Question:
Does anyone think maybe it’s time to stop bombing and do something else? When Clinton was asked what would happen if Milosevich didn’t back down, he didn’t have an answer. This is a half-assed war and they should send troops if they are serious about helping the Kosovars.
Response:
Yes but a genocide was taking place and I think someting had to be done. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Morey wrote: > On Sun, 18 Apr 1999 19:13:01 -0400, nick <n….@primetimevisions.com> > wrote: > >Does anyone think maybe it’s time to stop bombing and do something else? > Not only should we stop bombing, we should never have bombed in the > first place. This is an illegal war. > >When Clinton was asked what would happen if Milosevich didn’t back down, > >he didn’t have an answer. This is a half-assed war and they should send > >troops if they are serious about helping the Kosovars. > The whole reason we’re even having this war is because Milosevic > refused to have Nato troops police Kosovo. That’s it! How would the > British react if we insisted on having Nato troops police Northern > Ireland? > It was wrong of us to try to impose a peace on a civil war. How would > the Israeli’s react if we came up with a peace plan and told them if > they didn’t accept it we would start bombing them? > The hypocracy of this whole thing makes me sick. When this first > started we were told that Nato must attack because the credability of > Nato was at stake. Why should we care about Nato’s credability? Nato > is a defensive alliance that shouldn’t have been making threats > anyway. > Morey
Response:
That’s probably true. And we’re getting our faire share of propaganda as well (the US is no better than dictators on this issue). I still think it was a good idea to do something, just maybe not bombing. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Morey wrote: > On Sun, 18 Apr 1999 21:29:17 -0400, nick <n….@primetimevisions.com> > wrote: > >Yes but a genocide was taking place and I think someting had to be done. > It isn’t genocide. The press has been misusing that term a lot lately. > Genocide means all the people in a particular ethnic group have been > killed. Only Jews and Armenians have been victims of attempted > genocide. > What is actually happenning in Kosovo is that the Albanians are being > abused by the Serbians. Is it right? Probably not. The Kosovars did > bring this on themselves by seeking independence though. > This same civil war like atmosphere is going on in several countries > right now. Does the United States care about them? Maybe a little but > no where near as much as they do for the Kosovars. The reason why is > that the Albanians are white. > Morey > >Morey wrote: > >> On Sun, 18 Apr 1999 19:13:01 -0400, nick <n….@primetimevisions.com> > >> wrote: > >> >Does anyone think maybe it’s time to stop bombing and do something else? > >> Not only should we stop bombing, we should never have bombed in the > >> first place. This is an illegal war. > >> >When Clinton was asked what would happen if Milosevich didn’t back down, > >> >he didn’t have an answer. This is a half-assed war and they should send > >> >troops if they are serious about helping the Kosovars. > >> The whole reason we’re even having this war is because Milosevic > >> refused to have Nato troops police Kosovo. That’s it! How would the > >> British react if we insisted on having Nato troops police Northern > >> Ireland? > >> It was wrong of us to try to impose a peace on a civil war. How would > >> the Israeli’s react if we came up with a peace plan and told them if > >> they didn’t accept it we would start bombing them? > >> The hypocracy of this whole thing makes me sick. When this first > >> started we were told that Nato must attack because the credability of > >> Nato was at stake. Why should we care about Nato’s credability? Nato > >> is a defensive alliance that shouldn’t have been making threats > >> anyway. > >> Morey
Response:
‘How would the British react if we insisted on having Nato troops police Northern Ireland?’ Excuse me, but we never went around Gang Raping Women, executing men of military age and making over 250,000 people homeless… Northern Ireland is nothing like Kosovo… And I find it insulting that you would think so. I have friends and relatives in Ireland, Belfast in Particular… I am English. Ok, we aren’t perfect, but we aren’t that bad…..
Response:
Hmmmm…. So lizzy regina is a arms dealing, drug pushing murderer…. Fair enough… I said we weren’t perfect…. Every Goverment on the planet is into Arms Dealing… Your an Adult… Cope with it…
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Roman wrote: > Roman: > > >It isn’t necesary at all. It was no secret, for example, what was > > >happening to the Jews in the 1930’s in Germany, yet nothing was done about > > >it by anyone. Even when WWII was in full swing, nothing whatsovever was > > >done by the US, UK and other countries to help Jewish refugees. This is > > >well documented. *If* the will had been there, many deaths could have been > > >prevented. > Morey: > > I don’t disagree. In the future if a regime were trying to murder off > > a minority group I would see no problem with stopping them. It would > > have to be clear that that is what they are doing though. > > Hopefully this will never come up again anyway. > It happened in Rwanda recently.
