Sarah Palin joins Fox News

[RPGmasterBoo]

That's of course the CNN version of the story, no ethnic slaughter has actually been proven now - a full 10 years after the war. Because much like the Iraq war, it was founded on false pretenses - the kind of pretenses that spin doctors know would push the general populace into supporting the war. Which is the point all along:

- In Iraq they worked on the fear of another terrorist attack, this time with WMD's - the result: a country in ruins, and no WMD's in sight anywhere

- In Serbia they cried: genocide! ethnic cleansing! because they knew that would garner support - the result: a country in ruins, and no genocide anywhere

 

Truly, you shouldn't take reasons for something put forward on TV at face value.

 

You're aware you can't inspire people to war by saying: we want their oil or, we want a piece of their land to build a huge military base on it?

 

While the supposed genocide was happening in Serbia, the worst actual genocide since WWII was happening in Rwanda, yet the US took no notice - why is that?

While the supposed building of WMD's was happening in Iraq, Iran was strolling along happily with its nuclear program. Why didn't the US take action there?

 

I quite clearly stated the coalition is not going around shooting civilians (most of the time). They are dying because of the power vacuum that the invasion caused. To bring down a complex machinery such as the state, but to have nothing ready to replace it inevitably leads to disaster.

Let me put it simply: no invasion = no collapse of Iraqi state = no infighting = no casualties

invasion = chaos = every adventurer/warlord/terrorist/neighbouring country wants a piece of the action and to affect post war Iraq = coalition cant control outcome = people die in the thousands

 

The cause of the disaster cannot be the terrorists, because the terrorists arose only after the invasion.

 

Its comforting to thing you're doing a lesser evil for the greater good, but the facts do not support that theory. They didn't is Iraq, or Serbia, or Afghanistan or anywhere else.

 

Why do you need to believe so much that what your state is doing is actually grounded in morality instead of pure self interest (which, is I gotta tell you - what everyone else in the world sees it as)?

[Calax]

Thing is, after serbia we actually prosocuted the leader for genocide UNDER the aegis of the UN. In iraq the trial was under the iraqi peoples. I seriously doubt if that many people could be part of that conspiracy given they're all part of different nationalities and probably don't speak the same languages.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Its not a conspiracy, just the ability of the US to impose its will on everyone else. Including the UN which is open to all sorts of pressures since the funds that it receives from the US are enormous, and their withdrawal would be detrimental to its functioning.

 

Saddam's trial was a mockery, that ended with his enemies gloating over his hanging corpse. The only thing it did was that it turned him into a martyr for the Sunni muslims.

Edited January 21, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[taks]

the funds that it receives from the US are enormousp

22% if i'm not mistaken, plus some sizeable private donations.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

*Ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia*

 

While the supposed genocide was happening in Serbia, the worst actual genocide since WWII was happening in Rwanda, yet the US took no notice - why is that?

While the supposed building of WMD's was happening in Iraq, Iran was strolling along happily with its nuclear program. Why didn't the US take action there?

 

I quite clearly stated the coalition is not going around shooting civilians (most of the time). They are dying because of the power vacuum that the invasion caused. To bring down a complex machinery such as the state, but to have nothing ready to replace it inevitably leads to disaster.

Let me put it simply: no invasion = no collapse of Iraqi state = no infighting = no casualties

invasion = chaos = every adventurer/warlord/terrorist/neighbouring country wants a piece of the action and to affect post war Iraq = coalition cant control outcome = people die in the thousands

 

The cause of the disaster cannot be the terrorists, because the terrorists arose only after the invasion.

 

As I say I have to go with what I hear from sources I rgeard as credible. We have senior NCOs in my unit who were in Yugoslavia during the time in question, and I have friends who were officers in the same area at the same time. They all support the version which asserts there was terrible slaughter of civilians on ethnic lines. So you can understand why I would have trouble accepting a divergent view you propose.

 

You raise another example of the failure of 'peaceful' intervention by talking about Rwanda. I do not think this contradicts my view that in certain situations - particularly time critical situations forec is the only credible option. Yet during the 1990s everyone persisted in the fantasy that the UN could magically make badness go away. It didn't stop attacks in Yugoslavia. It didn't stop genocide in Rwanda. It didn't enforce sanctions or the terms of peace in Iraq. What exactly is the alternative?

