[Smilin' Dave]

International standards in the unilateral 1990s meant to comply to US demands. We are in the late 2000s now, and the empire has been overstretched. The empire no longer can tell people what to do.

The "empire" doesn't have to tell Serbia what to do, they have effectively got what they wanted anyway, and Serbia isn't currently getting what it wants. It seems bizarre you go on to outline a world of grey morality, but still want to play the victim. If things really arn't black and white, perhaps might makes right after all?

You need to be aware that war criminals in the former yugoslavia are looked at in one way. If one is a croat, bosniak or an albanian then they automatically are not war criminals no matter what they did.

Yet the likes of Ante Gotovina, of the Croat army, went to trial. So why not Mladic?

Clinton's bombing/rape of serbia in 1999 killed thousands of civilians and injured many more. He is a criminal too.

A bombing aimed (albeit ineffectual in result) at ending violent repression in Kosovo. Morally the two are different.

It is well known that the american kind promotes criminals again and again.

Serbia, and the Balkans in general, being paragons of law and order?

The US is the criminal here, and those are our international standards - free market economics, or get bombed.

Paying no attention to the war criminals? By your own statement, Serbia does not have free market economy, yet it is not being bombed. The logic you present doesn't follow.

[LAz]

The "empire" doesn't have to tell Serbia what to do, they have effectively got what they wanted anyway, and Serbia isn't currently getting what it wants. It seems bizarre you go on to outline a world of grey morality, but still want to play the victim. If things really arn't black and white, perhaps might makes right after all?

When I was talking about the empire being overstretched I was saying that in reference to latin america - a place where the US supported much terror tyranny, and outright occupation of countries for decades... that region is no longer under US control. The current regime of serbia is a US puppet.

Yet the likes of Ante Gotovina, of the Croat army, went to trial. So why not Mladic?

Some five percent of those sent to the hague are not serbs. Still, that five percent does not justify that other 95% going. Where are the criminals such as izetbegovic and tudjman? Where were they? They died peacefully, not being murdered.

A bombing aimed (albeit ineffectual in result) at ending violent repression in Kosovo. Morally the two are different.

Common misconception!!! The bombing exacerbated the situation. It was after the bombing began, thanks to the bombing, that the shit only started to happen there.

Serbia, and the Balkans in general, being paragons of law and order?

Well lets see, the US overthrew the democratically elected government in guatemala and replaced the leader arbenz by a criminal who went on to kill 200,000 people - enormous considering their small population.

The US supported the military coup and set up conditions for it to happen in chile, and fully supported a tyrannical maniac called pinochet.

The US fully supported indonesia in invading sovereign independent east timor, and increased military funding in order for the indonesians to be able to commit the slaughter of a third of east timor's population.

Wait wait wait, we are on Kosovo now are we not? Our allies were doing worse things to their own people, at the same time as the Kosovo conflict, but they were capitalist, so it was A-OKAY. Colombia was displacing millions of people, and turkey was displacing millions and killing tens of thousands. Oh and hey, they had full support and still do have full support to do this. We increased military aid to them as well, to be better able to carry on with their criminal actions.

Paying no attention to the war criminals? By your own statement, Serbia does not have free market economy, yet it is not being bombed. The logic you present doesn't follow.

Are you under a rock? Serbia has been on the damned path of the free market since 2000, when the US intervened in the election by giving tens of millions of dollars to the opposition - and they did not even follow democratic procedures by having a second round of elections like was required. The government of serbia has been a puppet of the US since 2000. Trust me, the DS party that is now in power would give up kosovo, but due to public outrage they have to pretend that they still want to keep it.

[Smilin' Dave]

When I was talking about the empire being overstretched I was saying that in reference to latin america

This can't be considered anything other than an evasion since you do not mention Latin America anywhere specifically, in a thread about the Balkans.

Some five percent of those sent to the hague are not serbs.

First it's no one, then it's not enough. Why is Serbian compliance contingent on the compliance of others? Why can't Serbia set a better example and seize the moral high ground?

Common misconception!!! The bombing exacerbated the situation.

Did I not state that it was ineffectual?

It was after the bombing began, thanks to the bombing, that the shit only started to happen there.

Yes, right, the KLA just sprang out of the ground fully formed once the US started bombing. You actually do the Serbs an injustice with this particular misdirection.

