[Smilin' Dave]

Serbia wanted peace all this time. It asked for a UN peace force, this was not accepted by the western powers.

Milosevic would not negotiate in person (which he had done previously), and Serbia did not accept the Ramboulliet Accords, which provided for a NATO based peace keeping force. Such a force would have been similar in character to the one ultimately deployed in Bosnia, as opposed to the failed UN peacekeeping mission earlier in the Bosnian conflict. So no, Serbia didn't demonstrate it wanted peace, and didn't accept a peacekeeping force. In fact, I have yet to find a reference to a UN based peacekeeping force.

Use of force against some small pockets of KLA support was a necessity.

And NATO use of force against Serbia in view of civilian massacres weren't?

The West did nothing to try to come to any sort of peaceful solution. Absolutely nothing.

Again, there were the Rambouillet talks. Serbia would not fully participate.

I don't know what I would propose

Ah, so Serbia had no choice, but in a situation you think is identical if not worse with the Turkish and Colombian government, you don't know what they could do? The double standard you accuse me of is all yours. You are willing to justify anything Serbia does, while criticising anything that does not go Serbia's way. You only introduced these other atrocities in a vain attempt to divert attention from Serbia's crimes.

Serbia did not participate there. Bosnia and Herzgovina endured a civil war.

The Serbian government provided logistical support to the separtist forces fighting in Bosnia. There is simply no way the seperatists could have fielded and maintained their heavy equipment without Serbia's support. Serbia also played a key role in precipitating that civil war, in an attempt to annex territory from Bosnia.

Edit: Forgot the JNA role in Sarajevo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sarajevo

Serbs formed the majority of most of the territory there, and they still do today.

Ethnic cleansing played a significant role in that. Did Srebrenica have a Serb majority?

Some volunteers went to fight, but there were also volunteers from greece too. Does that mean that greece was in the war? No.

Greece is currently investigating their volunteers for war crimes. What has Serbia done to Mladic?

[LAz]

Ethnic cleansing played a significant role in that. Did Srebrenica have a Serb majority?

Bullshit.
Bosnia, 1991...

The war had nothing to do with serbs being the majority on the land of bosnia. The serbs in fact were the biggest group in bosnia traditionally. Only come 1971 did the bosniaks become the biggest group - and were never over 50% percent.
You speak of srebrenica? Well, no, the serbs were not a majority there at the start of the war, but they were in the not so distant past. Furthermore, the serbian population was on a downward trend between 1953 and 1991. All over eastern bosnia the serbian population decreased while the muslim population increased. But we still formed the majority on what was republika srpska.

Greece is currently investigating their volunteers for war crimes. What has Serbia done to Mladic?

Serbia is looking for mladic, and doing much more than what croatia, our fascist allies did, and much more than what the muslims in bosnia did.

The Serbian government provided logistical support to the separtist forces fighting in Bosnia. There is simply no way the seperatists could have fielded and maintained their heavy equipment without Serbia's support. Serbia also played a key role in precipitating that civil war, in an attempt to annex territory from Bosnia.

Edit: Forgot the JNA role in Sarajevo

The JNA had entire divisions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. And guess what, these divisions became part of the army of Republika Srpska. This republika srpska was formed early and was independent of belgrade. It is well known that milosevic and karadjzic hated one another, and that milosevic did all he could to bring peace there. Remember those failed peace plans that were designed to screw the serbs in bosnia? Well, Milosevic tried to force the serbs there to accept that.
The JNA left a lot of equipment behind, and the Serbs there used that. JNA commanders were not in charge, R.S. commanders were.

Ah, so Serbia had no choice, but in a situation you think is identical if not worse with the Turkish and Colombian government, you don't know what they could do? The double standard you accuse me of is all yours. You are willing to justify anything Serbia does, while criticising anything that does not go Serbia's way. You only introduced these other atrocities in a vain attempt to divert attention from Serbia's crimes.

You did not read the rest of what I said there! I said that I would not have supported the status quo situation, of the US funding the extermination of these groups. The cases of these other two countries were far far worse than the situation in kosovo. They were far worse in that one year alone, and if we look at the combined totals over several years, they dwarf kosovo's situation. I did give some suggestions, but I am not sure if that would have helped, and plus, what I said was merely some hints at what might have helped, but I said that I do not know, because all what I said has an extremely low probability because of the US's actions that support the repression and destruction of people.

Again, there were the Rambouillet talks. Serbia would not fully participate.

Man, why do you not look at what happened there? We fully participated, and it was the albanians who were the first to say that this is ridiculous. Well, albright came there to force them to sign. But still, no country would sign it, serbia did not, as we did not want to be sign to be occupied. Appendix B in particular stated that we had to lose our sovereignty.

Serbia offered a counter-proposal, to give the albanians broad autonomy and to get an international UN peacekeeping force there. But no, this was not good enough for NATO. Those members did not want the UN there, they wanted to mess the place up. So, Serbian peace offer that includes UN presence and autonomy for albanians gets rejected... and what is demanded is that the serbs sign something that nobody on earth would. Just what am I talking about? The following...