 

As for your assertion that invasion = chaos = terror = casualties... again I say that I cannot accept this. It implies a mechanistic role for the terrorists which assumes therefore that they are somehow not human. That they had no choice. Of course they had a choice. Further I put it to you that the terrorists had a choice about whether they targeted coalition forces or perpetrated mass casualty attacks on civilian areas. For example, attacks which used suicide bombers then followed up by using ambulances so the injured and those helping them would be would be hit again (yes, the bit in the film was taken from real life attacks).

 

This is not to deny that mismanagement of the occupation contributed to the problem. But the decision by radicals and the decison by Iran to insert terror cells and support terror was not - to my mind - our fault.

 

But if you don't agree then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't see how we can close the gap, quite frankly. Perhaps you can explain your position more fully.

[~Di]

That's of course the CNN version of the story, no ethnic slaughter has actually been proven now - a full 10 years after the war....

 

I must ask... do you believe that the massacre of Srebrenica never happened, that 8,000 men and boys were not slaughtered in front of a Dutch Peacekeeping force?

 

Do you dispute that dozens upon dozens of mass graves containing Kosovar civilians were uncovered after the shooting stopped? That the burned-out church with more than fifty charred civilian corpses was fabricated as a photo op?

 

I realize that you live in the area and I do not, but to blindly dismiss the evidence that has been put before the International courts as non-existant, and to insist that the USA has the power to force the International court to take action it did not feel appropriate to take strikes me as a rather strident state of denial on your part.

 

Is this really your position, or have I misunderstood you?

[Hiro Protagonist]

Generally are the Serbs Christian and Bosnians Muslim? And the Serbs tried to wipe out the Bosnians with the ethnic cleansing? Is that oversimplying it or am I just way off the mark.

[Gorgon]

The Dutch commander was outnumbered and surrendered, obviously there was a great error on the tactical side as well in not having suficient forces to be a real deterrent. The story goes that the Dutch had no idea what was happening as they were held hostage and isolated, but I think it's fair to assume that they could guess well enough. In any case it did a lot to further ridicule the UN forces.

 

The timeline of the massacre is very well documented, we have sattelite imagery of the bulldozed mass graves, but a sort of urban myth has sprung up that it was all a hoax.

[Walsingham]

Let me just say that I do not believe that a British army commander would have allowed that slaughter to have gone unchallenged, however unprepared. But it is fair to point that the Dutch were unprepared to to fight. That this is hardly an excuse is underlined by the fact that they had set up a 'safe haven' for refugees. Typical UN to say something and refuse the means to actually carry it out. Effectively all the Un did was herd the victims into a sack.

[Wrath of Dagon]

To be fair, Srebrenica is not in Kosovo, and was not the work of the Yugoslav government to my knowledge. Something to consider also is that Kosovar terrorists purposely tried to provoke the Serbs into atrocities to gain international support.

[Walsingham]

For those just tuning in, the relevance as I see it as follows:

 

Sarah Palin believes in 'staying the course' in Iraq and Afghanistan. The legitimacy of that view directly reflects on her. The relevance of the balkan conflict is that the UK attorney general mentions teh legitimacy of western intervention there as proof that international law supports military action on humanitarian grounds.

[RPGmasterBoo]

That's of course the CNN version of the story, no ethnic slaughter has actually been proven now - a full 10 years after the war....

 

I must ask... do you believe that the massacre of Srebrenica never happened, that 8,000 men and boys were not slaughtered in front of a Dutch Peacekeeping force?

 

Do you dispute that dozens upon dozens of mass graves containing Kosovar civilians were uncovered after the shooting stopped? That the burned-out church with more than fifty charred civilian corpses was fabricated as a photo op?

 

I realize that you live in the area and I do not, but to blindly dismiss the evidence that has been put before the International courts as non-existant, and to insist that the USA has the power to force the International court to take action it did not feel appropriate to take strikes me as a rather strident state of denial on your part.

 

Is this really your position, or have I misunderstood you?

 

In short - yes.

