PDA

View Full Version : bombing of Yugoslavia



quincy
27-10-2007, 20:17
was it really motivated by humanitarianism (as many dupes in NATO countries still seem to think)?

Guest
27-10-2007, 22:46
Yes of course, how can you have any doubt? USA and NATO are motivated only by humanitarism! And people in NATO countries have NO doubt, as ALL their media told them "It is humanitarism, believe us!'.

They believed.

They have great media!

quincy
27-10-2007, 23:13
people in wealthy countries like to think they are a force for good in this world. Their journalists then provide them with the good news - their countries stand for humanitarianism not just with words, but action! except for one thing: I didn't notice food parcels and medical supplies being dropped out of NATO aircraft over Yugoslavia :rolleyes:

quincy
29-10-2007, 09:45
Yes of course, how can you have any doubt? USA and NATO are motivated only by humanitarism! And people in NATO countries have NO doubt, as ALL their media told them "It is humanitarism, believe us!'.

They believed.

They have great media!
so if it wasn't humanitarianism what do you think it was?

MickeyTong
29-10-2007, 17:33
I started a thread titled Terrorism....perhaps the bombing of Yugoslavia fits the definition......
It is psychologically very difficult to realise that "we" (whoever we are) can behave in a manner which we would condemn in others, so such actions must be justified by giving them noble reasons: we must believe that we are the good guys.
Politics is a pile of shit, only the flies change...
I hope no one ever liberates me with a bomb.

Transparent Theatre
01-11-2007, 10:45
so if it wasn't humanitarianism what do you think it was?

Here's a clue... Clinton was facing impeachment in the Lewinsky case. The only circumstances that would enable the impeachment proceedings to be delayed would be for the USA to be at war with another country. Moreover, "winning" such a war would bolster Clinton's slipping popularity and possibly even see-off the impeachment threat entirely (as, in fact, it did).

Bear in mind - there was no escalation in the Kosovo situation in the six months preceding Clinton's decision to bomb... so there was no reason he had to start a war then, as opposed to three years prevoiusly when the situation was exactly the same.

It was easy for Clinton to get NATO backing, because the NATO Top Brass had never, ever, had a military engagement in all their years of existence, and were itching for a chance to prove themselves militarily.

It is widely believed Yevgeny Primakov had negotiated a deal whereby Milosevic would retire quietly and be given a comfortable retirement and income in Russia, and fresh elections would appoint a successor. However, this did not suit "Mad"eleine Allbright, who needed a war to delay the Clinton impeachment long enough to mount a watertight defence. So she dished her former colleague Primakov at Rambouillet - when the Serbian negotiators sat down they expected to find the Primakov offer, but instead they found Allbright's demands to allow NATO forces into Serbia with unlimited powers, and moreover for Serbia to pay the bill in full for the NATO operation to have itself invaded?? Of course, the Serbs were outraged (which was Allbright's intention) and refused to cooperate. The rest is history.

Primakov was actually in mid-air over the Atlantic, believing his peaceful solution for Rambouillet was being played-out as he flew over France en-route to America. He planned to discuss how Milosevic would be quietly put out to grass in Russia and how the elections would be run. He was radioed in mid-air that Allbright had double-crossed him, and he ordered his plane to turn back.

Worth remembering that the results of this was were (a) Slobodan Milosevic remained in power and was not dislodged at all... in fact his own people later voted him out for not having fought hard enough (b) hundreds of thousands of displaced refugees were left homeless - the USA walked away and said they were the UN Refugee Agency's problem, even though they were exactly the people for whose "rescue" the entire war had been fought (c) the KLA later emerged to have been funded by Osama bin-Laden. When their attack on Serbia failed, they launched a little-publicised attack on Macedonia the following year. America, of course, no longer cared and sent no-one to assist the Macedonians fight-off the KLA.

The centre of Belgrade still has a number of bombed-out civilian apartment blocks as a reminder of this war - I've seen them myself. It's a very wise idea not to be found speaking English anywhere near them.

quincy
10-11-2007, 22:36
interesting analysis...so do you think that another US Prersident might not have supported the bombing? the Lewinsky affair was a red herring. Apart from 'humanitarianism' it was also argued that it was necessary to remove the 'last remaining dictator' from the European continent, except that dictators are not elected. Milosevic was elected twice. Removing someone from power who was uncooperative (but calling him a dictator) was one reason in my opinion

raffaella
11-11-2007, 00:32
Mussolini and Hitler were elected

quincy
11-11-2007, 23:18
I am not sure about the details of how they came to power. I think Hitler first tried a military coup but failed. They were both given legitimacy when they received verbal support from British politicians soon after they came to power. The Yugoslav president was for many years regarded a friend of the west until he was quickly demonised and transformed into a 'dictator'. we are told that without NATOs bombing campaigns we would have been witness to another holocaust. What we are not told is that the western powers themselves encouraged Yugoslavia's break up, knowing that a major civil war would result from disintegration