-----------------------------------------------------------

Appendix B: Status of Multi-National Military Implementation Force

========================================================

1. For the purposes of this Appendix, the following expressions shall have the meanings hereunder assigned to them:

a. "NATO" means the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), its subsidiary bodies, its military Headquarters, the NATO-led KFOR, and any elements/units forming any part of KFOR or supporting KFOR, whether or not they are from a NATO member country and whether or not they are under NATO or national command and control, when acting in furtherance of this Agreement.

b. "Authorities in the FRY" means appropriate authorities, whether Federal, Republic, Kosovo or other.

c. "NATO personnel" means the military, civilian, and contractor personnel assigned or attached to or employed by NATO, including the military, civilian, and contractor personnel from non-NATO states participating in the Operation, with the exception of personnel locally hired.

d. "the Operation" means the support, implementation, preparation, and participation by NATO and NATO personnel in furtherance of this Chapter.

e. "Military Headquarters" means any entity, whatever its denomination, consisting of or constituted in part by NATO military personnel established in order to fulfill the Operation.

f. "Authorities" means the appropriate responsible individual, agency, or organization of the Parties.

g. "Contractor personnel" means the technical experts or functional specialists whose services are required by NATO and who are in the territory of the FRY exclusively to serve NATO either in an advisory capacity in technical matters, or for the setting up, operation, or maintenance of equipment, unless they are: (1) nationals of the FRY; or (2) persons ordinarily resident in the FRY.

h. "Official use" means any use of goods purchased, or of the services received and intended for the performance of any function as required by the operation of the Headquarters.

i. "Facilities" means all buildings, structures, premises, and land required for conducting the operational, training, and administrative activities by NATO for the Operation as well as for accommodation-of NATO personnel. 2. Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities under this Appendix, all NATO personnel shall respect the laws applicable in the FRY, whether Federal, Republic, Kosovo, or other, insofar as compliance with those laws is compatible with the entrusted tasks/mandate and shall refrain from activities not compatible with the nature of the Operation.

3. The Parties recognize the need for expeditious departure and entry procedures for NATO personnel. Such personnel shall be exempt from passport and visa regulations and the registration requirements applicable to aliens. At all entry and exit points to/from the FRY, NATO personnel shall be permitted to enter/exit the FRY on production of a national identification (ID) card. NATO personnel shall carry identification which they may be requested to produce for the authorities in the FRY, but operations, training, and movement shall not be allowed to be impeded or delayed by such requests.

4. NATO military personnel shall normally wear uniforms, and NATO personnel may possess and carry arms if authorized to do so by their orders. The Parties shall accept as valid, without tax or fee, drivers, licenses and permits issued to NATO personnel by their respective national authorities.

5. NATO shall be permitted to display the NATO flag and/or national flags of its constituent national elements/units on any NATO uniform, means of transport, or facility.

6.

a. NATO shall be immune from all legal process, whether civil, administrative, or criminal.

b. NATO personnel, under all circumstances and at all times, shall be immune from the Parties, jurisdiction in respect of any civil, administrative, criminal, or disciplinary offenses which may be committed by them in the FRY. The Parties shall assist States participating in the operation in the exercise of their jurisdiction over their own nationals.

c. Notwithstanding the above, and with the NATO Commander's express agreement in each case, the authorities in the FRY may exceptionally exercise jurisdiction in such matters, but only in respect of Contractor personnel who are not subject to the jurisdiction of their nation of citizenship.

7. NATO personnel shall be immune from any form of arrest, investigation, or detention by the authorities in the FRY. NATO personnel erroneously arrested or detained shall immediately be turned over to NATO authorities.

8. NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac, maneuver, billet, and utilization of any areas or facilities as required for support, training, and operations.

[NOTE: this provision would make the FRY the property of NATO - Jared Israel]

9. NATO shall be exempt from duties, taxes, and other charges and inspections and custom regulations including providing inventories or other routine customs documentation, for personnel, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, equipment, supplies, and provisions entering, exiting, or transiting the territory of the FRY in support of the Operation.

10. The authorities in the FRY shall facilitate, on a priority basis and with all appropriate means, all movement of personnel, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, equipment, or supplies, through or in the airspace, ports, airports, or roads used. No charges may be assessed against NATO for air navigation, landing, or takeoff of aircraft, whether government-owned or chartered. Similarly, no duties, dues, tolls or charges may be assessed against NATO ships, whether government-owned or chartered, for the mere entry and exit of ports. Vehicles, vessels, and aircraft used in support of the operation shall not be subject to licensing or registration requirements, nor commercial insurance.

11. NATO is granted the use of airports, roads, rails, and ports without payment of fees, duties, dues, tolls, or charges occasioned by mere use. NATO shall not, however, claim exemption from reasonable charges for specific services requested and received, but operations/movement and access shall not be allowed to be impeded pending payment for such services.

12. NATO personnel shall be exempt from taxation by the Parties on the salaries and emoluments received from NATO and on any income received from outside the FRY.

13. NATO personnel and their tangible moveable property imported into, acquired in, or exported from the FRY shall be exempt from all duties, taxes, and other charges and inspections and custom regulations.

14. NATO shall be allowed to import and to export, free of duty, taxes and other charges, such equipment, provisions, and supplies as NATO shall require for the operation, provided such goods are for the official use of NATO or for sale to NATO personnel. Goods sold shall be solely for the use of NATO personnel and not transferable to unauthorized persons.

15. The Parties recognize that the use of communications channels is necessary for the Operation. NATO shall be allowed to operate its own internal mail services.

