On this day: 1999 NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

[holy king]

Originally Posted by Partizanac
you missed the point, a NATO member and a NATO state are two different things

ok, so nato attacked serbia to make kosovo a nato state.
so what is a nato state and how does it function especially concerning russia?

10charsxxx

 

[Partizanac]

sorry there @holy king, to many posts, can't catch every one of them... to answer to your question I'll only say they can do what ever they want and in states of NATO members their influence is limited

 

[holy king]

ok, so nato attacked serbia to make kosovo a nato state.
so what is a nato state and how does it function especially concerning russia?

sorry there @holy king, to many posts, can't catch every one of them... to answer to your question I'll only say they can do what ever they want and in states of NATO members their influence is limited

"you'll only say that" ? what do you want to suggest? that you know more but cannot talk about it? in what way can nato use kosovo as a base against russia?

 

[Partizanac]

FYROM?

fhfrjqefr[jqefr[jgrwlgjr[pgjmg[p

thanks for a good laugh FYROM can't handle their own country, they too have Albanian problems... Albanians want Albanian language as a second language of FYROM and for FYROM to recognize Kosovo FYROM knows if they recognize Kosovo they're next

Spoiler :

 

[TheLastOne36]

thanks for a good laugh FYROM can't handle their own country, they too have Albanian problems... Albanians want Albanian language as a second language of FYROM and for FYROM to recognize Kosovo FYROM knows if they recognize Kosovo they're next

Spoiler :

And to think that map is only from 1981.

And after that Montenegro is next. >.<

 

[plarq]

1. Netherlands has better English education and I do stand behind my text
2. It is excuse to be harsh cause people read my posts how they want to read it, and if I sum it up (serbian is like that) it looks harsh
3. And watching it on TV it is? and again I didn't create my opinion based on TV, you will find Serbians grateful NATO bombed them and that they want Kosovo independante (believe me I met them) but you wont find Albanians with diferent opinion (Mafia)

I said holy land trying to give you a picture of that we will never let Kosovo go!

I also said I have many friends of different religion and nationality Hungarians are on eof the most delightful people I met, they are so kind and pleasant! thats what Subotica residents pick up from them but politics are not like that

send me one pack of joints

Now that's crazy. If I shout "Recognize Taiwan! Free Tibet!" in China, I will be lynched.

 

[holy king]

partizanac, can i assume you are not able to explain in detail how nato will use kosovo as a "nato state" (which you claim was the reason for them attacking serbia in 99) to fight russian influence?

 

[kramerfan86]

partizanac, can i assume you are not able to explain in detail how nato will use kosovo as a "nato state" (which you claim was the reason for them attacking serbia in 99) to fight russian influence?

Obviously mighty Kosovo and its powerhouse economy and wealth of resources will FINALLY tip the scales in favor of NATO.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

any thoughts? on this day a sovereign country was attacked

Good thing we got to hammer out the flaws in some of our stealth technology. Target practice too

I'm joking, but we did learn more about stealth.

Sorry, but I must honestly admit that this event doesn't weigh on my mind very much.

 

[Winner]

That's a bit vague and broad. Name one conflict that was fought under the premise of doing the wrong thing.

I phrased it badly. In these cases, both alliances pretended to be protecting human rights, international law (by breaking it) etc.

You state both as fact, people are still arguing over the WMD's still not found, being moved, projects that sought to aquire them. Same goes for genocide, or other generally unpleasant things that went on in Kosovo.

Well, people will always argue, but I care only about the facts. No serious WMD threat was found in Iraq, and no signs of genocide were found in Kosovo.

What if someone was to think that one was an evil regime, while the other wasn't? That in one case there was a case for going to war, while in the other case there wasn't.

Such a people would be the biggest hypocrites in the world. Saddam was clearly one ofthe most brutal and oppressive dictators in the world, responsible not only for 2 senseless wars, but also for brutal oppression of all three major ethno-religious groups in Iraq.

Milo&#353;evi&#269; was a liberal democrat, compared to Saddam.

From any serious POV, Saddam's regime was worse that Milo&#353;evi&#269;'s, and it commited much worse atrocities.

Regarding Iraq/Saddam, many say it's good he's gone, but the reasons for going to war were crap.

So were the reasons to go to war against Serbia in 1999.

Again, just because someone believes a good case was made for one invasion, that doesn't mean he has to support every other invasion. Even if they has simularities, which many invasions have.