Wait wait wait, we are on Kosovo now are we not?

Given all your prior examples are decades older than the intervention in Kosovo, and during the Cold War, I think it fair to suggest you can't lump them all in together so easily.

Our allies were doing worse things to their own people, at the same time as the Kosovo conflict, but they were capitalist, so it was A-OKAY. Colombia was displacing millions of people, and turkey was displacing millions and killing tens of thousands.

So you cried foul at the less than fair resolution of the first Balkans intervention, even though it worked out in Serbia's favour in many respects? Or is this just a case of "go my side, boo yours"?

Are you under a rock?

Well I don't see you here, so probably not.

[InterestedInPolitics]

Serbia was only taking a small part of reaping what it sowed.

[LAz]

First it's no one, then it's not enough. Why is Serbian compliance contingent on the compliance of others? Why can't Serbia set a better example and seize the moral high ground?

Serbia's a neocolonized country more or less. The only reason why this regime is in power is because of US interference in our internal affairs for elections.

Did I not state that it was ineffectual?

You said a certain aim. That aim most definitely was not there.
Proof is that NATO gave serbia an ultimatum at rambulliet - to give up its sovereignty.
Serbia said no. Instead they offered broad autonomy to albanians, and a UN, not NATO, peacekeeping force. And this was not what the west wanted, because the west wanted to bomb. Mhm.

Yes, right, the KLA just sprang out of the ground fully formed once the US started bombing. You actually do the Serbs an injustice with this particular misdirection.

That is not true. The KLA was very active prior to the bombing.

Given all your prior examples are decades older than the intervention in Kosovo, and during the Cold War, I think it fair to suggest you can't lump them all in together so easily.

I can lump them all in together. Countries that are not a treat in any way get attacked all the time. Guatemala, 1954 man... a government that strongly supported the US in the UN and elsewhere... and the US takes them out because their government wanted to develop the country. We replace it with a criminal whose regime kills 200,000.

These examples are repeated nonstop. Before world war two we occupied countries, and we continue to screw the world after the cold war.

Remember how many countries Bush occupied? Lets see. Afghanistan. That's one. Iraq, that's two. Jee, is that all? Nope. Haiti too!!! Harmless haiti, we occupied that halfisland many times, before the cold war and after. So don't give me that sad excuse that this was during the cold war... the cold war never ended, it just expanded. The cold war was about eradicating nationalist capitalism and or socialism, and this is the US goal to this day, as it always has been.

So you cried foul at the less than fair resolution of the first Balkans intervention, even though it worked out in Serbia's favour in many respects?

What are you talking about??? Just abut everything went out of serbia's favor.





Other guy...

Serbia was only taking a small part of reaping what it sowed.

Blaming the victim, eh?

[Smilin' Dave]

Serbia's a neocolonized country more or less. The only reason why this regime is in power is because of US interference in our internal affairs for elections.

Totally irrelevant to the text you quoted. Was the objective to look like you have a legitimate counter to what I stated?

You said a certain aim. That aim most definitely was not there.

You tried to pull me up on the efficacy of the bombing, not the objective. Now you are just trying to move the goal posts.

That is not true. The KLA was very active prior to the bombing.

... Thanks for proving my point... You do read what you quote, right?

I can lump them all in together.

Really, let's see your brilliant argument for why Cold War US policy can be directly linked to the policy of today:

Guatemala, 1954 man

Hey man, that's exactly the kind of thing I was commenting on. Repeating it doesn't make it any more valid.

Just abut everything went out of serbia's favor.

I suppose if you were completely ignorant of the rubber stamping of Serbian ethnic cleansing in determining electoral boundaries etc. yes, you could claim that.

I'm finished with you.

[Independent_Srpska]

What's so funny about it? Dare I suggest that Serbia would have recovered faster had it not been isolated international? Well, if you want to play on the international stage, you comply by certain standards, and handing over a war criminal would be a good start. Unless of course "your kind" would rather protect a criminal than progress

Well, let me put it this way - let me phuck you I will pay you nice money - so, you can recover fast after that and maybe you would be able to buy a nice house on the beach....would you comply to that standard...voluntarily, of course

What would be your thoughts?

[LAz]

Totally irrelevant to the text you quoted. Was the objective to look like you have a legitimate counter to what I stated?

