Why bombing Yugoslavia is justified

Status
Not open for further replies.
The one thing I've thought about this whole thing in Yugo is the one thing I've not seen brought up here;

Isn't this situation a perfect example of the sheepification of a population which has had personal arms taken away from them? Could you see any force of police clearing a city the size of Boston in the US as easily as they cleared Pristina? (not sure of the spelling). I suspect that there would be a tad more armed resistance here. Now, given a successful disarmament campaign over the next 20 years, I can easily imagine it happening. Sadly.

-Moss
 
OK, screw the BMG - use a cruise missile guided by a spy bird in orbit or something.

Greasing this idiot IS doable, if we have to blow the crap out of whatever building he's in. Sounds a lot more polite than leaving half the nation a smoking ruin.

Jim March
 
Jim,
While I agree that you should have a gut level feeling for a problem, I have to know, where is the site the shows the pictures of Vickie Weaver and her son, and the pictures of the Branch Davidians' charred bodies?

These same type of pictures were used in the 60's and 70's from VeitNam, to show what baby killers our boys were.
 
Jim March, I agree with DC that your URL's photos are pertinent, but should not really sway us in this discussion. War is disgusting and barbaric, and those photos remind us of that sad fact once again. War is also part of reality, just like the murders that have happened in my town (and probably yours) last week. Photos from any war, and many murder scenes, would create the same disgust. But, they are not terribly helpful if we're considering logical policy, and whether to throw more human beings into the buzz saw. Stories of tragedies with guns do not sway me to accept more gun controls. Atrocities in Kosovo do not sway me to sacrifice Americans.

I agree there is ultimately little difference between Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Somalia, Cambodia, etc. This is a civil war. There are atrocities. Unfortunately, it happens. If we really gave a damn, why did we and the European powers assist the Serbs by maintaining an arms embargo that deprived the lesser-armed of a means for defense? If we, and the UN, cared so damn much, why did we stand by while Bosnians, in so-called 'safe'areas, were also massacred? Were they less valuable than Albanians? Or, was the domestic political timing not right? [If my facts are wrong here, please correct me.]

Chink, I am sorry, but I cannot blithely accept this logic that one supports the air war but not ground troops. Do you think the distinction is so easily made? I've never been in the military, and I've never been to war, so my fellow TFL members, especially vet's, will likely want to take my words with a grain of salt. However, I'm 47 now, and it seems to me that a country either gets serious about going to war, or it gets its ass kicked.

Vietnam? Not serious. No dedication or sacrifice at home. Not an all out effort. Too many restrictions. And, too damn slow. Persian Gulf? BS reasons maybe, but we reacted quickly, made clear we would not back down, applied massive force, and pounded, pounded, pounded. The finish could certainly have been better, but the war was otherwise prosecuted in a logical way. IMHO.

War is just too damn serious to get cute about it. If we go to war, we should go to war! But, only for reasons of critical national interest - read that as defense. Not because our hearts go out to a group of people. Ironically, while it is the most passionate and desperate of human conditions, war requires absolute logic. Too much is at stake to allow this emotionalism to affect our decisions.

Chink, please take the following comments like those of an older to a younger brother. Government bureaucrats and politicians love to play the patriotism, sacrifice and charity chords with young guys (and gals, now). They'll tell you it's the right thing to do. Those people need us. How can you stand by and do nothing? We have to do something! How would you feel if that was your family thrown out of their home? And on, and on. They prey on the young not only because they are physically more able to do battle, but also, make no mistake about it, because they can more easily convince you to make this sacrifice.

Along the same lines, I'll close by reminding you of your fearless leader. In your heart of hearts, do you really trust Bill Clinton? Even according to his beloved polls, it appears that relatively few Americans do trust him, even if they have otherwise been so foolish as to support him politically. When your life is on the line ... when your friends' lives are in the balance ... do you want all of that to be held in Bill's grimy, lying hands? The man cannot be trusted with an intern, he can't be trusted with the truth, he can't be trusted with our defense, and he certainly can't be trusted with thousands of military lives. Don't take his word too quickly. When he tells you that we're just part of NATO in this fight, don't you find it odd he doesn't say the UN? It's because the UN won't support this one, and Bill justs shops for the 'front' group who will support what he wants to do.