Yup, but the Kosovars are white. That’s the big difference. The US are racist even if they often try to show us they are not. This kind of action in Rwanda probably wouldn’t be backed by the population, and that’s pretty sad. What’s more, many laws are there just to get rid of minorities and put them in jail. Land of freedom my ass. Land of hyprocrisy sounds more like it.
Response:
So true, he said the same kinda thing to Iraq, and first thing you know he’s bombing them, hehe. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Roman wrote: > Reacting to the massacre in Denver, Clinton said "We have to teach our > children to resolve conflicts without using weapons". > Looks like Billy’s parents didn’t do too good of a job teaching him that. > OTOH, they have done a good job of teaching him the fine art of hypocrisy. > …Roman > — > The significant problems we face cannot be solved > at the same level of thinking we were at when we > created them. > -Albert Einstein > ICQ 34065267
Response:
If you believe that any of this has *anything* to do with "helping" ANYONE, you are sadly mistaken. Consider this: 1) NATO is supposed to be a defensive organization. Sad as any war is, the one going on in the Balkans was a *civil* war which did not pose any threat whatsoever to anyone outside the country. NATO went in there because they were bored and didn’t know what to do with themselves if they weren’t fighting someone, somewhere. It isn’t–and never was–under their mandate to interfere in any country’s civil war. They have no right to be there. 2) An effort was made *YEARS* ago to put a democratic government in placein Yugoslavia, and at that time the Americans (who claim that they are doing this all to save people and in the name of democracy, etc., etc.) were NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. If it was really important to them to help these people, where were they when it could have been done with a minimum of trouble or death? The Americans were itching for a fight, and now they’ve got one–a fight run by American bureaucrats (particularly Clinton) who’ve never been near a war zone in their lives, and who go home at night to warm beds, good food, and total safety even as they mastermind the foolhardy ruining of others’ lives. and most importantly… 3) If there is ANY logic whatsoever in the idea that you can solve a civil war, get a country’s inhabitants to like and respect each other, or otherwise "save" that country by bombing it so that there is no infrastructure left for people to go back to when NATO gets bored and goes elsewhere, I can’t see it. You simply cannot save a country by wrecking it’s entire infrastructure. I mean, does anyone actually believe that there is ANY logical reason to think that destroying houses, schools, hospitals, etc. could POSSIBLY help the people who have to LIVE in the country long after NATO leaves? Personally, I’ve got to think that any country that uses phrases as ugly and deceptively innocent-sounding as "collateral damage" to refer to the hundreds of people they’ve "accidentally" killed while bombing the hell out of a country where they’re supposed to be trying to *save* people, has little, if any, true concern for the people of that country at all. Just my opinion, Jenn In article <371A66FD.80B0…@primetimevisions.com>, nick <n….@primetimevisions.com> wrote: >Does anyone think maybe it’s time to stop bombing and do something else? >When Clinton was asked what would happen if Milosevich didn’t back down, >he didn’t have an answer. This is a half-assed war and they should send >troops if they are serious about helping the Kosovars.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King Jr.
Response:
In article <371A86ED.94455…@primetimevisions.com>, nick <n….@primetimevisions.com> wrote: >Yes but a genocide was taking place and I think someting had to be done.
Fair enough, and I don’t necessarily disagree with you, BUT: First of all, it was not NATO’s place to do something. They are a defensive alliance and it is not, and was never, under their mandate to attack *anyone*, never mind a country at *civil* war which wasn’t a danger to any other country. And secondly, it it was genocide that anyone was trying to avert, then the United Nations (or any other country who felt it their duty to help) should have sent in ground troops right from the start to *protect* people and stand between the warring factions until some peace could be negotiated. You can’t avert genocide, or *save* anyone, and certainly you can’t make people like and respect each other, by bombing their country to smithereens. Jenn "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King Jr.