Your thing is about compliance. I answered the main thing behind any compliance and lack of any action to protect serbian interests... the regime of serbia does not give a rats ass about anything that is not joining the EU. You seem to not be aware that serbian government interests are totally inline with those of the west.

You tried to pull me up on the efficacy of the bombing, not the objective. Now you are just trying to move the goal posts.

The purpose/objective was a lie tt the american public. The efficiency was miserable too, for the stated objective, and for the real objective efficiency was pretty good.

... Thanks for proving my point... You do read what you quote, right?

You said that the KLA formed after the bombing began, suggesting that we were repressing people who were living their lives doing nothing. That is not so.

I suppose if you were completely ignorant of the rubber stamping of Serbian ethnic cleansing in determining electoral boundaries etc. yes, you could claim that.

Ethnic cleansing was done on the serbs more so than on any other groups in the former Yugoslavia.

Hey man, that's exactly the kind of thing I was commenting on. Repeating it doesn't make it any more valid.

Read the rest of what I said. There is always a war on those who resist dominance by western corporations. Always. Those regimes are automatically considered our enemies. And regimes that support the corporations are our friends no matter how repressive they are. Papa doc and baby doc in haiti were far more repressive than castro in cuba, but they were our best buddies. EH? EH?

[Smilin' Dave]

@Independent_Srpska

Well, let me put it this way - let me phuck you I will pay you nice money - so, you can recover fast after that

Or let me give you a more appropriate example. I smack the crap out of you (right or wrong, who knows), then offer to take you to the hospital afterwards, as long as you don't continue to do what I assaulted you for in the first place. Do you:
a) Refuse assistance, but wallow in your supposed victim status
b) Accept the assistance, learn a lesson
c) Accept the assistance and only comply as far as is necessary, then move on
Apparently Serbs won't even take option C.

@LAz

You said that the KLA formed after the bombing began

I'm definately not debating with someone who can't read such heavy handed sarcasm.

[Independent_Srpska]

Or let me give you a more appropriate example. I smack the crap out of you (right or wrong, who knows), then offer to take you to the hospital afterwards, as long as you don't continue to do what I assaulted you for in the first place. Do you:
a) Refuse assistance, but wallow in your supposed victim status
b) Accept the assistance, learn a lesson
c) Accept the assistance and only comply as far as is necessary, then move on
Apparently Serbs won't even take option C.

I find my example more appropriate to the situation what happened in the Balkans....I haven't heard your answer to my fair offer?

[Smilin' Dave]

I find my example more appropriate to the situation what happened in the Balkans

You are entitled to your opinion, but my example is clearly closer to the events. NATO didn't fuck Serbia, they bombed it. Thus a discussion fundamentally related to the use of force would seem more relevant.

I haven't heard your answer to my fair offer?

You didn't answer mine either. Much like you wouldn't discuss Otebo's point right back in March.

Now, since you are clearly unwilling to engage in a true discussion, being an exchange of views by both parties, there isn't any point in continuing to argue with you. Enjoy your victim complex.

[Aekos]

as long as you don't continue to do what I assaulted you for in the first place

b) Accept the assistance, learn a lesson

You don't really get it, do you? What lesson? That you're not allowed to fight terrorists and separatists on your own territory?

but my example is clearly closer to the events

What events? The Gospel According to CNN?

[Smilin' Dave]

You don't really get it, do you? What lesson? That you're not allowed to fight terrorists and separatists on your own territory?

Were the Serbians to have limited their campaign against ethnic Albanians to combatants, that would be a perfectly valid point. The reality is that this "counter insurgency" was readily extended to civilians. That this seemed to be a lesson that the Serbs had not learnt from the Bosnian conflict promoted the use of force.

Apparently, some people don't get this.

What events? The Gospel According to CNN?

As opposed to what, you lot? The gospel of "Serbia is the victim and is never wrong"? Leftist prattle to mask naked tribalism?

[Independent_Srpska]

You are entitled to your opinion, but my example is clearly closer to the events. NATO didn't fuck Serbia, they bombed it. Thus a discussion fundamentally related to the use of force would seem more relevant.

well, thanks for allowing me to have an opinion, sweet from you....
However, I believe I translated your wrapped up crap into the real situation - so, I believe I asked a simple question:"Let me fuck you, I will pay you dear money..." ....would you comply to that standards?

