Why bombing Yugoslavia is justified

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chink

New member
Ok I know I'll get a lot of flak for this, but I can deal with that

Many of you on this board feel that there is no reason to be bombing the sh*t out of Serbia, Kosovo and eventually Montegero. I would like to respectfully disagree with all of you. Here are my reasons.
1) The last time Europe had a leader that practiced ethinic cleanses, it was this mad mad named hitler, who eventaully started WW2
2) Milosevic has a prior record of waging war through genocide, see bosnia several years a go and Crotia, about the same time frame.
3) milosevic will reject any treaty with armed forces in Kosovo.

This time the decision was not a purely American decision. Most of NATO is in agreement on this one. I feel that it would be a disservice to mankind to allow milosivec to reign unchecked. A peave without UN peacekeepers in country is not a real peace. because there is not one in country to deter the violent he has shown he is capable of committing.

My opinions relates only to the bombing of Yugoslavia. The only ground troops that should set foot on Yugoslav soil is the special Forces team that is sent in to free our POW. Since we currently have no exit strategy for Yugoslavia, ground forces going into Yugoslavia is a mistake

All right bring it I'm ready

------------------
It ain't mah fault. did I do dat?
 
1)
Looks like we're going to start the next one.

2)
What genocide? How big was it? Anywhere near the death tolls as Rawanda, the stuff in the Congo, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Kashmir, India, Sri Lanka? We've got alot of bombing to do.

3)
The KLA? Hell even our State Department
referred to them as terrorists until recently. If you were a leader, would you trust a group similar to them? I wouldn't trust either side.


Let me make it clear. I don't have a dog in this fight between the KLA and Serbia. And I don't think the US has one either (though the sell out to the Chinese is out of the news).

With our current actions, we should be changing the name of the Defense Dept to the War Dept because bombing Yugoslavia has nothing to do with defense.

Out of curiosity how easy would it be to snatch the POWs? The Serbs aren't the rabble of Iraqi army (or are they?). And in the Gulf War, did we ever tangle much with Republican Gaurd units?

[This message has been edited by Prichard (edited April 03, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Prichard (edited April 03, 1999).]
 
I don't think we should involve ourselves in anyone's civil war. What if an alliance of France, Britain, and Spain had involved themselves in our Civil War? After the sacking and burning of whole cities by Sherman and the deaths of tens of thousand on all sides, wouldn't an imposed, civilized settlement been the right thing for them to do? If that had happened, we would certainly have a Confederate States of America, still practicing the Peculiar Institution today.

I have to agree with Prichard. Why this place and why now? Why didn't we get involved in Rwanda? It's totally arbitrary.

When was the last successful SpecOps mission to rescue hostages? Princess Gate is probably the last that I know of, and that was against a very small, isolated group. Remember the SpecOps mission to snatch and grab a small group of Somali militia (clan) leaders? That operation, against a disorganized force, was a mess.
 
my question is, what genocide? sure they're killing alot of people, but how many were told to leave and are still alive? if it were genocide, there would be no option, you would just be killed. they would be wiping everyone off the face of the earth, regardless of age, sex, etc! i've seen on the tv where there were old people that weren't killed because they were told they were old. how many younger men have i seen cross the border that should be fighting? plenty! why do we send our people over there to fight for a people that won't even fight for theirselves? we've no business over there!!

------------------
fiat justitia



[This message has been edited by longhair (edited April 03, 1999).]
 
1- Nato is supposed to be a defensive force, formed to protect its members.
2- Maybe some nation or group of nations would feel compelled to intervene if a government was using its military to burn down fringe churches with their congragations inside.
3- We have no business being there. Every time some politician feels the need to flex "his" muscles I meet new guys at the VA hospital. I don't want to meet any more new guys. Nick Jones, life member DAV.
 
You may well have your reasons for feeling the way you do, but IMHO we should not be in this mess. I am mighty afarid this is going to snowball into something much bigger.

------------------
Trapdoor Billy
Indian Scout and Delaware Cowboy
 
Let me add my thoughts to this, please.

Now, we don't really have a stake in this mess. I think we can all agree on this. Yet we are the ones primarily prosecuting this action. But, I find it ironic that the countries that do, namely the countries on the continent of europe, don't want to touch this thing with a ten foot smart bomb.

Why is this? If they don't care, why should we? Can you come up with an acceptable explanation to tell a wife/mother as to why her husband/son was killed when national interests were not at stake? Sure NATO is in agreement. But if we weren't so ready to do this, would NATO be so ready? I highly doubt it.

Bombing alone won't solve this. It will take ground forces to stop the ethnic cleansing. We don't have the forces in place to do this. And we won't have in time. We missed our window of opportunity by at least a year. What we are doing now amounts to little more than political posturing.