 

All of the institutions doing the "proving" come from or are under the direct influence of the countries which have an agenda in the war. The US can impose its will on any of those institutions as it sees fit, though the EU is equally likely to do so. There is nothing International about the international court, and as an institution it has an agenda of its own.

 

I could list piles upon piles of evidence, but it would serve no purpose because you aren't inclined to believe me anyway. The web of influences and agendas is so intricate it would take weeks to explain, even to one who comes from this part of the world - let alone someone like you.

 

However, just so you know, I'm on my final year of political sciences/international relations - and I'm not likely to support any theory that I feel can be disproven.

 

A note on what you mention:

- to this day only 3 thousand bodies have been exumed in Srebrenica, and among them are only males. This is at odds to Clintons pre war statement of 200000 dead in Srebrenica. Even though it has the makings of a massacre (not genocide, for genocide presumes total eradication males + females), id doesn't come without a background. The massacres perpetrated for a while over the Serb civilian population by the militia of Naser Oric (released from the Hague, even though there are videos of his proud statements that he killed his first Serb when he was 18, or the particularly interesting video of his soldiers and mujahedeen playing soccer with the decapitated head of a Serb villager). These massacres (number of dead unknown, probably similar to Srebrenica) served as a prelude to what happened in Srebrenica, because Srebrenica was effectively - retribution. While I do not have anything against anyone answering for his/her war crimes, all the Bosnian muslims were either never charged or released.

 

-The supposed mass graves of Kosovo, (unlike Srebrenica which has a grain of truth to it) were in fact a fabrication.

The statement about the church I'm afraid is a display of ignorance on your part. Albanians are almost completely muslim therefore any casualties in any church could only be Serbs (since we are uniformly christian). That's also quite likely since around 400 churches were burned to the ground during the war and in the aftermath.

[RPGmasterBoo]

To be fair, Srebrenica is not in Kosovo, and was not the work of the Yugoslav government to my knowledge. Something to consider also is that Kosovar terrorists purposely tried to provoke the Serbs into atrocities to gain international support.

 

A recent and interesting affair was the apparent kidnapping of Serb civilians, them being shipped from Kosovo to Albania where they were killed, dissected, and their organs sold on the international black market. I actually disbelieved it at first until Carla del Ponte herself was credited as the source (she being a dedicated hunter of Serb war criminals)

 

The allegation was made in the book The Hunt: Me and War criminals, written by Carla Del Ponte (former ICTY chief prosecutor) in which she claims that Kosovo Albanians smuggled human organs of kidnapped Serbs after the Kosovo war ended in 1999, the accusations being backed by several witnesses outside the ICTY, one of whom "personally made an organ delivery" to an Albanian airport for transport abroad, and "confirmed information directly gathered by the tribunal".[4][5]

 

Also something to consider is that now, there are almost no Serbs left in Kosovo.

[RPGmasterBoo]

The Dutch commander was outnumbered and surrendered, obviously there was a great error on the tactical side as well in not having suficient forces to be a real deterrent. The story goes that the Dutch had no idea what was happening as they were held hostage and isolated, but I think it's fair to assume that they could guess well enough. In any case it did a lot to further ridicule the UN forces.

 

The timeline of the massacre is very well documented, we have sattelite imagery of the bulldozed mass graves, but a sort of urban myth has sprung up that it was all a hoax.

 

It was a hoax (the bulldozed mass graves, not the fighting itself). The supposed imagery is so muddled you could see whatever you wanted to see on it, you could even see Saddams chemical factories if you were so inclined. Which incidentaly were also supposedly documented by sattelite.

 

The Dutch let it happen. It was necessary for it to happen so the US could intervene. Apparently in a discussion of Izetbegovic and Clinton, Clinton told him that they would need a major massacre to mobilize the international community for war. Thus they (muslims) left Srebrenica almost undefended knowing what was going to be the result after the massacres commited by Oric beforehand.

 

That does not of course excuse anyone, but it was a well thought out trap which the Bosnian Serb leadership swallowed - hook line and sinker.

Edited January 22, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[RPGmasterBoo]

Generally are the Serbs Christian and Bosnians Muslim? And the Serbs tried to wipe out the Bosnians with the ethnic cleansing? Is that oversimplying it or am I just way off the mark.