Regards from, and disgusted in, AZ
 
Okay. I'm finally piqued enough to post on this. ;)

1. Bill Clinton is unreservedly an idiot.

2. I trust him about as far as I can throw his Big-Mac-eating carcass.

3. I think he is going about this totally wrong.

4. I think he is entering this for entirely the wrong reasons (hell...what ARE his reasons? But they sure as hell aren't humanitarian).

5. I have as much desire to see a ground war there as I have to box Mike Tyson.

6. Its still the right thing to do.

If you are a witness to an atrocity and do nothing to stop it, the blood is on your hands too.

Its not good enough logic to say 'we did nothing in Rawanda, we did nothing in Cambodia, we did nothing for the Kurds, so we should do nothing now.' This just shows that we likely should have got off our collective @$$es before, not that we should remain on them now.

Its a civil war, yes. We had one once, too, and it sure as $#!t didn't look anything like THAT, and it was in a day and age when such things were commonplace. I have no problem with letting them fight it out as long it is more or less soldier v soldier. When it is soldiers machinegunning down civilians hand over fist, that is different. Is it a big gray area? Heck yes. But at one end of the continuum is black and the other is white. This is definately in the black, and at last we've had the courage to say so.

Atrocities on both sides? Yes. Is this by now a big mess? Yes. Both of these point to a failure of statesmanship and resolve in the past. At some point you have to just suck it up and play the hand you've been dealt. We've made bad decisions over there in the past and we're paying for them now.

Can we solve all of the problems of this troubled region with this campaign? With even a properly executed campaign? Hell no. But we can stop this ugly atrocity.

Cut a deal with the UN. We go in, buy the real estate. We turn it over to a TRULY multinational force to nationbuild. GTFO. Quit screwing around. Why yes, Virginia, this means ground troops. So be it.

What gives us the right? Moral authority. Call it Kipling's 'white man's burden' for the 1990s, all the more appropriate since we are the British Empire of this age. We can dicker on the finer points (our prez gets hummers from interns and lies under oath. is this right? no, but in this debate who cares? We're talking genocide here), but this is out and out barbarism, and we can stop it. The question is do we have the strength of will to do so?

And yes, we ARE the British Empire. The buck has stopped with us, whether any of us like it or not. Wishing it would go away and sticking our head in the sand will just hasten our demise. We blink now and we abdicate our authority. We create a power vaccuum. Someone else will step up to the plate. Deal with it.

Flame away. I'm a big fat target...but I have asbestos and kevlar skin ;) Chink, I got your back.

Mike
 
Chink,

Yes, Josef Stalin did, in fact, engage in the destruction of ethnic groups within the Soviet Union. All available evidence supports the conclusion that he was getting ready to go after Soviet Jews when he died. He hit several ethnic groups during his various and sundry purges.

I believe our correct policy would be to arm the Kosovan Albanians and any other target groups. Let them defend themselves.
 
Given: On TFL, let's agree that "America" and "Americans", refer to the political state commonly known as "The United States of America" and the citizenry and others therein or otherwise related thereto. Though this may legally infringe upon the sensitivities of other inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, it is a pain in the dupa to require full and complete description and disclosure on every post.

Now, to my questions.

1) If a big country, such as the old USSR, attacked a small country, such as Finland (just as an example). Should America intervene and protect "the little guy"? I'll bet we would defend Finland. It would be the right thing to do and we would refer to the "domino effect" (slight acknowledgement to Ms. Albright.) Right?

2) If you answer "yes" to the above, please address this question. If a big country breaks up into segments (each of which declares themselves "sovereign"), and a large (or strong) segment of the former country attacks a small (or weak) segment of the former country, is that a civil war? Or is that a situation as described in the question above?

3) How do we tell the difference?

I'm not trying to ambush anyone but these are tough questions.
- What the Yankees called a "Civil War", the Rebs called a "War between the States". (In some cases it was even a war between the counties.)
- In Yugoslavia, if various groups are fighting for their independence and freedom, should we support anybody (as we probably would defend Finland)? The big group? The small group? Some other group? What SHOULD go into our decision-making process: evaluation of "leadership"; ability to self-govern, or ... what?

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited April 07, 1999).]
 
heh. :)

#1. In general, yes. I'd not like to make an absolute blanket statement on this, but I cannot imagine too many situations in which we would not take a major interest in the outcome of an overt land-grab.