The Parties shall, upon simple request, grant all telecommunications services, including broadcast services, needed for the Operation, as determined by NATO. This shall include the right to utilize such means and services as required to assure full ability to communicate, and the right to use all of the electromagnetic spectrum for this purpose, free of cost. In implementing this right, NATO shall make every reasonable effort to coordinate with and take into account the needs and requirements of appropriate authorities in the FRY.

16. The Parties shall provide, free of cost, such public facilities as NATO shall require to prepare for and execute the Operation. The Parties shall assist NATO in obtaining, at the lowest rate, the necessary utilities, such as electricity, water, gas and other resources, as NATO shall require for the Operation.

17. NATO and NATO personnel shall be immune from claims of any sort which arise out of activities in pursuance of the operation; however, NATO will entertain claims on an ex gratia basis.

18. NATO shall be allowed to contract directly for the acquisition of goods, services, and construction from any source within and outside the FRY. Such contracts, goods, services, and construction shall not be subject to the payment of duties, taxes, or other charges. NATO may also carry out construction works with their own personnel.

19. Commercial undertakings operating in the FRY only in the service of NATO shall be exempt from local laws and regulations with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment and licensing and registration of employees, businesses, and corporations.

20. NATO may hire local personnel who on an individual basis shall remain subject to local laws and regulations with the exception of labor/employment laws. However, local personnel hired by NATO shall:

a. be immune from legal process in respect of words spoken or written and all acts performed by them in their official capacity;

b. be immune from national services and/or national military service obligations;

c. be subject only to employment terms and conditions established by NATO; and

d. be exempt from taxation on the salaries and emoluments paid to them by NATO.

21. In carrying out its authorities under this Chapter, NATO is authorized to detain individuals and, as quickly as possible, turn them over to appropriate officials.

22. NATO may, in the conduct of the Operation, have need to make improvements or modifications to certain infrastructure in the FRY, such as roads, bridges, tunnels, buildings, and utility systems. Any such improvements or modifications of a non-temporary nature shall become part of and in the same ownership as that infrastructure. Temporary improvements or modifications may be removed at the discretion of the NATO Commander, and the infrastructure returned to as near its original condition as possible, fair wear and tear excepted.

23. Failing any prior settlement, disputes with the regard to the interpretation or application of this Appendix shall be settled between NATO and the appropriate authorities in the FRY.

24. Supplementary arrangements with any of the Parties may be concluded to facilitate any details connected with the Operation.

25. The provisions of this Appendix shall remain in force until completion of the Operation or as the Parties and NATO otherwise agree.

--------------------------------------

Hopefully you have been educated as to what went on in Rambulliet, an offer to a country to surrender its sovereignty. The austrians did the same thing right before they invaded us in ww1. And as always, a peaceful solution through the UN is rejected. Nice. What next is terrorist america going to do?


edit: And if you want to talk about some more NATO stuff just let me know. There's plenty of material out there that explains how NATO did not want peace, how NATO did not want a peaceful solution, how NATO did everything to avoid peace, and how the West took sides, the side of the terrorists that were Europe's main drug smugglers and who kidnapped serbs and then sold their organs. Al quaida was their buddy too. Oh wait, we created alquaida, here in the US. Yeah, we'll use that as a false reason to attack iraq, and who knows who else.
Pst, I heard that venezuela has band new al quaida cells! Time go go bomb again!

[Independent_Srpska]

So it's okay for Serbia to perform ethnic cleansing, as you readily admit, for the purpose of fighting a group that uses violence etc. in order for Serbia to achieve its aims.

Hummm, ethnic cleansing? And somehow Serbs were cleansed from Kosmet? How do you explain that in your false logic?
I have only noticed cleansing Serbs from Kosmet, yet I did not notice NATO fascist bomb Squips in Kosmet, strange....

I noticed the Balkans biggest ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Croatia and yet NATO did not bomb Croats, but instead of that they bombed Serbs airports to stop them helping civilians....

The question is: what are you talking about?

How this crap of yours fits in the above mentioned ---> On the other hand, you don't think it's okay for NATO to bomb Serbia, a use of violence, for the purpose of ending ethnic cleansing? Particuarly given Serbian participation in a past, larger scale, ethnic cleansing operation in Bosnia.

The question: why did not NATO bombed Squips in Kosmet on March 17, 2004? It was obvious ethnic cleansing of Serbs....
The question: why did not NATO bombed Croats in Croatia in 1995 it was more then obvious cleansing...moreover it was aggression of Croat forces against Serbs in Bosnia and Hercegovina...why NATO did not stop that , too?
The queston: why did not NATO bombed Georgia when they tried ethnically clean Osethia and Abkhazia?

Funny ain't it...? Somehow, everybody can use force on Serbs, everybody can ethnically clean territory of Serbs, but if Serbs try to defend , then there is NATO to prevent that....somehow, it's not fair...

Particuarly given Serbian participation in a past, larger scale, ethnic cleansing operation in Bosnia.

Share with us your "knowledge" ...

But, hey, here you speak Nazi arguments...."paaast" OMG, what a nonsense....speaking of past--->

How would NATO fascists dare to lesson anybody particularly given American participation in genocide over native Americans (which is probably the most "successful" genocide ever!), German participation in genocide over almost everybody in Europe, Turkey's genocide over Armenians, Australian genocide over native people in Australia....gee, all "respectful" members of NATO .....past, what an argument....

