mean off the tourist trail in say, Central America, Europe, Africa.
I've spent a great deal of my life out of the country and I have a very good sense of what people in other countries think of our government.
Before I get too deep into this, let me make a point of mentioning that most of these folks, 99.99% are smart enough to distinguish between an American and America.
They generally like Americans, but their feelings towards our government range anywhere from confused, to disgusted to outright hatred. But never have I talked to a citizen or subject of a foreign nation who actually LIKED the things our government does.
There is an almost universal dislike of our country and it's policies and they all lead back to this very sort of thing.
"What gives America the right to interfere?"

"Why does America help those people but ignore us?"

"Why can't America mind it's own business and leave us alone?"

This is a general sample of the questions I've been hit with by friends in other countries.
Believe me, any "bennys" or perks that we receive are insignificant in comparison to the harm and ill will that Kosovo and other similar actions inflict on us.
Do you really think they like us? Look at the United Nations. The only thing they seem to be united in, is a desire to drag us through the mud and stick us with the jobs that nobody else considers important enough to deal with theirselves.
Then they let us (US) pick up the check too!
"We didn't ask for the job, we don't want the job, but we got the job."
Ever heard of quitting? Do we continue this course of action on the basis of;
"That's the way we've always done it!"
I think we can do better than that. That mentality presupposes that we cannot learn from our mistakes.
Did we "help" in Vietnam? Did we improve any lives? Did we even SAVE any lives?

Please don't tell me that this time it will be different. THINK about it. Do you really want our country dragged through that sewer AGAIN?

Michael,
Hi Sarge, good to hear from you again!

"If not NATO then whom?"
This falls into that big catagory of NOP
Not Our Problem. Everyone seems ready to offer some emotional plea for intervention on behalf of the "widdle childwen", but no one has yet given a rational and logical reason for why WE should have to be the ones to deal with this.

Italy?
France?
Spain?
Great Britain?
This problem is much closer to being in their backyard that ours, so why are they offering only token participation? Easy! Same reason that the ARVNs sat back on their asses and watched us fight back in the prehistoric 60's. Why should they get all sweaty when the US is so eager to do the job FOR them?
BTW, I wasn't in Nam, but I was trained by a lot of "old" NCOs who were. I'll bet you were too!

"...it will speak volumes about our resolve..."
Yes, it will. It will show that we still have as much resolve as we did back in 75 when we dropped the ball and hauled ass for home, leaving 53,000 and change in our own dead to show for it.
The only way this could come out as a "Victory" for the US is as a TOTAL victory. i.e. WE win, WE occupy the country and WE set up a new, democratic government that will do what WE tell them to do.

Question 1.
Do you really believe this is possible?
Question 2.
Do you think the other countries in Europe will back us on this? OR Do you think that when/if they see the US doing something like this in their backyard they'll scream "American aggressor Empirealist Pigs!" and stab us in the back the way they always have.

Question 3.
Even if we CAN do this, do you really think that this is the kind of thing the US needs to do?
Question 4.
Should the US rule the world?
(If you said yes to number 3, logic dictates that you have to say yes to this one. We can't have it both ways.)

Leading the International Community into Democracy. What a stirring phrase. What pathos, what power.
The problem is, we seem to be having quite a hard time holding on to our own democracy!
(BTW, we're not a democracy, we're a republic. Check for yourself.)
Who are we to tell "them" how to do it if we can't keep our own sh** together?