#2. Oh boy. I suppose it would all depend on a number of factors. If we had opened diplomatic relations with them as sovereign states, that is saying to the world "we recognise you as a nation, with all the rights of nations, etc etc etc." Are they UN members? (this is not an absolute rule, not all nations are, but its a good benchmark). How 'well defined' is the breakup? Is it an ongoing messy schism, or is it a clean break where they have set up a new system of gov't and their new neighbours just walk in with guns and start annexing territory?

#3. see #2. Any way you cut it, its messy and ugly.


Note: the Kosovo thing is undeniably a civil war. Kosovo is a province of Serbia, itself a province of Yugoslavia. So the Serbs have every right to maintain order in their province, legally. However what they are doing practically is pure barbarism.

This is messy as can be. IMO? We should get the Serbs out of Kosovo for the moment. Screw their sovereignty. Get some UN peacekeepers in there (TRUE MULTINATIONAL FORCE...let the europeans keep their own damned back yard clean). Get us out. Hammer out a good accord and see if Serbia will play ball. then give them back their land.

Thats the pie in the sky scenario. we're not gonna do that. Heck, I'm not sure if diplomatically the coalition will support it. All of this (along with Russia) should have been thought out ahead of time and NOT on the fly like it is now. As is we are now locked into gradual escalation and a wait-and-see-and-hope scenario.

I just wish to God we'd have a competent President in office. If we had, I doubt it would ever have come to this.

Mike


------------------
 
A few points. First, one for Chink.

"Also, it is good to test the weapons in our aresenal, all the testing it the world won't give you the real world capablities of a weapon."

You can't be serious, can you? You expect me to go die in Yugoslavia so you can find out if a certain weapon works well? What's the point of having a new weapon if you have to risk your life to find out if it's any good? This is logic akin to doing the "chin-up" test to your Mad Dog over a pit of spikes.

As for supporting the air war without ground troops, what's the point of doing that? Can you tell me what this air war, which has to end soon because the ordinance is disappearing fast, will accomplish that will keep some dumb young Serbian soldier from cutting an old man's eyes out with a knife? (Yes, I saw the pictures. Horrible. I wonder how different the shrapnel from a Tomahawk is from a knife?)

No matter how much you may want to, you cannot trust Bill Clinton with the military. I was one of the fools (yes, we were plain stupid) who said that his private sexual foibles didn't matter. But when he attacked Iraq in December, after ignoring his supposed provocations for five years, he lost any right to expect that I would EVER trust him as a military leader again.

Personally, I'm not in the military. I briefly considered joining when I entered college, in the National Guard, but I didn't want to be involved in the next Desert Storm. Yeah, Desert Storm was a success, but we still killed 100,000 conscripts for no good reason. No thanks. The problem is, we're way short. If we do send ground troops, I predict the revival of the draft. I'm 21, male, and healthy, therefore 1A. There will be no college deferments this time, I imagine, because too many young men are in college. I think if I get a draft notice I'll apply for exemption based on the fact that my government deems me unfit to carry a weapon. ;)
But I guess I'm allowed to kill someone because our government doesn't like them--just not if he's trying to kill me in America. Thanks, Uncle Sam!

Do any of you military types know what it takes to become a medic? Would I have to have prior medical training? Even if I had to go into combat, I think I'd feel better about that later than being a rifleman (not that I won't be armed and ready.) Just wondering.
 
Gwinnydapooh, it takes appallingly little to become a medic. I was a Navy Hospital Corpsman and all it took was 4.5 months of Corps School to get the basic designation (NEC 0000). To be stationed with the Marines, it requires another 2 months of Field Medical Service School to get the FMF designation (NEC 8404).

If the sh*t truly hits the fan, I'll probably go back, but I'd rather carry a M-16 and fight than a M-9 (Beretta 92F) and wait for a buddy to go down.

We don't need this and they don't need this. Prior to the air raids, the KLA was holding their own, actually gaining ground. Now that the Serbs have experienced our raids, and don't seem impressed, there's little to hold them back.
 
Gwinnydapooh
I'm not suggesting alpha or beta testing weapons in war zones, that should be done at home, it controlled enviroments. but getting real world numbers. you can put together all kinds of good results while testing, but you will never know how accurate a weapon really is unless it is used is a real world situation.