Again, there were the Rambouillet talks. Serbia would not fully participate.

Well, you are still not able to answer my simple question, i.e. translation of your wrapped up crap:"Why don't you fully participate, I mean just bend over, and close your eyes.....You might get paid, one way or another".....what a nonsense....however, try to read some crap from Madlaine ALbright on "talks in Ramoubillet"....you just don't have a clue....

[Smilin' Dave]

@

Hummm, ethnic cleansing? And somehow Serbs were cleansed from Kosmet? How do you explain that in your false logic?

Actually, false logic is this attempt to divert attention from Serbian crimes by pointing out the crimes of others.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked LAz: Would you have supported bombing, or some other use of force, against these other groups? You basically answer the question with your references to Serbia 'defending' itself... so apparently the use of force to stop ethnic cleansing in legitimate, and that leaves dear old Serbia without an excuse. That the rule isn't applied more broadly is unfortunate, not proof that the practice should be discarded.

but if Serbs try to defend

Were Serbs on the defensive in Srebrenica?

OMG, what a nonsense....speaking of past

We tend to speak of the past IN THE HISTORY FORUM.

American participation in genocide over native Americans (which is probably the most "successful" genocide ever!), German participation in genocide over almost everybody in Europe, Turkey's genocide over Armenians, Australian genocide over native people in Australia

In all those cases the governments have subsequently admitted guilt and in most cases made some form of reparations. Has Serbia done this?

Well, you are still not able to answer my simple question

Because you refuse to justify the logic of your question, which anyone can see is a loaded question. You haven't answered any of my questions either.

however, try to read some crap from Madlaine ALbright on "talks in Ramoubillet"....

Madelaine Albright was only able to comandeer the Ramboulliet talks because the Serbs had basically made no representation. It was easy to get authorisation for a bombing campaign when the Serbs would not agree to any peacekeeping force other than in vague principle.

@LAz

You speak of srebrenica? Well, no, the serbs were not a majority there at the start of the war, but they were in the not so distant past.

So an event that has been determined to fit the definition of genocide is legitimate because historically it belonged to Serbs?

Serbia is looking for mladic

Ah, like when Serbia looked for Karadjzic... when everyone knew he was in his home under guard?

The JNA had entire divisions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. And guess what, these divisions became part of the army of Republika Srpska.

By order of the Serbian government. Serbia thus took a direct role in the siege of Sarajevo and supsequent crimes committed by those former JNA units in Srpska.

The JNA left a lot of equipment behind, and the Serbs there used that.

Why didn't Milosevic order that equipment destroyed, like any other army forced to withdraw but unable to take all its equipment? The answer is that Milosevic wanted the separatists to have the heavy equipment, and Serbia continued to provide logistical support for that equipment.

You did not read the rest of what I said there!

Because it was irrelevant to the discussion. You tend to write more when you have nothing to say.

I said that I would not have supported the status quo situation, of the US funding the extermination of these groups.

Right, so that is what you wouldn't do... so what would you have done? That was the question, so answer it.

Man, why do you not look at what happened there? We fully participated

Milosevic wasn't there, a clear sign that he was not willing to fully negotiate. Milosevic had previously negotiated directly.

Serbia offered a counter-proposal, to give the albanians broad autonomy and to get an international UN peacekeeping force there.

Given the previous failures of UN peacekeeping forces in Bosnia, why should anyone want this? Perhaps Serbia was hoping for another round of inaction to continue ethnic cleansing? Like I said, the accords were a similar structure to those used for the expanded peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. It was not unprecedented, and it clearly worked better.

[LAz]

I hope that we can agree that rambulliet was not a peace offer, but an offer to become an occupied country. Is this fair? Do we agree that rambulliet was not about making peace? Yes?

Were Serbs on the defensive in Srebrenica?

Yes. Thousands of our civilians have been killed in srebrenica and the vicinity of srebrenica.
We did not do genocide in srebrenica. How does one do genocide if one does not go after the old folk, women and children, integral components of a population? Therefore genocide did not happen, we deported them, and went after the men of war abilities that were slaughtering our civilians, who had refused to disarm and who broke peace treaties more than once.

We were a majority in srebrenica in the near past. It is not just historically serbian. It was recently serbian.

Ah, like when Serbia looked for Karadjzic... when everyone knew he was in his home under guard?

Pardon? Who knew that??

By order of the Serbian government. Serbia thus took a direct role in the siege of Sarajevo and supsequent crimes committed by those former JNA units in Srpska.

I disagree that there were orders of the serbian government. The serbs there acted on their own, often in total contradition to what belgrade's regime wanted.

Why didn't Milosevic order that equipment destroyed, like any other army forced to withdraw but unable to take all its equipment? The answer is that Milosevic wanted the separatists to have the heavy equipment, and Serbia continued to provide logistical support for that equipment.

Well, people in all republics seized JNA munitions, materials, everything that they could. Slovenia seized 10 to 15 percent of the JNA weapons that were in slovenia - the JNA managed to move out most before the war. Therefore, munitions were not moved on time, and the serbs in bosnia seized it as all groups seized their share of the JNA armor and weapons.

Because it was irrelevant to the discussion. You tend to write more when you have nothing to say.

It is totally relevant.

Right, so that is what you wouldn't do... so what would you have done? That was the question, so answer it.