Response:
Jenn Starkman wrote: > 3) If there is ANY logic whatsoever in the idea that you can solve a civil > war, get a country’s inhabitants to like and respect each other, or otherwise > "save" that country by bombing it so that there is no infrastructure left for > people to go back to when NATO gets bored and goes elsewhere, I can’t see it. > You simply cannot save a country by wrecking it’s entire infrastructure. I > mean, does anyone actually believe that there is ANY logical reason to think > that destroying houses, schools, hospitals, etc. could POSSIBLY help the > people who have to LIVE in the country long after NATO leaves?
Whoa! They aren’t aiming houses and hospitals, they have strategic places to attack. Although I agree with you that this war is a joke, I don’t agree with the fact of letting an ethnic cleasing happen. And you also have to look at things in perspective, if 100 people die and 1 000 000 are saved, it’s worth it.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Roman wrote: > Jenn: > > 3) If there is ANY logic whatsoever in the idea that you can solve a civil > > war, get a country’s inhabitants to like and respect each other, or otherwise > > "save" that country by bombing it so that there is no infrastructure left for > > people to go back to when NATO gets bored and goes elsewhere, I can’t see it. > > You simply cannot save a country by wrecking it’s entire infrastructure. I > > mean, does anyone actually believe that there is ANY logical reason to think > > that destroying houses, schools, hospitals, etc. could POSSIBLY help the > > people who have to LIVE in the country long after NATO leaves? > Nick: > >Whoa! They aren’t aiming houses and hospitals, they have strategic places > to >attack. Although I agree with you that this war is a joke, I don’t > agree with >the fact of letting an ethnic cleasing happen. > >And you also have to look at things in perspective, if 100 people die and > 1 000 >000 are saved, it’s worth it. > For the most part ’stretegic’ aiming is pure propaganda. During the Gulf > War, it was claimed only ’smart’ bombs were used and only strategic > targets were being destroyed. After the war the Americans admitted only 7% > of the bombs were ’smart’ bombs and even many of these missed their > targets. Most of the bombing was done using conventional bombs that were > dropped indiscriminately. In the Balkans conflict it is most likely the > same thing. War is war, and there will always be many civilians killed, > despite what the offical propaganda would have one believe. And as for > saving lives, the bombing has done absolutely nothing to save anyone. It > is making things worse for the Kosovars who, in addition to being killed > by the Serbs, now have to contend with NATO bombings and the KLA forcibly > drafting people. There are even reports that depleted uramuim is being > dropped by NATO planes. This was done in Iraq and much of that country is > a radioactive wasteland. Cancer rates there have skyrocketed and girls as > young as fourteen are getting breast cancer. All this in the name of > stopping aggression. The hypocrisy is so blatant it’s almost funny. A real > humanitarian solution would not involve the destruction of a country and > its people.
You’re right, I think they should’ve sent troops to protect Kosovo from the beginning. I was reading about them thining of sending ground troops and the way they were talking about it it was to take oevr Yougoslavia ("We would need 50 000 to protect Kosovo, and 200 000 additional to march onto Belgrade and the rest of Yougoslavia" WHAT THE HELL? Aren’t they there to *protect* and not destroy the whole country? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> …Roman > — > The significant problems we face cannot be solved > at the same level of thinking we were at when we > created them. > -Albert Einstein > ICQ 34065267
Response:
Morey wrote: > Troops to Kosovo? Are you insane? Why should our people die for them. > What have they or could they ever do for us. How is it in our interest > that they not be relocated?
In who’s interest was it to help the jews? We don’t need an answer to that. Human lives are being taken in the sake of hatred, we don’t need to ask ourselves these questions, this sort of stuff should not be hapenning and I’m glad that someone is standing up for the little guys, even if they’re not standing up very straight…. Anytime something like this happens they should be helped. You always say "they are a free country, it’s only a civil war, we have no right to be there". Yes we have the right to be there, THEY don’t have a right to kill Kosovars. The fact is that they are humans that hapenned to be born in Europe, why are their lives less important that others? > The true answer is that we should mind our own business. Somehow I > know this is ALL Blair’s fault. First he kidnaps Pinochet and now > this! Is there no end to his evil?