I want to nail Slobadan as much as the next guy, but that can't happen unless we formally declare war Yugoslavia, which isn't a big step up from where we are except that I think Congress is on break which makes it hard. Also, if the apaches that we are sending in do what they are supposed to do, take out individual military units, This think will be over by the end of the month. Milosevic doesn't have the Soviets or anyone else for that matter giving him large numbers of supplies. once a tank is destroyed, the is isn't on back in belgrade to replace it, ths same goes for all his field artilery and other vechiles. if we take out enough of the tanks, etc. Milosevic's terror machine will be stuck screwed.
And now I get back in front of the flamethrower
 
I don't think we're gonna have a new draft, if for no other reason than the fact that Bill Clinton (who lives by public opinion polls) will not do something so massively unpopular as initiating a draft.

As to airpower winning this alone:

_IF_ it plays out that way, Chink, Clinton will have gotten so lucky that I'm CERTAIN he has a horseshoe stuffed up his ***. Yeah, we're doubtless ripping his military apart right now...but the questions are:

1. Does he believe we won't send in ground troops?

2. Which does he value more, having his war machine or having Kosovo?

If he believes #1 and for #2 he answers 'having Kosovo,' then we can bomb him back to the stone age. He will not budge.

I'm no longer sure that he believes #1, since I don't buy it myself...this could lead him to reconsider.

But note: it is NOT the actual bombing campaign thats gonna make him stop. Its that Marine Expeditionary Unit afloat on the USS Saipan that is gonna make him blink. IF he blinks.

In a few days it will all be moot. The last Kosovar Albanians will have been killed or deported, and he can present us with a fiat accompli. We're then left with altering our demands to re-inserting the albanian population (hey! we just came up with a worse-than-worst-case ground troops scenario!), or just admitting this was all a big stupid idea and letting him win.

Lovely.

Mike
 
Ok, so our planes are blowing up all the Serbs hardware and equiptment in an effort to reduce their fighting capability. Consider the following points:
1. Russia is friendly with Serbia.
2. Since the break up of the USSR, collapse of the economy, lack of fuel, funds, etc. Russia is sitting on a huge stockpile of mothballed equiptment they can't use.
3. Russia would no doubt be willing to sell Milosvich all the tanks and guns he wants at bargin basement prices.

End result: US eventually stops bombing, Milo goes shopping in Russia, In a couple of months he's back up to strength and goes back to wiping out Kosovars. NATO has to start over, but this time short billions of dollars worth of ordinance.

Even if we win, we lose.
 
Chink, I don't think you understand my position here. I apparently don't want to stop Milosevich as much as the next guy, because I don't want it bad enough to go do it. I don't think Milosevich is as bad as Clinton says (anybody looked up the word "genocide" lately? Count how many times you hear that term misused in just one day tomorrow.) I don't think the Albanian Kosovars are the angels they're presented as either, so I don't see why I should give my life to protect them from a war they'll probably leap to fight again when I leave. I REALLY don't believe that Milosevic is really the key to all this. Milosevic could not do what he has done without popular support--most of the atrocities have been committed by paramilitary groups, not his own forces, so there must be more than one Serb on Milosevic's side, don't you think?
Finally, even if I agreed with you that all that is wrong or irrelevant, I don't believe that either bombs or ground forces can bring peace to Kosovo. We can stop these particular soldiers, but they'll still hate Albanians and Albanians will still hate them, and when we leave if not before, they'll try again to wipe each other out. I guess that's their right but I don't have to die for it.


As for the draft, I hope you're all right that it can't happen. However, I cite two reasons it can:
1. If Clinton sends in ground troops, he will come up short. If Russia jumps in he'll be way short. If China makes a move, or India attacks Pakistan, or whatever, he'll be WAY short. That means he'll have to come up with troops somewhere. I think volunteers will be in short supply, so where do they come from?

2. Too outrageous? Ha. Too unpopular? Ha. The only lesson Clinton takes from the polls is that as long as the economy is good, he can do what he wants. Sexual harassment should have been too shocking for a President to survive. So should perjury. So should attacking a nation on a flimsy pretense at a key political moment for political gain (Iraq in December, supposedly because arms inspectors weren't being granted full access to sites. We have a name for that here, it's called "The last five years!) So should obstruction of justice. So should taking advantage of a 20-year-old with the brains of a radish. Clinton can sneak nearly anything past the American people because a large number don't want to know what the other hand is doing. If he introduces it gradually, (and what I've seen indicates that it's happening now) and greases the skids well, I predict he gets away with it.