Okay, I thought about this for quite some time today, and here are some steps that I would take...

A) To not support either side in these conflicts.
B) To support collective action from the international community (UN) to resolve the problem, and not dare go in on my own.

So, how does that sound? A and B are things that the US clearly does not do.

Milosevic wasn't there, a clear sign that he was not willing to fully negotiate. Milosevic had previously negotiated directly.

There is absolutely no need to be RIGHT THERE. Serbs can negotiate without sending our leader there. The serbs had ceasefires, and it was always the albanians that out of nowhere broke ceasefires during negotiations. So yes, it is hard to negotiate, but it is very well possible if one wants to. However, as we agree, rambulliet was not about negotiating, as peace was not the goal.

Given the previous failures of UN peacekeeping forces in Bosnia, why should anyone want this? Perhaps Serbia was hoping for another round of inaction to continue ethnic cleansing? Like I said, the accords were a similar structure to those used for the expanded peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. It was not unprecedented, and it clearly worked better.

What are you smoking? The UN is not effective in any conflict while it is ongoing. However the UN tends to be effective in helping after a peace treaty is signed, to implement a peace treaty. In Bosnia the UN did much after the war. Again, WHEN the UN took over Kosovo, there was a significant decrease in the attacks on serbs. The UN did take over in Kosovo. It would have sparred a lot of killing and destruction had the UN gone in there, but the West wanted to bomb because peace was not the goal. Well hard shit, they accepted the serbian plan that we had all along, a UN peace treaty that guarantees our sovereignty, not the rambulliet plan which guarantees albanians the right to declare independence at a later time.

[Independent_Srpska]

Simple question:--->

Hummm, ethnic cleansing? And somehow Serbs were cleansed from Kosmet? How do you explain that in your false logic?
I have only noticed cleansing Serbs from Kosmet, yet I did not notice NATO fascist bomb Squips in Kosmet, strange....

Weird answer: --->

Actually, false logic is this attempt to divert attention from Serbian crimes by pointing out the crimes of others.

Conclusion: --> Houston, Houston , we have a problem....

I'll ask you the same thing I asked LAz: Would you have supported bombing, or some other use of force, against these other groups? You basically answer the question with your references to Serbia 'defending' itself... so apparently the use of force to stop ethnic cleansing in legitimate, and that leaves dear old Serbia without an excuse. That the rule isn't applied more broadly is unfortunate, not proof that the practice should be discarded.

I wonder would NATO fascists bomb Poland after their failed attempt to defend themselves from Nazi Germany?
I mean, Germany started to clean Poles, that's nothing, that's cool....but, when Poles returned couple of bullets, gee, how dared they to do that??? - would that piss off NATO fascists? What do you think?

Were Serbs on the defensive in Srebrenica?

Definitely! How many Muslims were killed in Srebrenica from March 26, 1992 till July 11, 1995? According to Muslim data - ZERO!
How many Serbs were killed in the same period in Srebrenica and around Srebrenica? Answer ---> 3.600
How do you explain that?

We tend to speak of the past IN THE HISTORY FORUM.

Then you are in the wrong forum...

In all those cases the governments have subsequently admitted guilt and in most cases made some form of reparations. Has Serbia done this?

Nope. Why would Serbia do that?
Has not the court in the Hague ruled Serbia had nothing with the massacre in Srebrenica? Yes, it has..Gee, what now?
Why would Serbia done anything of those lousy claims of yours?

However, do you really think that victims of genocides in North America, Australia, Jews, Serbs, Gypsies feel any better because of crap coming from those "governments"? Do you really? Do you really think that can give credibility for NATO fascists to lesson anybody on this planet? Do you?
However, when Turkish government admitted guilt for exterminating ONE MILLION of Armenians?

Because you refuse to justify the logic of your question, which anyone can see is a loaded question. You haven't answered any of my questions either.

It's quite logical to answer questions chronologically...

Madelaine Albright was only able to comandeer the Ramboulliet talks because the Serbs had basically made no representation. It was easy to get authorisation for a bombing campaign when the Serbs would not agree to any peacekeeping force other than in vague principle.

joker....

Why didn't Milosevic order that equipment destroyed, like any other army forced to withdraw but unable to take all its equipment? The answer is that Milosevic wanted the separatists to have the heavy equipment, and Serbia continued to provide logistical support for that equipment.

No way! Milosevic wouldn't give anything to BH-Muslims i.e. converted Serbs.

[Shade2]

Mini-Russia wannabies. Just like Russia wanted to enslave Central Europe, Serbs wanted to enslave Balkans.
I am quite proud that Poland is member of the Alliance that stopped those Russian xero boys. Thankfully Albania is now part of the alliance and perhaps Kosovo will be in the future.

[LAz]

Mini-Russia wannabies. Just like Russia wanted to enslave Central Europe, Serbs wanted to enslave Balkans.
I am quite proud that Poland is member of the Alliance that stopped those Russian xero boys. Thankfully Albania is now part of the alliance and perhaps Kosovo will be in the future.

Insanity... let me explain...


A) are not in the western or southern balkans... bulgaria... greece... albania... romaina... wow, so serbs are not in most of the balkans. Yet they want to enslave them? Where does this bullshit come from? It comes from the paranoia of austro-hungary that they created, of supposedly this boogyman, greater serbia.