If such a person wants to protect his moral integrity, he has at least explain why is the other case different. Many people of this type I know were against the 2003 Iraq war only because they don't like the Americans.

They are always conducted by the good guys, accoording to the invading party, against an evil regime, accoording to the invading party. If that's your case for simularities, the Germans were led to believe the Poles were babykilling savages because of Josef Gobbel's CNN. They believed they were in their right to get Danzig back in the reich and save the Germans from the muirdering and raping Poles.

WW2 was a totally different story. Germans never pretended to be protecting some international system based on law, they left the League of Nations, therefore their actions happened outside this framework. Also you omitted the fact that Nazi Germany was a totalitarian dictatorship. You can't really say that about NATO countries, unless you're some kind of Communist nutjob, which I know you aren't

NATO in Yugoslavia argued that it acted on the premise of self-defence (the only situation when a country is allowed to independently use power according to the UN Charter) of its interests It said that a military action was necessary to stop something, what now appears to be a huge hoax.

Coalition in Iraq argued that Saddam's WMD's and support for the terrorists make him one of the most dangerous dictators in the world, and that his opposition to the UN inspections justifies military action.

As I said, the only difference is that Serbia was demonised by most of Western media. Journalists simply used the bad reputation Serbia had after wars in Croatia and Bosnia and in their lust for another such war, they grossly exagerrated the real situation in Kosovo. This influenced the public opinion, afraid of another Bosnia, and indirectly the politicians, who had to act on the basis of completely wrong infromation. The secret services did a great job as usual (their "success" was later repeated during 9/11 and then in the time preceding the second Iraq war), so the NATO started a war which was not necessary and as Storealex said, it was waged in a wrong way.

 

[Verbose]

Well, here's the International Rescue Comissions little write-up about the Kosovo conflict, which was what triggerd the war on Serbia:

The 1998-1999 Kosovo conflict came against a backdrop of nearly a decade of indiscriminate violence, oppression and ethnic discrimination against the province's 80 percent ethnic-Albanian majority. In 1998, fighting between Yugoslav forces and ethnic-Albanian Kosovar separatists erupted, driving 300,000 civilians into the mountains and many more across the border into Albania. Yugoslav armies and paramilitaries swept through Albanian towns, destroying homes, farms, and blocking humanitarian aid deliveries. In spring 1999, peace talks in Rambouillet, France, failed, and Yugoslav repression intensified. NATO commenced bombing Yugoslavia in March 1999 with the aim of stopping Serbian ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. However, under cloak of the NATO operation, Yugoslav authorities began intensive depopulating of Kosovo's ethnic Albanians, through killings, forced expulsions and widespread destruction of property.

A peace agreement on June 9, 1999 between Yugoslavia and NATO ended the military conflict and began a rapid repatriation of Kosovars to their homes. The refugees returned to find houses and communities, and the general infrastructure destroyed. The effects of the conflict also struck at the core of Kosovar society, as many civilians sustained loss of family members, homes, jobs and educational opportunities.

That's a pretty measured, straight-up international consensus-view of what was going on.

Apparently a lot of Serbians totally disagree. And interestingly enough this Serbian view of these things and that of pretty much everyone else, are almost totally unreconcileable.

 

[Winner]

See, your large error is that you deny the Serbian campaigns against Albanians were with the intention of ridding Kosovo of Albanians. That's, um, a pretty large part of it.

I deny that because there is simply no proof of that. I admit that Serbia used an excessive force to destroy the Kosovo Liberation Army. I agree that some of the Serb paramilitaries indeed killed inocent civilians and commited other forms of war crimes. That is well documented I think.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that Serbian government wanted to ethnically cleanse Kosovo. Indirect evidence shows that most of the refugees left Kosovo after the NATO started bombing Serbia. That's only logical, people tend to leave dangerous areas.

I've talked to some humanitarian workers (=people more inclined to side with the Albanians) who worked in Kosovo and they said that neither the Albanians they worked with claimed that there was a genocide going on. I tend to trust these people more than some jerk journalist who can't even find Kosovo on the map.

So yes, If this government tried to ethnically cleanse Texas of all Hispanics I would more than support any and all intervention against them.

Answer the question in my previous post to you. If the situation unfolded EXACTLY as I described it, what would you think?