Undesireable place to fight?
I agree wholeheartedly! Central America sucked, Desert Storm sucked, why doesn't anybody ever throw a war in Hawaii or Ft. Lauderdale? :D
I'm sorry guys. I know I'mm sounding like a 60's anti-war protester, but haven't you all noticed how the roles have changed?
Here I am, still wearing my hair in a "high n' tight", patriotic, flag wavin' hard core libertarian (this should tell you something.) Former Soldier and Marine, and I'm the one saying "Hell no, please don't go!"
While Joe Sh** the Presidential Ragman, former dope smoking draft dodging, POS scumbag sonuva... want's to send MY boys, my troops, that I trained and taught how to fight and be GOOD Marines and soldiers into some insane lose/lose situation so they can be thrown away with all the care that one disposes of a used condom. Damn the body count, full speed ahead!
That pretty much sums up Bill "I loathe the military." Clinton's attitude about our boys.
"Fu**'em and throw'em away." Don't ask, don't tell, don't care.
Doesn't this role reversal bother anyone else?
I'm sorry Michael, I know every professional military man want's a war. He says he doesn't, but deep in his heart, he wants to do what he's been trained to do.
(Maybe that's just me, but I don't think so.)
I just don't think it should be THIS war.


------------------
Your mind is your primary weapon.
 
Ken, I didn't mean to give the impression I was ignoring you. I *don't* have all the answers here, hell, I doubt I have any. There's still way too many questions and I've got many of the same fears of this being a "quagmire" as you do.

And you're right, the burned body proves nothing, especially not the "burned alive" bit. Whoever did that page got a bit carried away, or there was a translation error.

But I still say there's info on that page relevent to the discussion. It's a "datapoint", but we agree it's not definitive.

Jim March
 
Don't be taken in by the media blitz surrounding this "war"! Read a little history and don't let yourself be fooled by the media - the same media that tells you "guns cause crime".
Point one: Kosovo is a SERBIAN district! The Albanians came in during WWII as allies of the Germans and took the place. The Serbians were slaughtered, put in concentration camps or driven out. More Albanians moved in and took the property vacated following the war. Nobody has paid the owners of that property, nobody has paid for the slaughter of entire Serb villages during and after WWII.
Now the Serbs want their land back. They want the Albanians to go back to Albania.

Anything wrong with that?

Point 2: Where was NATO when 350,000 Serbs were driven out of Bosnia a few years ago? Oh, they were helping the Bosnians drive them out....
We are either bombing the wrong people or better yet, have no business getting involved in this dispute at all.

------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
I have to agree with Ken and the others who say that this is not our fight. They have not attacked us, so why are we bombing them? Ground troops are inevitable in this; where else are we going to send an army of occupation from the "land of the free"?

If one thinks somebody needs to intervene, then one is welcome to pick up a rifle and volunteer to fight alongside the Kosovans. I'm sure they'd take whatever help they can get. Remember, we never declared war on Hitler's Germany until after he declared on us. Hell, we never even mounted a bombing campaign with the aim to slowing the death camps.

I believe in the principle of non-aggression: it is wrong to INITIATE force against another. Until and unless they do, we have no business attacking them, in fact, we are in the wrong. You really want to help the Kosovans? Send guns.
 
The daily, almost constant, barrage of images from Kosovo broadcast into our homes seems to be having the desired political effect. Public support for the introduction of ground troops is growing (if you believe the polls). And for an administration that allows public opinion to determine policy, this trend is worrisome.
If only public opinion wasn't so fickle. If it was based on something more substantial than manipulated images and cleverly designed sound bites I might be more comfortable with the direction this seems to be going.
The seemingly endless reports of atrocities have more and more people demanding that we do something! What, exactly, that something may be doesn't seem to have been worked out yet. Public opinion may allow American troops to try to reclaim parts of Kosovo, but not to go all the way to Belgrade.
This lack of resolve is what's going to get us in trouble. If we're going to use the Serbian atrocities, the genocide of the Kosovars, as our reason to act, then we have to go all the way. No cease-fire. No armistice. No negotiations with the Milosevic regime. Any agreement that allows him to do anything other than dangle at the end of a rope will be a betrayal of our lofty humanitarian principles. If we're going to spill American blood in order to bring this murderous monster to justice, then I want to see his head on a pike. I don't want to see him sipping wine when this is all over at his vacation villa while American mothers place flowers on the graves of their dead children at Arlington.
Total victory or unconditional surrender.
The only war we have won this century was fought under those conditions.
Does anyone out there think this country has the resolve to do that? I don't. Not with this President. Not in this war. I don't care what the polls say!
 