B) serbs have legitimate claims on much of the former yugoslavia, as they have lived there, they still are there, and because some of those lands, like all of bosnia and herzegovina, was promised to us in world war one. Now, we do not want all of bosnia, but we are the majority on most of bosnia, and we were until 1971 the biggest group there... and we still are a big group there.

C) It is a fact that the Polish always hated Russia, and always went to war against Russia. Poland was an apartheid government in the interwar period. But, Poland did not support the bombing of serbia and it is a fact that poles and serbs tend to have good relations. Polish nationalists admire milosevic.

[Independent_Srpska]

Mini-Russia wannabies. Just like Russia wanted to enslave Central Europe, Serbs wanted to enslave Balkans.

I can only congratulate CNN and USA media and Hollywood, too - they have produced brainwashed individuals across this planet! Really!
Goebels would be more than envious on the success of US media machine! Indeed!

Gee, look at this Hollywood parallel??!! Let's mention Russia in the sentence where Serbs are mentioned - that's an RED alert sign to an ordinary illiterate western individual and he/she turns out to be a bull running on the RED scarf ...funny....and unintelligent...though, perfectly fits into the psychology of a mass, or better to say psychology of a sheep herd...and sad in the same time...

[RabbleRouser]

Well I am more impressed with the Russian and Serbian propaganda. To think that people actually believe this. What I like particularly is that every time smiling Dave bring up a good point or ask an important question it is easily side stepped or another more brazen with each acusation. Bravo. Since I am late to this forum instead of countering everything that is said. Why don't we try to answer Smilin' dave question without the normal state sponsored communist propaganda? I think that would be a good start. Cause all I heard against his arguments are different ways to promote genocide. And lastly I find the use of the word fascist to describe NATO to be particularly funny coming from supporters of Russian propaganda. OMG the irony is not lost with me. Lastly you’re numbers on death’s, can you please site sources? I’m adding numbers up and think I actually hit negative population in some of the countries.

[Independent_Srpska]

What is puzzling you? Could you be more specific?

[QatzelOk]

A bombing aimed (albeit ineffectual in result) at ending violent repression in Kosovo.

It's pretty scary that all American media has to do is say "Atrocity" and the American public will sit obediently in front of their TV sits watching foreign cities being bombed and think "a man's gotta do..." rather than throwing out their elite or turning off their propaganda.

"We tried to stop violence by bombing cities" isn't even credible to small children with learning difficulties. Anyone who understands "bombing cities" knows it's not a way to find peace and balance.

NATO didn't negotiate with Serbia because NATO had nothing to say. So they bombed and presented the US TV audience with a nice fable - which they believed - like Dave - because it feels better to believe comforting fables when your nation is run by obese and self-centered tyrants.

[RabbleRouser]

I'm not puzzled I know exactly what is going on. The problem is that somehow Western Media is the great lie and propaganda however Serbian and lets face it Russian media is the reliable one. And let's throw Media out of this, can anyone direct me to a great place to learn about the NATO Atrocities in the Balkans? or Serbia as the victim? I would love to read a fair and independent source. I have searched but because of my obesity and self centered Tyrannical views, get in the way of me forming a fair and open minded judgment of what is going on. Because all I can find at the root cause of all the violence in the Balkans is Serbia or Serbian nationals, who not only murder their neighbors but murdered non-national Serb's. So It will be very interesting to find some evidence of Serbia being the innocent victim as portrayed by some on this thread. All I can find is that Serbia was committing genocide and was the aggressor. However I'm left with two choices of believing this information, One the media is not controlled by elusive elites so I am able to come to a conclusion based upon fact, evidence, and careful analysis or that Western elitist do control the media and I should believe people who only give vague reasoning, get woefully upset when someone challenges their position, and believe that individuals (who for some reason cannot be named) are manically controlling the world and that I should throw out all I know and start believing others who have little or no reasoning to back up their claims. Lastly, NATO didn't try to stop the violence through bombing, they did.

[Independent_Srpska]

Well, I don't know about media, I know many things from the real life.

However, you can start by reading this ---> viewtopic.php?f=28&t=104894

All I can find is that Serbia was committing genocide and was the aggressor.

Well, exactly, that's what you can find....-though, even the banana court in The Hague ruled that was not the truth - but, yet you believe in that... ...is it up to you? Or is it up the media you follow...? ...who would know that....

Lastly, NATO didn't try to stop the violence through bombing, they did.

Yep. Hitler did the same in many European countries. He stopped violence by bombing countries, effectively...

Though, let me ask you what violence you are talking about?

[Smilin' Dave]

Qatz, I don't want to post in a shit thread with yet another person who can't be bothered to read what I say (apparently like LAz, you want to slander me re. the bombing of Serbia) or provide real facts of their own. Perhaps if you were interested in a real debate you should have chimed in two weeks ago, rather than try to score points (or was it for the posts?) after the fact.

[QatzelOk]

Repeating it doesn't make it any more valid.

Yes, this is of course true.

Perhaps if you were interested in a real debate you should have chimed in two weeks ago,

I read the "real debate" and only climbed in when I was inspired to say something. If this doesn't suit your time-line, I'm really sorry. But feigning victimhood with a resentful tone, and trying to pull rank by suggesting the time limit for debate participation has expired... what blatant (and empty) manipulation.

Try to have points, rather just scoring them.