 

[holy king]

cui bono, winner, cui bono...
if there was no genocide getting started, who profited from the nato attacks? i cant think of anyone who also could have made nato attack...

 

[Winner]

cui bono, winner, cui bono...
if there was no genocide getting started, who profited from the nato attacks? i cant think of anyone that also could have made nato attack...

What do you think, that I am some conspiracy freak?

I believe it was simply a mistake. NATO acted on wrong information spread by the media, which stirred an upheaval of the public opinion, which in turn made the politicans do something to please the crowds. Some of them also genuinely believed they were doing the right thing, the rest just followed suit.

 

[holy king]

What do you think, that I am some conspiracy freak?

no. but it's way more probable that someone profited from lies like that than that it was a mistake.

 

[Winner]

no. but it's way more probable that someone profited from lies like that than that it was a mistake.

Why? Sometimes people make wrong decisions and nobody profits.

In this case, the only people who profited from this war were the Albanians who then realized their dream of Serb-free Kosovo.

 

[aelf]

Compared to arch scumbag Clinton, his European lapdogs, and their bosom friends in Turkey and Indonesia at the time, Milosevic was actually quite swell.

Indonesia was nowhere as bad as Kosovo. I know because I lived there up to the time of the mass riots. Even in that relatively short period, there was no ethnic cleansing, only punks with grand pretensions and crazy imams.

"The West is bad" Soviet-style rethoric gets quite tiresome when it just conveniently lumps things together without bothering about the truth. It's basically pot calling the kettle black while pointing at a grey spot.

 

[red_elk]

Partizanac, me and many my acquaintances were very sorry about this disaster to your country. Take our condolences.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

cause many Kosovo Serbs and Gorans came to Subotica, and I had an opportunity to talk with some of them and I got that response

Well, there's an unbiased source. Come on, there must be some other unbiased source you used to learn of the ethnic cleansing. "People I met told me", is not very convincing I'm afraid.

edit: I'm not saying one side is the bad guy, I am guessing both sides have blood on their hands.

Didn't they find mass graves of both Albanians and Serbs?

 

[Richard Cribb]

Very good grasshopper, well spotted. Now look at the first post you quoted. Now see why I said it myself?

It is not "grasshopper", but "Sire" to you, mr. wiki-copy paster.

No, please The hypocrasy is delicious, thanks

I am not exactly the hypocrite here.
I am not the one who is:
- Whining about evil Dubya attacking Iraq while cheerleading Slick Willy attacking Serbia (By the way, what is it with middle class sunshine liberals and Clinton? Why this infatuation?).
- Supporting a supposed defence organizations right to strike violently out of area on the pretext of said states atrocious behaviour, while the organization itself has member countries that does worse things.
- Demonizing a state for alleged wile acts while supporting other states that commits worse crimes.
- Parroting wiki and mainstream media while not even bothering to check other sources.

I don't think anything is. I hope I'm not

I don't care what you think. And clearly you are not.

Well, here's the International Rescue Comissions little write-up about the Kosovo conflict, which was what triggerd the war on Serbia:

That's a pretty measured, straight-up international consensus-view of what was going on.

Apparently a lot of Serbians totally disagree. And interestingly enough this Serbian view of these things and that of pretty much everyone else, are almost totally unreconcileable.

Any idea why Rambo-Yeah failed? Any comments to appendix B, for instance?

Indonesia was nowhere as bad as Kosovo. I know because I lived there up to the time of the mass riots. Even in that relatively short period, there was no ethnic cleansing, only punks with grand pretensions and crazy imams.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh DEAR.
First the "I lived there"-argument. Great. Let us ask somebody who lived in Ceasescu's Romania about how great it was. Oh wait, already done that. Quite nice there, as far as I understand then.
Secondly. While I have all the reason in the world to doubt your expertise when comparing the situation in the two countries, it should be pretty evident that what is referred to is the atrocities commited on East Timor.
Honestly, there are minimum standards to everything, including participation in debates on internet forums.

"The West is bad" Soviet-style rethoric gets quite tiresome when it just conveniently lumps things together without bothering about the truth. It's basically pot calling the kettle black while pointing at a grey spot.

The "West is great" Nazi-style rhetorics gets quite tiresome when inconvenient truths are served. It is basically pretending that the black kettle has a grey spot.
Exposing hypocracy can only be "lumping things together without bothering about the truth" for the ethically challenged.