As to a special forces rescue, don't hold your breath. Our special forces people are the true elite, but trying to rescue 3 high profile prisoners like that would be suicide.

I just love how the europeans want our forces out of thier countries until it's time to solve thier problems. With our blood. Let's let them solve this one for a change.

I'm done now.



------------------
Dan

Check me out at:
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/GlocksnGoodies.htm
 
Not much that I can add to whats already been said here.
Clinton started this while hiding behind Nato. Now he can't stop it for fear of looking like a fool.(Yes, I know, no need to say it.) Currently, the only possible exit stratagy for him is to drag this thing out until he leaves office and lets his sucessor deal with it. NOT ACCEPTABLE!
I strongly urge all of you to call, write and e-mail your congessmen to get us out of this mess. Only mass public pressure can get us out now. Forget any hope of saving our dignity or any fears about the opinions of other countries.I think The United States is strong enough to admit we made a mistake. If not, it's already too late.
 
Consider this:Milosevic wanted all of the Albanians out of Kosovo. We bombed Kosovo and all the Albanians fled. The Serbs at the border took all their ID's and records.They cant realistically return cause they cant prove who they are or what they owned.

So Milosevic got what he wanted.

Next he wants us to leave him alone.If he were to kill our POW's the US public would raise such a howl that we would be out the same day.
Without the USA how long do you think NATO would stay?
If he will kill his own countrymen-why not??
And we made it all possible by meddling !

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
I most heartily agree with Greyfox. Write, call, E-mail your representatives and tell them how you feel. We do not belong there. Slick Willie is using this to make us forget about his Chinese dealings. I don't doubt Big Brother monitors these forums so I'll say it directly. Slick! We ain't forgot about China!
Paul B.
 
Prichard- I was under the impression that the most of the conflicts you listed were just civil wars, with few cases of soldier brutality against the people, except for Rawanda where there have been many. if the Kosovo thing was strictly a civil war, then I would agree that we should not be there, but the this is bigger than that. it always starts small. then they get all cocky and go for the bigger stuff. I feel that we didn't have the international support to bomb rawanda. in Yugoslavia, we have NATO, esp. GB, france and Germany.
Also, the only difference between a terrorist organization and a group of freedom fighters is what side they are on.
My comment about the SpecOp mission was not in support of one. I'm just saying thats the only reason to have troops on the ground is if we are attempting a rescue.

Also Paul, our china policy will not change as long was China is one of the most profittable regions for us.
OK I'm ready for more
 
Chink-

IMO:

Kosovo is/was strictly a civil war. Kosovo belonged to Serbia. Some Kosovo Albanian residents didn't care for it. Started killing Serbs. And tit for tat.

There are many other civil wars in the world (though the folks involved might not look quite as white as the Albanians).

The only real genocide lately seems to have been Rawanda. I do not believe that genocide has happened in Kosovo or in Bosnia. A lot of wholesale killing and brutality by all sides, yes. With more wholesale killing and brutality done by the more powerful sides. We've even joined this bandwagon now that we are dropping bombs on men, women, children, and infastructure.

If the Pommies, Frogs, and Krauts want to pick sides and use their resources and their soldiers' lives, then so be it (though I don't see where it is their business). But not us Yanks.

NATO - This ain't their damn business. No NATO countries are being invaded militarily. So I don't buy that argument either.

The name Terrorist or Freedom Fighter depends on who you support. Why did the State Dept change its mind about the KLA?
 
Chink,
Where do you get the notion that we have NATO? We ARE Nato! Except for a handful of other planes, this is a 90% US military show. These are American lives at stake here. The other NATO members won't risk their people in this. Why the hell should we?

While you're contacting your congressmen, suggest and suport a law which would limit US involvement in NATO or UN actions to no more than 20% of the total military forces used. Make the other members of NATO and the UN do their fair share of the fighting and risk taking for a change. If we can do that, I'll bet their attitude will change in a big hurry.
 
Im with Grayfox om this. Let your Congressmen know.Tell them you will remember them at election time.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Proud to see that most of you are not falling for the flag waving and propaganda this administration is spewing forth.

This isn't our war. The Serbs (in their minds) have every reason to move these ethnic Albanians out of Serbia. The Albanians have been supporting terrorist organizations like KLA in an attempt to wrest this piece of land from the Serbs - a piece of land that historically belongs to them. Where are the Serbs that once lived there? Do they want their homes and farms back?
Does "ethnic cleansing" have the same sinister sound in Serbian that it does in English? What if they called it national realignment?
The bottom line is that after world war II, the communists froze everything in place. Whole peoples uprooted by the war were thrown together and called "Yugoslavia". The Serbs have no ties to the Albanians and the Albanians have no ties to Kosovo - its part of Serbia.
The whole thing is an ugly historical mess between people who have fought each other for centuries. The commies couldn't change after fifty years of iron boots on their necks, how will we change it with 2 weeks of cruise missiles?