[Smilin' Dave]

I provide evidence to support my points Qatz, you just use post-modernist rhetoric to discredit everyone else’s, thus leaving your narrative as the last one standing.

You want to point fingers about repetition? Look at your post count.

I read the "real debate" and only climbed in when I was inspired to say something. If this doesn't suit your time-line, I'm really sorry.

You don't think there is anything wrong with posting a veiled insult directed at another member when that member:
- No longer wanted to participate.
- Has not posted on the topic for two weeks.
I suppose it is easier for you to reconstruct my narrative to your own inane purposes if I'm not willing to respond though, right?

But feigning victimhood with a resentful tone

As opposed to feigning knowledge wisdom?

trying to pull rank by suggesting the time limit for debate participation has expired

If I wanted to pull rank, I would have used the edit function. I stated my objection as one poster to another. If you have a problem with my disagreeing with you on a forum I moderate, I suggest (but not order you...) to find some place else. If you have a problem with the way I moderate, contact another mod or an admin.

On the topic of rank and use of” power”, I clearly remember you insisting you could change the subject in any thread you started, and that I should conform to those changes unquestioningly.

Try to have points, rather just scoring them.

Fine, let's go through your points.

It's pretty scary that all American media has to do is say "Atrocity" and the American public will sit obediently in front of their TV sits watching foreign cities being bombed and think "a man's gotta do..."

As I’ve already stated, I didn’t support the bombing of Serbia in this case. There is a difference between identifying the motives of a grouping and supporting that motive.

My point, which you seem to miss, is that I oppose the image of Serbian victimhood, particularly when it is claimed the bombing of Serbia was based on economics or some other conspiracy theory, rather than what was happening in Kosovo. Even if we accept that Madelaine Albright & Co. wanted to bomb Serbia no matter what for some other reason than Kosovo, you can’t avoid the fact that the Serbians created an ideal situation in Kosovo to exploit. So even from a practical and relatively open perspective, the Serbs are responsible for their own predicament.

If you want to cart out a conspiracy theory Qatz, maybe you should name names and provide an alternative explanation. Perhaps given your emphasis of my use of the word atrocity, you wish to deny these took place?

rather than throwing out their elite or turning off their propaganda.

How would throwing out my ‘elite’ have any positive effect on the situation in Kosovo, on the other side of the world? My elite didn’t create that situation, the Serbian government and the collapse of Albania did most of it. How would turning off the ‘propaganda’ help matters? It stinks of looking the other way when something bad is happening. Particularly if I buy the idea that all media is propaganda.

"We tried to stop violence by bombing cities" isn't even credible to small children with learning difficulties.

This is where the insult comes from. By association if I believe this, I am less that a small child with a mental disability. Basically Qatz you might as well have descended to calling me a little retard. I suppose the alternative is that I am a master fraud presenting views I know to be false... which is still an insult.

Now, if you opposed the military action against Serbia, you probably should have done some basic research: The bombing started with military targets, and shifted to strategic targets in cities (IIRC the Kosovo war was the first where the US used a majority of guided weapons). Of course acknowledging this would require acknowledging that the primary aim was to force the Serbian military to a halt, rather than attack the Serbian state or engage in neo-colonialism.

Anyone who understands "bombing cities" knows it's not a way to find peace and balance.

Peace and balance, while desirably, are not always achievable, thus the use of force. LAz basically made this argument in discussing the Serb actions in Kosovo, as far as I know you have taken no issue with his views. I suppose like LAz, your true problem is that some things are wrong only if the other side does it.

NATO didn't negotiate with Serbia because NATO had nothing to say.

Rambouillet was a negotiation, and as you can see, in the first round the two antagonists were able to issue a joint statement, which I think LAz refers to positively elsewhere. So saying the NATO countries didn’t negotiate at all is wrong. So you don’t understand the military end of things, and your political overview is lacking.

So there are your points. I’ve been dragged back in. What have you to retort with?

[QatzelOk]

Now, if you opposed the military action against Serbia, you probably should have done some basic research: The bombing started with military targets, and shifted to strategic targets in cities

Targets: one tank, and a few hundred cooperative factories were destroyed (but no multinationals) and also the most popular cooperative TV station.

In other words, the real target was democracy. NATO turned into pirates as soon as the Berlin Wall fell down. What a bunch of lies we were told about the Yugoslavian civil war. And NATO supported the Kosovo Liberation Army - a terrorist organisation - in order to destroy the alternative economy of Yugoslavia.

So that Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson types would have even more blood money to play monopoly with.

Look up the targets in newspaper archives. I remember an article from a few years ago - I think it was in the Toronto Star or Counterpunch - that mentionned aroung 400 cooperative factories were bombed - an entire economic alternative to elite capitalism.

... Where are the bodies? Was the other big war of the last decade, Kosovo in 1999, triggered by bogus allegations as well? Another case of mass deception?

In Iraq, it's the missing mass weapons of destruction. In Kosovo, it's the missing mass graves. ..

There was no Kosovo genocide.

