| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Bodies exhumed in Bosnian mass grave |
| 2003-07-29 |
| Forensic experts in Bosnia began exhuming bodies from what is thought to be the largest mass grave yet found in the country. The grave in eastern Bosnia is believed to contain the remains of about 700 Muslim men and boys killed during the 1995 Srebrenica massacres. About 8,000 Muslims, mainly men and boys, were killed by Bosnian Serb soldiers who overran the town in 1995 even though it was declared a UN-protected area. Itâs been called the worst atrocity since the Second World War. Abetted by the Dutch, French, and of course, the UN. Maybe "abetted" is too strong, but there are such things as âsins of omissionâ. The head of the Muslim Commission for Missing Persons for the region of Tuzla told the Associated Press it became aware of the site after people said they saw trucks loaded with bodies in the area. However, the commission kept the findings secret for about a year to guard against possible disturbances. Dear European friends: remind me again why most of Europe was against NATO action in Kosovo? |
| Posted by:Rafael |
| #49 "I consider theft to be morally wrong, does that mean I should be walking the earth apprehending every thief? " But that's not the question I asked is it now? I asked about moral imperatives and how do they somehow become less of moral imperatives when other people don't accept them? If you consider stopping thievery a moral imperative, then how does it become less of a moral imperative if *other* people don't act to stop it? "Fact is, this happened on European ground and should have been dealt with by Europeans." I'm not sure that this localism makes any sense. What is this "European ground"? It's a convention that we use to describe a arbitrary peninsula. It's certainly not some kind of political division. Or do you mean that Europeans had more power to stop it than the Americans did? If so, that's a different matter altogether and has little to nothing to do with whether it was European or Asian or Martian ground. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-7-30 10:14:19 AM |
| #48 You're pushing the envelope there Aris. I consider theft to be morally wrong, does that mean I should be walking the earth apprehending every thief? Fact is, this happened on European ground and should have been dealt with by Europeans. Especially since Europe lauds itself as the moral mother superior of the western world. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2003-7-29 10:51:52 PM |
| #47 And as a sidenote I never said that the intervention in *Bosnia* was wrong. If anything Europeans and Americans acted too late there IMO... |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-7-29 10:28:16 PM |
| #46 "The only thing that I can say in defense of your statement is that if Europe failed to lift a finger to stop the genocide then certainly the US was not obliged to do anything either." I'm not certain how moral obligations exist or don't exist depending on what other people or nations are doing. If you consider stopping a genocide a moral imperative, then how does that suddenly change by the fact of one or ten or a hundred nations that do *not* act on that moral imperative? Shouldn't you say instead "Well shame on *them*, but *we* are still morally obliged to act if we can?" |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-7-29 10:25:02 PM |
| #45 Aris and I can agree on two things - that Bosnia and Kosovo were misbegotten foreign adventures, but for different reasons. Clinton undertook the Bosnia and Kosovo interventions for the same reason that he undertook other interventions - no definable US interests were involved. Clinton's policy was to screw our friends and assist our enemies. Milosevic was no enemy of the US. I fail to see why we bothered to send in the military to protect a bunch of Muslims. We got no credit for the interventions and spent billions carrying them out. Virtue may be its own reward, but spending billions of taxpayer dollars on ventures like this is just insane. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-7-29 9:34:06 PM |
| #44 11A5S> I never thought that the Serbs' Orthodoxy has anything to do with it. Honestly I felt (and mostly still feel) it had more to do with it being a stunt to improve poll ratings. Serbia being chosen as a target, because it was a convenient one, having alienated every other country in the region because of its action in Bosnia, nobody weeping too much for its destruction. But *shrug* I do honestly hope I am mistaken and that it was an honest attempt by your government to do some good and stop all ethnic cleansing. It'll be better for the world in the future if you are correct and I'm wrong. Phil> I don't think that "90 years ago" can be called "recently". And what an unbiased source you have found there! |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-7-29 6:14:47 PM |
| #43 Aris: I believe that sometimes you mistake mere hysteresis for hypocrisy and evil intent. As Rafael, LH, and others above pointed out, the enormity of the evil in Yugoslavia and Rwanda simply took time for people to digest. Since organizations and nations are made up of lots of people, the lag between awareness and organizational/national cognition is even longer. Therefore, we screwed up in Croatia, did a little better in Bosnia, and a lot better in Kosovo. I believe that this is the simple truth rather than some American plot to victimize the Orthodox peoples. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-7-29 5:54:43 PM |