 

You're way off the mark. In Bosnia there are Serbs (christian) Croats (a minority, christian) and muslims. The term Bosnians is misleading, there is no such nation. We all speak the same language, and you wouldn't be able to tell us apart, since even we can't.

There was slaughter on all sides, muslims vs serbs and muslims vs muslims (there was a fraction of muslims that didnt want to leave Yugoslavia, it was wiped out by the other muslims). Croats dont figure too prominently though they are in general on the side of the muslims.

The reasons for the war are too complex to go into.

 

You might wonder why we all speak the same language, yet divide so sharply by religion. This part of the world was once conquered by the Ottoman empire (Turks, muslims). A part of what was formerly Serb chrisitans in Bosnia assimilated with the empire, and accepted their religion. Some of them today are also descendants of Turks, even though they only speak Serbian. They are whats today considered muslims in Bosnia, though for all intents and purposes they are converted Serbs. Of course telling any one of them this is a very bad idea, because they feel separate since their muslim identity eclipses ethnicity completely.

Croats are a slightly different people, the language is 95% the same though the divide between us and them goes a thousand years back - so we can truly be considered separate nations. The divide stems from the schizm of the churches. Croats are roman catholics, and under the influence of the the west and we were under the influence of the Byzantine empire - thus orthodox christians.

Edited January 22, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Meshugger]

Oh, my bad. Did they find any anthrax though?

dunno, i was just pointing out that the bio stuff can last a while, spores and bacteria in particular.

 

taks

 

Fair enough.

[Walsingham]

Welll, you make a coherent case, and out of respect for your general good sense I shall ask around and see what people think of your version. I will probably thus ruin my chance of promotion, but then who wants to be a lance corporal anyway?

[RPGmasterBoo]

Out of respect for your general good sense I ask you to read up on your own and form your opinion. People are fallible, books are not. At least in sufficient quantities.

 

Too much time has passed for even the principal actors to be considered valid witnesses. Disinformation was the rule of the day in the Balkan wars. Half the time people honestly believe they know what transpired when in fact they've been decieved themselves.

 

Even though its my job I'm far from having a great grasp on the events. The struggle to get a definitive version on the conflict looks set to last for decades, especially since the handful of people who were pulling the strings either will not talk (Clinton, Albright etc), are dead (Tudjman, Izetbegovic, Milosevic) or missing (Mladic, etc.).

 

Don't do anything stupid

 

If you need a respectable US figure with an alternative view of the events you cant do better than Ramsey Clark - the former United States Attorney General. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey_Clark

Edited January 23, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Gorgon]

No offense, but I sense RPG is just as biased as anyone else, more possibly, as he insinuated he's from there.

 

@ RPG, let me ask you this, are you one of those people who believe in the innocence of Milosovich, as in he had no part in war crimes or even that there were no war crimes (war crime and ethnic cleansing is not the same thing by a long shot after all)

[RPGmasterBoo]

There's no point in answering a question when its framed like an indictment. If I say yes you're just going to use it as proof of bias because you already firmly believe the contrary.

 

Why do you ask a question when you've already made your mind up?

 

I'll tell you that Ramsey Clark believed it though.

Edited January 23, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Gorgon]

I don't get it, are you ashamed of believing in Milosovich's innocense ?, if not why dodge the question with an accusation.

 

I think it is problematic if you are one of those Serbians who believe nothing bad was consciously done, and that Milosovich was framed, because well, that's bull****.

[RPGmasterBoo]

You see, you've already made your mind up and if Boo says that Milosevic wasn't guilty of what he was charged of then he's just another poor deluded Serbian.

 

Where are you from Gorgon?

[Gorgon]

I'm from Denmark, and I see that you have dodged the question again.

[RPGmasterBoo]

And you consider yourself impartial in the matter?

 

I ask because Denmark is in NATO and its soldiers are involved in UN and NATO operations in Kosovo, Bosnia and Croatia not to mention that it had its part in the bombing of Yugoslavia.

Edited January 23, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Gorgon]

Yeah that's rigth, although we are and have always been small potatoes. We are there to show the flag and point out to our allies that we belong to the traditional western power block. You have to agree that it's much more emotional to a Serbian.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Gorgon