I’m sure you would’ve appreciated it if the US had said the same thing during WWII. We are 1 race, human beings. We should all do what we can to let others live as free as we do. NATO might not be the solution, but minding our business isn’t either. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Morey > >> …Roman > >> — > >> The significant problems we face cannot be solved > >> at the same level of thinking we were at when we > >> created them. > >> -Albert Einstein > >> ICQ 34065267
Response:
Thanks for posting this it was very interesting. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Roman wrote: > For anyone that may be interested, here is a transcript of an interview > with Noam Chomsky about the NATO bombings. It was broadcast on CBC Radio > in Canada on April 16. The interviewer was Mary-Lou Finley. > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Response:
In article <371F6629.9D158…@primetimevisions.com>, "Nicholas S.-Roy" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<n….@primetimevisions.com> wrote: >Jenn Starkman wrote: >> 3) If there is ANY logic whatsoever in the idea that you can solve a civil >> war, get a country’s inhabitants to like and respect each other, or otherwise >> "save" that country by bombing it so that there is no infrastructure left for >> people to go back to when NATO gets bored and goes elsewhere, I can’t see it. >> You simply cannot save a country by wrecking it’s entire infrastructure. I >> mean, does anyone actually believe that there is ANY logical reason to think >> that destroying houses, schools, hospitals, etc. could POSSIBLY help the >> people who have to LIVE in the country long after NATO leaves? >Whoa! They aren’t aiming houses and hospitals, they have strategic places to > attack.
I didn’t say that they were *aiming* at houses and hospitals…just that they were *hitting* them. It may not be intentional, but homes and other civilian buildings are being destroyed, just the same. At the end of the war, it’s not really going to matter whether they were destroyed "on purpose" or by accident; it’s only going to matter that people have nothing to go back to. >Although I agree with you that this war is a joke, I don’t agree with the fact > of letting an ethnic cleasing happen.
Neither do I. However, as I mentioned in a previous post, I think that not only will bombing the country not prevent ethnic cleansing, it may even promote *more* hostility in the end. After all, are the two groups any more likely to respect or learn to like each other when, after NATO leaves eventually, they are left with a shattered infrastructure that each will likely blame on the other? If anyone was really interested in preventing any sort of genocide here, then they ought to have sent in peacekeeping ground troops in the *beginning*, to stand between the factions and protect them from each other until a solution of some sort could be found. You can’t "protect" anyone by bombing them from above, though. >And you also have to look at things in perspective, if 100 people die and 1 000 > 000 are saved, it’s worth it.
Except that a lot more than 100 people have already died, many of them thanks to bumbling strategic mistakes on NATO’s part (what they call "collateral damage", which is a nice way of saying "people we murdered accidentally"), and there is no sign whatsoever that this bombing will make the citizens of that region respect each other anymore, or like each other anymore, or agree with each other about anything; nor that it will "save" anything even comparable to what it is destroying. Jenn "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King Jr.
Response:
In article <371FDEB5.3408C…@primetimevisions.com>, "Nicholas S.-Roy" <n….@primetimevisions.com> wrote: >You always say "they are a free country, > it’s only a civil war, we have no right to be there". Yes we have the right to be there, > THEY don’t have a right to kill Kosovars. The fact is that they are humans that hapenned > to be born in Europe, why are their lives less important that others?