------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
Chink...
This is a civil war...period.
Kosovo is a province on Yugoslavia. The Serbs were allowing Kosovo to be an autonomous province, like Montenegro. The KLA wanted independence and began terrorism. Using your logic, we should be bombing Britain over N. Ireland, we should have bombed Moscow over Chechnya, we should have bombed Malayasia over the ethnic Chinese.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
I found this on another site about Javier Solana

UPN reported 12/1/95,

'We are radically opposed to Spain joining NATO,'Solana told Tiempo
magazine in 1981.

"Solano is not so popular in Britain where he is seen by John Major's
Conservative government as excessively pro-European. Britain
recently blocked attempts, led by Solana, to ensure that the
Western European Union, a pan-European defense alliance, should
be merged with the EU and become its defense arm."

Reuters reported on 1/23/96,

"New NATO Chief Javier Solana, heartended by France's decision to
draw closer to the alliance, aims to strengthen the links between his
organisation and the European Union as their agendas converge.
Both NATO and the EU have their sights set on eastwards expansion
and better co-operation with their southern neighbours. Both are
also deeply involved in Bosnia.
At French insistence, NATO and the EU are also pledged to develop
a European Security and defence identity while aknowledging that
the United States remains their best friend.
With this in mind, Solana, fresh out of leading the Spanish
presidency of the European Union for the past six months, aims to
make sure that the faltering coordination of the past is transformed
into close cooperation in the future.
'The secretary general wants to put the realtionship on a more
coherent and structured basis,' an alliance source said on Teusday
after Solana had a working breakfast with the European Commission
President Jacques Santer and Foreign Affairs Commissioner Hans van
den Broek.
There have been regular contacts for years between NATO and the
EU officials, both directly and through the Western European Union,
but high-level coordination has been scant.
'The secretary-general wants more regular high-level dialogue with
the EU,' the alliance source said.

World Press stated in February 1996,

"Solana believes the Western European Union (WEU) the European
Union's new defense arm, should have military capability to carry
out missions without the US-a position that makes him attractive to
France."

Solana is pushing the EU agenda within NATO. There is a
contradiction of his pushing for the European Union to have its own
defense identity while heading NATO. Both NATO and the European
Union are international organizations.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
My oldest son is 19,want's to joing the USMC.I still have his ear and I am tyring to talk him out of this, because of Yugoslavia/Kosovo. I would be proud if he became a Marine but I don't want him to die in something that is not the USA's business.
I pray for our Daughters and Sons that are overseas.

------------------
Keep the Faith and the Constitution
 
Stipulate for the moment that we're justified in the bombing. My personal opinion is that Clinton does not have a handle on the history of the area, nor of the character of the Serbs regarding outsiders. Therefore, the bombing will be equally successful with our efforts in bombing Hanoi.

Noting in passing--once again--that the Nazis could not control Yugoslavia with 700,000 troops, how can we avoid a quagmire?

Regardless of justification, regardless of the heartlessness of Milosevic, why get into a stink contest with a skunk, when there is no hope of a rosy outcome?

My son got out of the USAF after Desert Storm, and stayed in Germany. He is fluent in German. I asked him why there seemed to be so little interest, there, about the then-situation in Bosnia. His reply was that the German attitude was that those people were nothing but trouble; they always had been trouble; and the sooner they killed each other off, the better for the rest of Europe.

This may be a bit harsh for the average USofA citizen's sensibilities, but it's European reality.

Interesting times...Art
 
Okay guys, for the sake of argument, I'm going to take the other side. Let me give you a POSSIBLE senario: In Kosovo, there are 1.8 million muslums. The christian Serbs are trying to push them out (Just like in Bosnia). What happens when the other Muslum countries decide that they have seen enough of their "brothers" killed? Can you see Turkey, Iran/Iraq, or a muslum region of the former USSR coming to their aid? Russia has already come out in favor of the Serbs. Turkey invades Yugo to stop the slaughter, Russia comes in to defend Yugo. Our treaties with Turkey ally us with them. That brings us against the russians just like in Viet Nam. Or maybe different parts of the old USSR against each other. It is a type of domino effect. Don't underestimate the power of religion to mess things up in a hurry.

Maybe there is more to this than just Clinton trying to take the heat off himself!

None of the above is supported. I just use this senario as an example.......

Gino
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top