BILL GERTZ
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 9, 1999

WHO SHOULD PAY?

The State Department is trying to get the Pentagon to pick up the
millions of dollars in costs for helping the 1.3 million
displaced Kosovar Albanians being forced from their homes and out
of the country. The Pentagon is adamant: No.

State officials say the refugees are covered by the Geneva
Convention, but the Pentagon says the laws of war do not cover
these refugees.

State is organizing the scheduled flight of some 20,000 refugees
from the Balkans to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
aboard U.S. military and commercially chartered aircraft. State
also tried to get the Pentagon to pick up the costs of Haitian
refugees who fled that island and also were resettled for a time
at Guantanamo.

"Once again the State Department and Secretary of State Madeleine
K. Albright created a mess and they want the Pentagon to pick up
the pieces," said one official.

According to Pentagon officials, it was Mrs. Albright who was the
driving force within the Clinton administration for launching air
strikes against Serbia, a strategy that the military went along
with.

Inside the Pentagon, the secretary of state's minions have been
dubbed "Albright's Raiders" for their penchant to advocate
military power with little thought for the consequences or costs.

****************************
Speaking of "Albright's war":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_314000/314279.stm

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
As usual DC has hit the nail squarely on the head. The two links are very interesting. Did you note the poll in the BBC article? It said:
64% favor bombing
73% favor ground troops
3/4 would continue or strenghten military action
27% are against NATO air strikes
38% reject using ground troops

Ready, here's the kicker: Poll of 509 people margin error 4.5%

Talk about rigging the numbers! They poll 509 people (probably hand picked) and decide that this is what millions of Americans want? Oh, please. Gimme a break!

As for the other link, John Doggett has put into print the very same questions we have been discussing here. I hope the sheeple are reading it.
 
Ken Cook, we are at odds here

Your questions:

1. Possible, yes, (Are you telling me that the nation that whipped the world in WWII can whip Yugoslavia?) Politically feasible no.

2. It is likely if we do not simply do it unilaterally, that your scenario will play out and we will be painted as big bad imperialist. The key is to go with over whelming force and make this as quick as possible.

3. Yes, I do, the world has but one super power and there is a moral responsibility incumbent with that status. You, obviously would not have asked the question if you felt as I do.

4. Since you have chosen my response for me to this question, it seems your presumption is that I will capitulate in the face of such erudite argument.

Ken, it is not necessary for the US to run the world. It is not desirable, and it is not feasible.

Insisting that murderous actions by any national government cease we are not "running the world". We are merely indicating that some immoral behavior will not be tolerated.

Would you have insisted that we ignore Hitler's atrocities as "NOP"? After all when we tried the "war criminals" weren't we just continuing the practice of hanging the losers?

It is my fervent hope that the high minded ideals of the framers of the Nuremburg trials will be met. Otherwise we may as well go ahead and conquer the rest of the world by force and administer it according to our whims. May as well be ours as theirs, eh?

You are correct in presuming that on an individual basis I am inclined to seek the challenge of a just war. To presume that I would formulate my national policy position is another matter.

When I entered the Army we were fighting in Viet Nam, and I can see plenty of paralells, especially the political leaderships' apparent rejection of military advice.

But this is a moot point now that we have attacked another nation in a legally questionable action (in the minds of the same politicians).

I would agree that the most prudent thin would be to leave these groups to sort this out among themselves.

Sometimes the most prudent think is not the right thing.

If we do not continue this intervention how to you see the resolution of the issues here?

And this old soldier thinks that a Serb or Albanian live is worth the same amount as an American life.

no rancor, I just do not see this your way.



[This message has been edited by Michael Carlin (edited April 10, 1999).]
 
Michael,
I didn't sense any rancor and I sure hope you sense none from me.
Polite and intelligent debate is vital to continuation of education.
Don't mistake me, I KNOW without doubt that if the US Military were given free reign to deal with Kosovo and were told "I don't care what you do as long as you win!" Hey, this would have been over yesterday!
That's not the real world tough. In the real world the US Military is suborned to the will of the People. This is as it should be.