Nick, for the most part I’ve agreed with you about *all* of this. But before you oversimplify this into an issue of only "ethnic cleansing", you might want to keep in mind that it is the States, not the Serbs, who claim that this is what the Serbs are doing, and it’s in the U.S. propaganda machine’s best interest to say that. The issues behind this civil war are a lot more complicated than "Serbs killing Kosovars". First of all, many, many Serbs do NOT support Milosevic–the man is a warlord, and they can’t necessarily do much about getting rid of him even if they want to. That said, once the U.S. and NATO started picking sides and escalating the crisis, the Serbs were basically *forced* to stand behind Milosevic, because whether or not they supported him originally, they were now ALL under attack (in the most literal, life-threatening way) and had no choice but to protect themselves however they could…which goes a long way towards explaining why they started killing more Kosovars and the U.S. suddenly had a convenient excuse to cry "Ethnic Cleansing!" I am NOT defending ANY of those killings, but I am trying to point out that it’s not as clear cut an issue as just Serbs killing Kosovars because they don’t like them. Consider, too, how the Serbs felt, having been allies with the U.S. during WWII while the Albanians collaborated openly with the Nazis, suddenly being attacked by the people with whom they once fought side-by-side and called allies. That the U.S. immediately took up sides against them before even attempting to protect both sides and actually *keep* the peace by helping them come to an understanding…well, with that kind of betrayal, without even a second thought as to whether "taking sides" was even an appropriate way to proceed, is it really so hard to understand the Serbs lashing out worse than ever? They *are* just as human as the rest of us, after all… Again, I’m not defending *anyone*, but I don’t think it’s right to act as though this is all as simple as "the Serbs are genocidal murderers going after our good friends the Albanians". Just my thoughts, Jenn – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> The true answer is that we should mind our own business. Somehow I >> know this is ALL Blair’s fault. First he kidnaps Pinochet and now >> this! Is there no end to his evil? >I’m sure you would’ve appreciated it if the US had said the same thing during > WWII. >We are 1 race, human beings. We should all do what we can to let others live as > free as >we do. NATO might not be the solution, but minding our business isn’t either. >> Morey >> >> …Roman >> >> — >> >> The significant problems we face cannot be solved >> >> at the same level of thinking we were at when we >> >> created them. >> >> -Albert Einstein >> >> ICQ 34065267
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King Jr.
Response:
In article <372ad333.4986…@news.erols.com>, mogey1@spamit!!.hotmail.com (Morey) wrote: >On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 21:37:58 -0400, "Nicholas S.-Roy" ><n….@primetimevisions.com> wrote: >>You’re right, I think they should’ve sent troops to protect Kosovo from the >>beginning. I was reading about them thining of sending ground troops and the >> way they were talking about it it was to take oevr Yougoslavia ("We would need 50 >> 000 to protect Kosovo, and 200 000 additional to march onto Belgrade and the rest of >>Yougoslavia" WHAT THE HELL? Aren’t they there to *protect* and not destroy the >> whole country? >Troops to Kosovo? Are you insane? Why should our people die for them. >What have they or could they ever do for us. How is it in our interest >that they not be relocated?
Let’s be logical here for a second, Morey. There are two ways you can look at this: First, that the U.S. is involved in this to look out for their own best interests, or second, that they are involved in this for the best interests of the Kosovars. Now, whether you approve of it or not, the U.S. is *claiming* that it is the latter, which makes sense, since the former is ridiculous–if the U.S. were looking out only for their own best interests, they wouldn’t have gotten involved in someone else’s civil war at all, particularly one that didn’t give any appearance of ever affecting anyone outside the country’s boundaries. I mean, they must have learned *something* from Vietnam, right? <snicker> So if the U.S. government isn’t lying <insert more howling laughter here>, and they are there only out of a sense of humanitarian duty to the Kosovars, then it stands to reason that it is NOT in the best interests of the Kosovars to split up their families and fly them thousands of miles away to foreign countries while bombing their own homes, as a means of *helping* them settle civil unrest. If the U.S. really was looking out for its own best interests, as you suggest, then WHY did they get involved in someone else’s *civil* war at ALL? After all, if they have never done, and could never do anything for the U.S., as you say, and it is NOT in the interests of the United States to do what is going to be most helpful to the people they claim to be helping, then what the hell are they doing there anyway? Take your pick Morey–either they can look out for their own best interests, or they can look out for those of the people whose country they are wrecking in the name of "helping" them. If it’s the former, then they’ve been lying outright (what a surprise) to the world. If it’s the latter, then it’s irrelevant what is best for the States, and what matters is doing what is best for the people of Kosovo. Frankly, I don’t think they should have taken sides at all, which just escalated the whole thing. Peacekeeping is peacekeeping, and rather than taking sides in someone else’s civil war, perhaps they ought to have remained *neutral* and tried to deal humanely with both sides. What a concept! Jenn – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->The true answer is that we should mind our own business. Somehow I >know this is ALL Blair’s fault. First he kidnaps Pinochet and now >this! Is there no end to his evil? >Morey >>> …Roman >>> — >>> The significant problems we face cannot be solved >>> at the same level of thinking we were at when we >>> created them. >>> -Albert Einstein >>> ICQ 34065267
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King Jr.
Response:
"….I will age ungracefully until I become an old woman in a small 