| #42 I am really suprised at you all, chasing after Aris's red herring. Srebrenica is in Bosnia and the massacre occured a couple of years before Kosovo blew up and Serbia was bombed. Only a moron like Aris could argue that events that occurred after Srebrenica are somehow relevant. If you want to find cause and effect, I suggest preventing more Srebrenicas was an important motivation for the NATO intervention in Kosovo. Also, Aris would have considerably more credibility on the subject of ethnic cleansing, if he were not a citizen of a country that has so recently indulged in its own ethnic cleansing - http://www.macedoniainfo.com/macedonia/ |
| Posted by: Phil B 2003-7-29 5:37:09 PM |
| #41 "What would have happened if NATO didn't intervene? My guess - same thing that would have happened in Croatia. Albanians would have been removed from Kosovo, same way the Serbs were removed from Croatia. Which is bad, yes. But we wouldn't have the thousands of dead Serb civilians in the bombings, and FYRO Macedonia wouldn't have suffered a civil war. " and in all likelihood the Krajina Serbs would not have returned to the Krajina, under the new Croatian Govt. So if youre really concerned about the Krajina Serbs, you should be glad of the NATO intervention in kosovo. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-29 5:34:49 PM |
| #40 Paul> "I have a simple question. Is there anything in the world that the US does that is good? Let's make it a top ten list. (if you can.) " 1. Within your borders your citizens enjoy a wide set of freedoms. 2. You have troops defending South Korea. 3. You are supporting Taiwan. 4. You are vaguely supporting democracy and human rights worldwide. EU does a more consistent job of it, as you people support a great number of dictators as well, but you're still doing more right than wrong here. 5. That's about it, nowadays. :-) "Seriously though, after your day or two of total jubilation, would the world really be a better place?" No. I've stated this already, that the collapse/destruction of the US would not be a good thing for the world. Remember that it's *others* who claimed me an Anti-American. Not I. liberalhawk> I had heard the figure be about 2000 but I admit that I've not checked that from primary sources. I'll look at the human rights watch site, which you mentioned. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-7-29 5:29:37 PM |
| #39 "You see I think that it's motivation that defines the moral content of an act..." Here's Aris's money quote. Who knows what motivates the US? Aris thinks he does, and everything the US does must in some way conform to his prejudice. You'll never be able to convince him he might be wrong. Is it really worth the effort, arguing with this infallible telepath? |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-7-29 5:28:50 PM |
| #38 during the middle ages macedonia was mainly slavic, as a result of slav invasions - indeed most of greece was, until a byzantine emperor repopulated the place with settlers from asia minor. as late as the 19thc cent parts of macedonia were principally slavic, while the capital, salonika, had a ladino speaking jewish majority. The slavs were tossed out during the population exchanges after the balkan wars. the jews (largely hellenized by then?) were murdered by hitler (no fault of the greeks) as for the ancient macedonians its quite unclear. certainly Alex and the macedonian upperclass that accompanied him were greek speaking. Its pretty clear from the greek historians that at the time of the persian wars most macedonians, like thracians, etc were "barbarians" ie not greek speakers. how thoroughly hellenized the common folks of macedonia were at the time of alex is a matter of dispute. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-29 5:25:52 PM |
| #37 the yugo govtg said from 1200 to 5700. human rights watch has a detailed analysis. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-29 5:18:46 PM |
| #36 "Where are you getting these "thousands of dead Serb civilians"? What was the actual number?" per human rights watch, it was at most 527. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-29 5:16:35 PM |
| #35 "It's about whether the US took a strategic constant stance against ethnic cleansing (something which would prevent such actions in the future), or just made a tactical alliance with a bunch of butchers against another bunch of butchers. " Or its possible we did neither - we emerged from a world in which human rights was subordinated (necessarily) to cold war strategy. We tried intervention in Somalia, and got chased out with our tails between our legs. We saw a situation in former-Yugo, that was very complex, and where intervention looked hopeless. This included Serb/yugoslav attacks on Slovenia and Croatia. We saw a situation in Bosnia where there were war crimes on different sides, but the worst by far were Serbian. We then saw Croatia shift sides on Bosnia, making peace in Bosnia possible. We failed to intervene in Rwanda, due to the speed of the genocide and the post - somalia aversion to africa. In Kosovo we saw a a genocide developing over months, we say a UN commision tossed out of Kosovo, apparently as the first step in ethnic cleansing. We acted. And we averted a genocide. and yes it cost serb civilian lives, but thats the responsibility of the genocidaires. Would there have not been a civil war in Macedonia? I dont know enough about the macedonia situation to say - but its also possible that Slobo would not have left power, or would have done some more nastiness before leaving power -and its certainly true that we wouldnt be able to offer the muslim world Kosovo as evidence of our help for the muslim world. So a utilitarian "what if" re kosovo is by no means clear, and cannot be the argument against the intervention. The argument must be based on the newly evolving international law wrt to genocide, and the evolution of that law is a good thing. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-29 5:12:10 PM |