Thanks for the info about becoming a medic. I know it sounds strange on this forum but I don't want to fight in this, and I don't want to evade. So I'm considering Conscientious objector status, but I don't have a religious or family reason so it may come down to combat or prison. Maybe being a medic/corpsman is a compromise. I'm just kicking things around. For all I know it may not come to this until I'm married. Besides, I think my fiancee thinks we're going to Canada if I get drafted. Screw that.
 
Gwinnydapooh

There are not angels is this conflict. Not Milosevic, not the KLA, not the Macedonians, NATO. everyone is at fault here. Milosevic for being a brutal tyrrant, the KLA for being just as brutal, only on a smaller scale, Macedonia for the way it evacuated the Refugees yesterday. You get the picture I hope. there comes a point where yoou need to take a stand, and pick the lesser of two evils. the KLA was the lesser of two evils.

Coronach,
US ground troops will be in Kosovo as soon as the bombing stops as part of a UN Peacekeeping force. they are already in the region. thats how we lost the 3 army guys. On a UN mission, but thats a little different from fighting a full on ground war. reports out of Kosovo now say that the area is now a gaint mine field I think I didn't read the article, just the headline. Its a scary thought.

Grayfox
It is a given that Milosevic will try to build up his military as soon as we stop bombing, but that will take time. equipment is easy to acquire, but men take at least 18 years to grow. so it will take him a couple years to put the equipment and the men together. by this time, we have trained the Kosovars to fight for themselves, give them a supply of weapons and then the froces in the mediterraen can just look over the situation. We don't necessarily lose
 
Ladies and gentlemen, let me ask one question. How do you feel if this intervention in Serbia leads to a missle arcing through our skys and landing in ... Atlanta? Or, Dallas? Or LA? Or perhaps a massive car bomb planted by Serb 'extremists' in a similar place. Massive loss of American lives. Perhaps my life and my family's? Perhaps yours?

Such an act, such a direct act, hasn't happened yet. Yes, we had the World Trade Center bombing, and there have been other, similar acts. But not from a country we're currently bombing (hard to keep track, lately).

Isn't a great deal of our American bravado and eagerness to enter some of these conflicts a direct result of our relative safety between two oceans? If such an act occurred on American soil we would be enraged. However, aren't we encouraging just such an event some day? And when and if it occurs, will there be a part of each of us that wonders how much we did to encourage retaliation?

What the Serbs are doing is outrageous. I just don't think we should spend our lives and money to become the world's policemen. (We should encourage, and sometimes aid others to defend themselves.) And, I believe it is entirely possible there will be hell to pay some day. How would you feel if American bombs wiped out your family? Do we expect all of these folks in numerous countries to always turn the other cheek?
 
That's a good point Jeff. How many average Americans (US) remember Osama Bin Laden? Chances are that most would have a hazy recollection at best, but I'll bet he remembers us. We (I'm including myself) have the luxury of sitting on our arses, complaining about the cost of gasoline, while our military is overseas killing people. We are detached from the reality of what is going on.

Ironically, we find it outrageous that one of these countries has the gall to kill, or in this case capture, one of our troops while they're in the process of destroying their country. We demand their release while giving nothing in return (Bill Clinton, "there will be no quid pro quo").

Now Russia has stated that if we send ground forces into Yugoslavia, they may send ground forces to aid the Yugoslavs. Stand by…

It's ridiculous for the US to enforce a peace agreement to which only the Kosovars have agreed. In effect, we are giving away a piece of a sovereign country to which we have no right or claim.
 
An amusing tidbit on NBC News last night:

Serb TV and Radio broadcasting facilities are now targeted because:

"For 10 yrs they have been telling lies and fomenting hatred"

Hmmmm...can you say ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN? Ken Starr and the vast right wing conspiracy? The slaughter of all our children from guns?

Seems like Serb media learned from us, huh?

What a Confederacy of Dunces (apologies to Ignatius J. Reilly and John O'Toole) :) :)



------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
The way I see it is as this -
This mess is a UN action, and a member of the UN we need to be a part.
The situation is discusting. These crimes against humanity should be stopped.
No - there are no clear military objectives, but those are not nessesary - we are dealing with bullies, thugs and criminals - that need to spanked.
Yeah - we should go. And If asked, yeah I would go too.

------------------
"Fear will keep the local systems in line..."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top