A point of logic here.
You state that "...there is one super power in the world and there is a moral responsibility incumbant with that status."

The flaw in the logic here is that there is no "Superpower." The use of the term suggests an individual entity which answers only to itself, and is always in agreement with itself."
Do you mean to say that because I was born within the geographical confines of this nation that I am burdened (against my will) with a (moral)responsibility that someone else chooses to impose upon me? This is an absolute statement talking about undefined variables! (bad logic.) Who gets to choose which morals we base this responsibility on?
Who gets to decide what I must do? Who gets to tell me how I should think?
Now I know that you're not trying to tell me how I'm supposed to think, but in fact (unintentionally?) you ARE telling me how I must think and what my responsibilities are.
If I do not agree with the party line, then the conclusion that must be drawn, by your logic, is that I am immoral and irresponsible.

This is how freedom dies.

When good people like yourself are taught to use shoddy logic to try and impose a value set that another does not wish to accept, these people are (unwittingly) helping establish a nation of subserviant yes men.

Your analogy with Hitler is flawed on several levels.
First, Milosovic isn't building any ovens, he's not doing this wholesale and going for volume. (As far as we know.)
We have seen evidence that seems to indicate that there are at least isolated incidents and atrocities taking place, but we have NO evidence that this is standard policy sent down from on high.

Second flaw is that we entered WWII because we wanted to stop the Holocaust. If you entered the Army pre Mayaguez incident, then you should be old enough to have been taught the truth about the circumstances under which we entered that war. It had little to do with Europe, there was a very strong and organized group of german sympathizers within the US before the war started. We didn't really have much problem with the germans until they attacked Great Britain!
We had to be ATTACKED before the American people would go along with it! Up til that point the nation was deeply divided in it's opinion on whether we should enter the war or not!
You statement also presupposes that we KNEW about the Holocaust, when in fact, most Americans knew little or nothing about it until the war was over! It hurts me to say this, but history demands accuracy. In that era, anti-semetic sentiment was so high and so common, that many people didn't care when they DID finally hear about it.
All this is to say, the two situations do not compare. Apples and doorknobs.

Last thing, then I'll quit taking up so much space.
"Ken it is not necessary for the US to run the world, it is not desirable and it is not feasible."
This was your qoute.
This was exactly the thought that I hoped to provoke with the infamous "question 4."
if your above statement is true, then,
WHAT ARE WE DOING IN KOSOVO?
By the standards you set forth, it is un-necessary, undesireable, and not feasible!" You also mentioned that it was not prudent.
Now YOU are the guy who's supposed to be in support of this action, but it sure doesn't sound like you really mean it.
Your only justification for it is that it's "the right thing to do."

By who's standards is it "right?" From your statements, certainly not yours and certainly not mine.
Give this some more thought. Don't try to figure out how you "feel" decide what you THINK!

Take care and
PAX



------------------
Your mind is your primary weapon.
 
Ken,

I am afraid that I was not very clear when I spoke of WWII. You and I both know that you have represented the situation leading to our involvment in WWII exactly as it happened. The point was that the intervention earlier may have been better.

We filmed the atrocites there to insure that the people would believe their exisitence. It is easy to dismiss something that you can not conceive of.


I think the intervention is morally right, but that the application of force has been handled with criminal ineptness. To tel the guy that we wont send ground troops is absolutely wrong. Should have prepared for relief for the displaced and invasion on the ground to start with. Then told SM that failure to capitulate would result in the total destruction of his army.

just my .02 worth

No, not the place I would choose to fight, but now that we have stepped on it we either have to withdraw and or finish it.
 
For those who think we should go in with ground forces, here is some food for thought.

MOSCOW (CNN) -- Russian President Boris Yeltsin warns that NATO should not push Moscow toward military action over Kosovo, saying this could trigger a possible world war. Meanwhile, the Kremlin denied that Russian missiles had been retargeted toward NATO countries.

Yeltsin's remarks came during what some observers described as the most forceful and extensive public review of Russian policy in more than six months, a time during which Yeltsin often has been seriously ill.