| #34 Who would rise in our fall and make the world a better place? Zimbabwe. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2003-7-29 5:11:12 PM |
| #33 liberalhawk> On FYRO Macedonia - It's now become more of a matter of "national pride" (ugh) but remember that the situation first arose a time where every single Yugoslavian nation was engaged in territorial wars with its neighbours and other countries of the region (Albania) *also* seemed to have intents of possible expansion. And then comes this new country, named after our large northern province. And some of its most loony extremists talking about how their country should be reaching all the way to the Aegeans, in a "reunification" of the entirety of "Macedonia" and the creation of a "Greater Macedonia". Remember it was the time where both Greater Serbia and Greater Albania had armies trying to make them realities. Easy to make a population fear a Greater Macedonia. So, paranoid politicians motivated for their own benefit find it an easy way to fuss about -- made all the easier because historically (if not politically) we were quite on the right - the Macedonians were indeed Greeks, spoke Greek, worshipped Greekly and so on. The cry is then easy to make that this new nation has no rights on "Macedonia". By which Macedonia we mean *our* Macedonia. But which evolved into the issue that we won't accept their having the name "Macedonia" either, as we consider it a lasting provocation and threat. Yes, it was borne out of paranoia. But there you go. It was felt not to be in a wish to *violate* their sovereignty that we refused their "constitutional name" but in an effort to protect ours. And your excuse about Taiwan, seems quite lame. I haven't heard the people here call Taiwan "Republic of China" either. So, see? Other people also refuse other countries their constitutional names. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-7-29 5:09:42 PM |
| #32 thousands of dead Serb civilians Where are you getting these "thousands of dead Serb civilians"? What was the actual number? |
| Posted by: Rafael 2003-7-29 5:08:25 PM |
| #31 Aris >> I have a simple question. Is there anything in the world that the US does that is good? Let's make it a top ten list. (if you can.) I mean, let's just say we all woke up tomorrow and the US and all of it's citizens around the globe just disappeared. Who would be the new "kinder, gentler, nation"? Hmmm...Russia? We see how they handle dissent/conflict in Grozny. Oops, I mean the rubble formerly known as Grozny. How about China? I'm sure they would run things more to your liking perhaps. Brutal suppresion of religious and political freedom. The Muslims (They're all brothers, right?) Better buy your carpet and compass or your casket before they all sell out soon. France...OK, so that was put in for comic relief. North Korea...he's kinda Napoleonic, right? (Or is that idiotic?) So food is hard to come by. I heard the North Koreans have a kick ass recipe for cold water soup. Mmmmmmm...cold water soup. The collective European Union...OK, ok I'll stop with the comic relief already. Seriously though, after your day or two of total jubilation, would the world really be a better place? Who would rise in our fall and make the world a better place? Yeah, America does have dirt/blood on it's hands. You'll be hard pressed to name one country in history that doesn't. With the CIA and all of it's missions in the last half century I wouldn't try to deny that. Any American that says otherwise would be lying. The harsh reality of the matter is that tough men do bad things in the dark of night, just so my family and I can sleep safe and sound at night. You know something, I'll never hold it against them. |
| Posted by: Paul 2003-7-29 5:00:16 PM |
| #30 Rafael> What would you do if you saw a doctor that treated only Palestinian terrorists but refused to treat Israeli patients? Wouldn't you call that inconsistency a sign of his motivation? Would he deserve the kudos normally given to any doctor aiming to save lives? In Kosovo, I saw the US lending a hand of help to the UCK terrorists, which then proceeded to reach out of Kosovo and try to take a large bite out of FYRO Macedonia. If the US is just being a power for good in the region, wouldn't you expect it to object to *all* ethnic cleansing occuring there? "what particularly interesting is that Ari holds the Croatia case up against the US, but not against Germany. And he holds up the Rwanda case against the US, but not against France. " You are using vocative (or accusative) in my name, when you should be using nominative. "Aris" is the nominative form, "Ari", is the accusative/genitive/vocative. No, I don't hold either Rwanda or Croatia against the US. I'm simply asking how can you justify intervening in Kosovo but not intervening there. You see I think that it's motivation that defines the moral content of an act - and not just that but which also acts as a deterrent for similar later actions. It's about whether the US took a strategic constant stance against ethnic cleansing (something which would prevent such actions in the future), or just made a tactical alliance with a bunch of butchers against another bunch of butchers. Which led the former bunch to just proceed with their butchering in another place - where they wouldn't have had the power to intervene otherwise. "What would have happened if NATO didn't intervene? " My guess - same thing that would have happened in Croatia. Albanians would have been removed from Kosovo, same way the Serbs were removed from Croatia. Which is bad, yes. But we wouldn't have the thousands of dead Serb civilians in the bombings, and FYRO Macedonia wouldn't have suffered a civil war. Now in the case of a *good* intervention, the first of these points would have been alleviated if US had placed ground troops and saved some lives, and the second of these if it had taken a consistent action against *all* war crimes in the region, not just Serb ones. Clinton did neither. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-7-29 4:50:50 PM |