Enjoy your victim complex.

gee, Sigmund is that you??? good to have you here

[Smilin' Dave]

Why do you keep posting while avoiding any real debate? For example:

well, thanks for allowing me to have an opinion, sweet from you

It is actually you who doesn't respect the contribution of others in this discussion. Much like your flippant dismissal of Otebo back on page one. I've logically demonstrated why my approach is more relevant than yours. You just repeat yourself and insist I am wrong without evidence or logic presented.

The quoted text itself stinks of the sort of victim complex I pointed out. You similtaneously re-cast me as the villian, you the victim, while at the same time trying to show your superiority! Completely absurd.

[LAz]

Completely absurd.

I'll show you what is completely absurd...

Were the Serbians to have limited their campaign against ethnic Albanians to combatants, that would be a perfectly valid point. The reality is that this "counter insurgency" was readily extended to civilians. That this seemed to be a lesson that the Serbs had not learnt from the Bosnian conflict promoted the use of force.

This is the real absurdity.

But no, now what dave will do is say I was being sarcastic or some shit, to diver the discussion, or he will insult or something.

The point is that whoever looked at what happened could notice that most of the albanians did not get harmed at all before the bombing began. Overwhelmingly albanian regions like gnjilane, vitina, kamenica, istok, and others, did not have KLA activity. KLA had zero support there, and even so, most albanians did not support the KLA - they supported rugova's non-violent resistance.
So no, throw [your] comparison of bosnia and kosovo out. They are like apples and oranges. In bosnia, there was no care of any group who they cleansed- they all aimed for everyone. In kosovo there was a specific target, the KLA and the places that had KLA backing - which were few.

Your ethnic cleansing that you speak of, these 800,000... the overwhelming majority of that happened AFTER the bombing because of the bombing. And the state department and US generals predicted that this will happen if they bomb.


Yes, NATO went in, did not look for a peaceful solution, threw the peaceful solution aside, and wanted to bomb and destroy the country. That was their goal. Peace was not by any means their goal.

Whoops, what is the problem now for Smilin' dave - oh yeah, that he does not want to look at it this way. He will somehow spew this aside, and accuse us of something or other. Was he being sarcastic again, [Cut]?

[Smilin' Dave]

Your ethnic cleansing that you speak of, these 800,000... the overwhelming majority of that happened AFTER the bombing because of the bombing.

Why is the ethnic cleansing somehow justified or of less magnitude if associated with a bombing by a completely unrelated third party? Can we just brush the Holocaust to one side because the key decisions were made during a disasterous war in the Soviet Union?

Is a minority of ethnic cleansing to be overlooked? Should earlier crimes be swept aside because of the later escalation?

[LAz]

Why is the ethnic cleansing somehow justified or of less magnitude

Because those small populations that were cleansed were populations that were giving support to a terrorist organization that was threatening the state's integrity, a terrorist organization that killed more of its own people then it did the people that it was targeting.

A parallel would be this... support for al-quaida should be taken out, no question there I would hope? Well that is what it was like. We did not want to have to go through our own 9/11s on a weekly basis. No thanks.

if associated with a bombing by a completely unrelated third party?

We need to look into the pretext the third party was using.

This same third party was at the same time watching and supporting far worse attrocities that were going on in Turkey and Colombia. Therefore there is a contradiction here. How are they supporting the extermination of people, and here they are calling the concentrated efforts in specific locations genocide? It is a false pretext of genocide, while supporting the same thing in other places.

Is a minority of ethnic cleansing to be overlooked? Should earlier crimes be swept aside because of the later escalation?

As my two points up there state...

A) those that were cleansed were few, and supported terrorists who as the BBC noted recently, stole organs of people. Interpol identified this organization to be the main drug smugglers of europe. Therefore any support for such an organization must be crushed. They had smalls support, and those who support such criminals are to be punished.



Furthermore, a key point is that the KLA preferred to fight in urban places, to try to maximize the amount of casualities. They never fought against the serbian army out in the open - because they would stand no chance. Therefore we are dealing with a very different type of beast here. This population is openly accepting this terrorist organization into its villages. They are not resisting whatsoever, and thus it may be considered that they are supporting them in some ways. The serbian army was not taking this lightly, they aim to destroy the KLA at all costs, and well, that was the KLA's goal, to fight in urban places to maximize causalities so that they can then cry to the world media, OH NO THEY ARE DOING GENOCIDE, and get the western press to lie that 100,000 people were killed when only between 600 and 2,000 were from both sides.