"I told NATO, the Americans, the Germans: Don't push us towards military action. Otherwise, there will be a European war for sure and possibly world war," Yeltsin said in a meeting with regional leaders.

The wide-ranging statements, televised at greater length than usual, came as Russia's opposition-dominated lower house of parliament, the Duma, was preparing for an April 15 debate on an effort to impeach President Yeltsin.

Earlier in the day, Yeltsin said a NATO ground operation in the Serb province of Kosovo would not be left unanswered by Moscow.

"They (NATO) want to bring in ground troops, they are preparing for that, they want simply to seize Yugoslavia to make it their protectorate ... we cannot let that happen to Yugoslavia," Yeltsin said.

The Duma, which is dominated by communists and nationalists, has called for military support for Yugoslavia, a fellow Slav and Orthodox Christian nation.

But Yeltsin spoke of the need for caution and diplomacy.

"I repeat again: Russia will not get involved if the Americans do not push us," he said.


Seleznyov comments said to be misunderstood

In Brussels, NATO spokesman Jamie Shea sought to reassure Russia that ground troops would be considered only in terms of the peacekeepers needed to secure a peace agreement.

"It cannot be in Russia's long-term interest to isolate itself in the Balkans with (Yugoslav President Slobodan) Milosevic at a time when he himself is more isolated than ever among the countries in the region," British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said in London Friday.

The speaker of the Russian Duma, communist Gennady Seleznyov, quoted Yeltsin earlier Friday as saying he had ordered nuclear missiles to be targeted toward NATO members involved in the bombing of Yugoslavia, and backed a political union of Russia, Belarus and Yugoslavia.

But the Kremlin later denied this, and Seleznyov's spokesman said his boss had been misunderstood.

Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, considered a key player in the Kosovo crisis, said he was not aware of any presidential order to retarget Russia's nuclear missiles.

Ivanov further said that a Russian reconnaissance ship in the Adriatic was not passing on intelligence to Yugoslavia in its conflict with NATO. Russia sent the Liman, a small eavesdropping vessel from its Black Sea fleet, to the Mediterranean last week.

Ivanov told reporters: "All information from (the) reconnaissance ship is passed only to Russia."

Is Yeltsin bluffing or isn't he? Can we take a chance that he isn't?

[This message has been edited by Bill F (edited April 11, 1999).]
 
With all due respect to my esteemed fellow TFL members, anyone who buys this crap that Slobodan Milosevic is another Adolf Hitler may want to reread WWII history. This guy is nowhere near being a Hitler, and Serbia has no prospects of ever having Germany's power. This is Clinton hyperbole, and it trivializes what Hitler and the Nazi's did to the world.

If you feel I'm naive or wrong about this, please provide some facts to help me and others see a closer parallel here. And, I don't mean a relatively few atrocities. Tragic as the atrocities in Bosnia / Croatia / Kosovo are, Hitler's crimes were towering.

I continue to see this as a civil war involving age-old land disputes and ethnic hatreds, a murderous regime, and breakaway states. I have no interest and I see no logic in wasting American lives in the former Yugoslavia.

Regarding Russia, I would place a heavy wager that they will not get involved, no matter what NATO does. However, many wars have started because of foolish miscalculations ...

BTW, if anyone still wants to make policy based upon tragic photos, as you can imagine the Serbian government is now posting theirs as well - see http://www.gov.yu/presscvj/vma/index_engl.html .

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited April 11, 1999).]
 
Jeff,
I agree wholeheartedly. See my posts above.

This ridiculous operation now has us running back to the bad old days of the Cold War. The US and Russia are rattling sabres at each other again. Over this chicken sh** tinpot Dictator? Over these people who have taken turns kicking each other in the balls for hundreds of years?
This is f*****g madness. period.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to quit commenting on this business as I am finding it harder and harder to be tactful with the people who are supporting this lunacy and i don't want this to degenerate into a flame war.
PAX!


------------------
Your mind is your primary weapon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top