Briolette.
12-11-2007, 08:12
The Yugoslav president was for many years regarded a friend of the west until he was quickly demonised and transformed into a 'dictator'. we are told that without NATOs bombing campaigns we would have been witness to another holocaust.
You are not seriously doubting the fact that Slobodan Milosevic was a dangerous dictator who needed to be stopped? And believe me, we would have witnessed another holocaust if the West wouldn't have intervened. Of course, bombing of the inocent people because of one lunatic who happen to be their president is not something I agree with. I am sure they could have found better ways to deal with him and his crazy supporters. It is not the country of Serbia who should bear the blame, but certain individuals, nevertheless there is no doubt whatsoever that these individuals needed to be stripped off their power otherwise the war would still be going on and Serbia would never be given the chance to become a beautiful, friendly, and strong country, what it deserves to be and that it will become.
And yes, Yugoslavias break-up was supported by the West partially also because the Constitution of Yugoslavia from the year 1974 stated the right for each Republic to separate at any time. The possibility of separation was in Constitution, hence not illegal. And it would never come to the point where most of the republics wanted to excercise their right to separate if it wasn't for Milosevic in the first place - he caused the whole upheaval, ultimately resulting in the destruction of his own country.

quincy
15-11-2007, 00:55
You are not seriously doubting the fact that Slobodan Milosevic was a dangerous dictator who needed to be stopped?
if he was a dictator, so were the presidents of Croatia and Bosnia, and we could also include in that category the current presidents of Latvia and Estonia for violating the rights of their large Russian communities.

Briolette.
15-11-2007, 01:11
if he was a dictator, so were the presidents of Croatia and Bosnia.
Bosnian president was not nearly in that category.
Agree on Croatian president. He died of brain cancer shortly after the war, so I guess that explains his politics.

fenrir
15-11-2007, 13:22
if he was a dictator, so were the presidents of Croatia and Bosnia, and we could also include in that category the current presidents of Latvia and Estonia for violating the rights of their large Russian communities.

And by extension, the current leader of Russia.

quincy
20-11-2007, 01:45
Part of a recent speech by James Bissett, a former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia.


Shortly after NATO aircraft began the bombing of Serbia in the spring of 1999 I wrote an article in one of Canada’s national newspapers entitled “a return to barbarism,”

In the article I condemned the bombing as a violation of international law and of the UN charter and of NATO’s own treaty. But the point of the article was to stress that the bombing marked an historical turning point.

As the 20th century was coming to the end there had been a brief period after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall when we were offered the encouraging prospects of a “pax Americana.” Many believed the United States was the one country that might guarantee that the new century would see an end to war and violence.

After two cataclysmic world wars and the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world was offered the hope that the new century would follow the principles laid down in the united nations and that the Westphalian order would be restored.

Alas, these hopes were shattered with the bombing of Serbia by the US-led NATO powers. This was a naked act of aggression against a sovereign state. Sadly, it had been carried out by the democratic nations whose political leaders never failed to sing the praises of the rule of law and the UN charter. It was a foreboding warning of things to come.

The bombing of Serbia established an ominous precedent. It meant the United States and the NATO countries could intervene wherever and whenever they wished. The use of force or the threat of it would be used whether within the law or not and having set the precedent with the bombing of Serbia the decision to invade Iraq was easy.

The American insistence on giving the Albanians independence and unilaterally handing over 15% of Serbian territory to the criminal leaders of Kosovo is simply a further example of the willingness of the United States to use naked power to achieve its policy objectives.

It would seem the only obstacle in the way of the American desire to create an independent Kosovo is a resurgent Russia. Ironically, it is Russia that is insisting on compliance with the principles of international law and the UN charter before any consideration is given to Kosovo independence. This in itself is a remarkable development.

It would almost seem that the new breed of American political leaders—the Clintons, the Albrights, the Holbrookes, the neoconservatives, George Bush and others like them—have betrayed the trust bestowed upon them by the founding fathers of their great Republic.

By doing so they have abandoned the very principles upon which America was founded and which are enshrined in the UN charter by doing so they have lost the moral authority that formed the real strength of the democratic countries in overcoming the forces of totalitarianism. They have also delivered a damaging blow to the Westphalian order. It will not be easy to get it back.