Now, it is unfortunate that this all happened, but the fact remains that there were far worse attrocities going on at the same time - does that excuse this? Well, maybe not, but the very fact that the West openly supported these other things indicates that there are double standards, and that human rights are by no means the goal. The west took sides here. They took the side of the one that was supportive of free-market capitalism, like it always does. If you are the one doing terrorism, or the one defending yourself from it, the only that matter is if you are a free market capitalist or not. In the case of the serbs, they were socialist, they got bombed. In the case of the kurds, they were the ones doing terrorism, well, we gave the supplies and training to wipe them out.

Now this is the issue here - why do you keep on ignoring these other things and want to paint a rosy picture of the west wanting peace? The west does not want peace. There is no rosy picture. The west cares about their own interests, and those do not coincide with humanity. As has been demonstrated, the west's interests go against humanity most of the time.

[Smilin' Dave]

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.

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.

Having identified similar atrocities in Turkey and Colombia, would you have supported the use of force against these states? If not, what alternative would you propose?

[LAz]

Serbia wanted peace all this time. It asked for a UN peace force, this was not accepted by the western powers.
Use of force against some small pockets of KLA support was a necessity. There was no other way to fight the KLA, when these dudes picked to fight in high population density places.
You need to notice something... if one wants peace then one needs to try to come to some sort of agreement that is not violent. The West did nothing to try to come to any sort of peaceful solution. Absolutely nothing. Instead they broke their own charter and the UN charter too.

Having identified similar atrocities in Turkey and Colombia, would you have supported the use of force against these states? If not, what alternative would you propose?

I don't know what I would propose, but certainly I would not have escalated their arms supplies and I would not have given them training and aid to further repress their populations.

The Kurds, in my opinion, should have their own state. Kurds in turkey are the last group left from the ottoman empire. They have been rebelling for decades and decades, all the time since ww1, and have been repressed time and time again. Their language had been outlawed, as well as many other things. Their basic human rights were taken away. The US supported the Turks in doing all this. I most certiainly would not support this. On the other hand I would support having an independent kurdistan. But that is not the goal, as it is to the west's benefit that the middle east never has peace.

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

Serbia did not participate there. Bosnia and Herzgovina endured a civil war. Serbs formed the majority of most of the territory there, and they still do today. The serbian army did not send troops there. Some volunteers went to fight, but there were also volunteers from greece too. Does that mean that greece was in the war? No.

Having identified similar atrocities in Turkey and Colombia, would you have supported the use of force against these states? If not, what alternative would you propose?

To answer colombia...
Colombia is a situation where millions of people have been internally cleansed. It is a nation with huge income inquality. In one province, one family owns like 90% of the land, if I am not mistaken. The country was divided between liberal and conservative elements historically, and then they started killing one another big time in the 1950s. The two sides reached a deal, but some of the liberals were not happy with the deal and they are what today is the rebel groups. The war in colombia all this time has been against these rebel groups, and the US has been supporting all sorts of things in order to exterminate the rebels. The whole war on drugs is not even against drugs- it is against the rebels. When the US commander down there is found to smuggle drugs, when every branch of the government there is involved with the drug industry, when we fumigate only the rebel controlled areas... then is this really a war against drugs? In the 1990s a plane with 1000 er so pounds of cocain - shit, maybe it was kilos, but this thing was loaded - landed in a military base in the US. The plane made trips regularly. But a new guy was on dutee that day, and fought shitloads of cocain on board. And this was coming into a US military base! I can say only one , and that is WTF BATMAN?!?! There are some clear fucked things going on in this so called war on drugs.
I do not know what the solution is to the colombia thing. I really do not know. Some rebels decided to disarm in the 1990s... the M19... well, guess what, they were to go into politics... 2000 out of the 3000 candidates that they had got assassinated by US and Colombian government supported thugs. So there is no way in hell that the rest of the rebels will ever disarm. It's really appalling and I see no solution in site. Maybe, just maybe, some sort of pan-latin-american peace thing can happen, without the US? But shit, who knows, the US won't get out of there, nor would the colombian government support the US getting out - it stays in power because of the US. I will say this, I do not support the current actions that are going on.


edit:italicized some stuff