...Equally revealing was a chapter dealing exclusively with the Kosovo economy. This called for a "free-market economy" and the privatisation of all government assets. As the Balkans writer Neil Clark has pointed out, "the rump of Yugoslavia... was the last economy in central-southern Europe to be uncolonised by western capital. 'Socially owned enterprises', the form of worker self-management pioneered under Tito, still predominated. Yugoslavia had publicly owned petroleum, mining, car and tobacco industries, and 75 per cent of industry was state or socially owned."
...
At the Davos summit of neo-liberal chieftains in 1999, Blair berated Belgrade, not for its handling of Kosovo, but for its failure to fully embrace "economic reform". In the bombing campaign that followed, it was state owned companies, rather than military sites, that were targeted. Nato's destruction of only 14 Yugoslav army tanks compares with its bombing of 372 centres of industry, including the Zastava car factory, leaving hundreds of thousands jobless. "Not one foreign or privately owned factory was bombed," wrote Clark.
...

The "war" was all about capitalism and the tyranny it uses to concentrate all the world's resources into a few hands.

[Smilin' Dave]

So I address all your points, and you cherry pick for responses?

Targets: one tank, and a few hundred cooperative factories were destroyed

Do you have an actual target list? That one tank was hit actually demonstrates the difficulty NATO forces had in destroying military targets. While the Serbian posters can beat their chests about their clever use of camoflague etc. I don't do your argument much good.

What were the factories producing out of interest?

also the most popular cooperative TV station.

Given the role Serbian state controlled media played in the Bosnian genocide, I don't think this is particularly exceptional.

In other words, the real target was democracy.

Serbia was not a democracy in practice. Popular involvement and democracy are different things Qatz. I'm reminded of your unusual claim that Nazi controlled banks were democratic.

What a bunch of lies we were told about the Yugoslavian civil war.

Srebrenica and Sarajevo were not lies.

And NATO supported the Kosovo Liberation Army - a terrorist organisation - in order to destroy the alternative economy of Yugoslavia.

Do you have any proof that destruction of the Serbian economy was really the motive? If NATO countries are so opposed to state intervention in the economy, why do they all continue to trade with (and militarily support) other nations who do exactly the same thing?

There was no Kosovo genocide.

I never compared the situation in Kosovo to a genocide. Ethnic cleansing after all is different to genocide and doesn’t necessarily require people be killed. How many Albanians were displaced by the Serbian military?

Now let’s pick some items from your second link:

In November 1999, the Wall Street Journal published the results of its own investigation, dismissing "the mass grave obsession". Instead of "the huge killing fields some investigators were led to expect ... the pattern is of scattered killings [mostly] in areas where the separatist Kosovo Liberation Army had been active."

Great, so no mass graves, just more little graves? I guess this answers the question posted in your first news report as to where the bodies are.

One year later, the International War Crimes Tribunal, a body effectively set up by Nato, announced that the final count of bodies found in Kosovo's "mass graves" was 2,788

Is Pilger’s message supposed to be ‘don’t bother about less than 3,000 deaths’? Before you chip in with the part about the KLA inflicted deaths being included consider:
- Who caused the majority of those casualties.
- Whether force might have been necessary to bring the whole civil war to an end, irrespective of who was right
Also ponder how much higher the deaths could have been had the combatants been allowed free reign as in the early days of the Yugoslav Wars.

[RabbleRouser]

Targets: one tank, and a few hundred cooperative factories were destroyed (but no multinationals) and also the most popular cooperative TV station.

Uh their was allot more than just one tank. Here are the Air Summary Releases http://militaryhistory.about.com/gi/dyn ... l-frce.htm (I wouldn’t usually use this site but it all the post are in one area that most of you have permission to access) this shows the daily sortie rate along with targets destroyed. If you click through them you will see that it started at the tactical and operational level and then moved to strategic.

This is itself is different; to move from the tactical to the strategic but it highlights nicely America’s doctrine at the time that war can be won by Air Power alone. It was because NATO didn’t receive the strategic level response it wanted by striking tactical targets that it escalated to traditional strategic level targets. The biggest reason for this was lack of a substantial Allied ground Force, which, even it was not a main player would have put enough pressure on Milosevic to capitulate earlier. However, this was done, for wrong or right, as an alternative to avoid the amount of time and resources that a big mobilization entails. It’s not economics, it’s logistics.

What seems like a big conspiracy of economics and political intent really just stems from a basic lack of understanding about military history and doctrine. The world and events is not just a conglomeration of ill will and conspiracies. It is actually a lot more complicated and to say the other put one in a very peculiar of not really knowing what is going on. It would be very easy for me to say something like this:
The communist Serbs invaded Kosovo in order to further implement their Socialist agenda. The also killed the Ethnic Albanians children in order to harvest their organs to sell to Russia and for Milosevic so he could live forever The Russians, who await a return to the USSR and is secretly still a communist nation, was looking for a firm foothold in the Balkans and the rest of Europe. So they manipulated the world opinion so Nato would bomb Serbia. Thus alleviating from the need to adhere to the UN Charter to respect a Nation’s sovereignty. And thus they were able to set forth their plans of invading Georgia (insert any other country that is attacked being this is how conspiracies work). While at the same time the Chinese were secretly firing lasers at NATO aircraft and so NATO bombed their embassy. All the while the socialist conspiracy of world domination marches on.

How ridicules does this sound? But this is exactly how crazy the post on this thread sounds. Also I have found multiple sources on the internet that back up the Socialist conspiracy. Is it true just because somebody put it on the internet…. Could this conflict been played out more peacefully,mabey. Could it have been prosecuted with less death, probally. But the question is why it got to the postion it was at. And I belive Smillin' dave does one hell of a job of explaining it.