| #29 Rafael> What would you do if you saw a doctor that treated only Palestinian terrorists but refused to treat Israeli patients? Wouldn't you call that inconsistency a sign of his motivation? Would he deserve the kudos normally given to any doctor aiming to save lives? In Kosovo, I saw the US lending a hand of help to the UCK terrorists, which then proceeded to reach out of Kosovo and try to take a large bite out of FYRO Macedonia. If the US is just being a power for good in the region, wouldn't you expect it to object to *all* ethnic cleansing occuring there? "what particularly interesting is that Ari holds the Croatia case up against the US, but not against Germany. And he holds up the Rwanda case against the US, but not against France. " You are using vocative (or accusative) in my name, when you should be using nominative. "Aris" is the nominative form, "Ari", is the accusative/genitive/vocative. No, I don't hold either Rwanda or Croatia against the US. I'm simply asking how can you justify intervening in Kosovo but not intervening there. You see I think that it's motivation that defines the moral content of an act - and not just that but which also acts as a deterrent for similar later actions. It's about whether the US took a strategic constant stance against ethnic cleansing (something which would prevent such actions in the future), or just made a tactical alliance with a bunch of butchers against another bunch of butchers. Which led the former bunch to just proceed with their butchering in another place - where they wouldn't have had the power to intervene otherwise. "What would have happened if NATO didn't intervene? " My guess - same thing that would have happened in Croatia. Albanians would have been removed from Kosovo, same way the Serbs were removed from Croatia. Which is bad, yes. But we wouldn't have the thousands of dead Serb civilians in the bombings, and FYRO Macedonia wouldn't have suffered a civil war. Now in the case of a *good* intervention, the first of these points would have been alleviated if US had placed ground troops and saved some lives, and the second of these if it had taken a consistent action against *all* war crimes in the region, not just Serb ones. Clinton did neither. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-7-29 4:50:49 PM |
| #28 blaming blair and clinton - well yes, id like you to blame them both for their inconsistency. Of course then you couldnt say the inconsistency resulted from the impeachment hearings. you'd have to look at the real reasons which i mentioned above (sympathy for Croatia due to the FRY attack on Croat sovereignty, distrust of Serbia due to Bosnia, and a heightened sensitivity to genocided due to the Rwanda disaster) Ethnic cleansing began after - No, its been clearly proven that the ethnic cleansing was getting underway, and was too well organised to have been a sudden response to NATO bombing. Would we have saved MORE lives if we had gone in on the ground - well yes we would have, for sure. But the US public was averse to humanitarian interventions after Somalia - Clinton went as far as he thought politically feasible. Again, there is nothing in international law that says that its unlawful to bomb from 50,000 feet. Despite the heights, the bombing was far more effective and resulted in less collateral damage than allied bombing in WW2, which is not considered a war crime. The difference is that the allies lost lots of air crews in WW2, and none during Kosovo. Theres a resentment, (which comes through in all your posts) that there was no US blood shed in Kosovo. A method of waging war which is lawful when the user incurs casualties, does not become unlawful when the user does not defend casualties. Name - We dont use the constitutional name of the ROC, cause we dont recognize it, and its not a member of the UN (no fault of our own, that) Macedonia is a member of the UN, and is widely recognized - yet is denied its constitutional name, at the request of the Former Ottoman Province of Greece (FOPG). It strikes me as hypocritical for someone who has no trouble with this FOPG policy to be so solicitous of Macedonian sovereignty. Seems like its more the pecking order - Greeks are above orthodox slavs, and orthodox slavs are above muslims and catholics. And we wont discuss who muslims are above. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-29 4:49:51 PM |
| #27 "As far as a civil war in Macedonia, it seems odd for you to be pinning that on NATO" UCK rebels acted mostly out of NATO-controlled Kosovo. It seems implausible that there'd have been a civil war in FYRO Macedonia, had US not intervened in Kosovo. Or had it done the opposite - taken a clear stand against war crimes throughout the Yugoslavian states. This inconsistency and arbitrariness, is what's at the root of all my objections to the Kosovo bombings - because IMO it's these things that did nothing but enlarge the circle of violence. "it was Blair more than Clinton who pushed for intervention in Kosovo" So, want me to blame the duo of Blair+Clinton for the arbitrariness+inconsistency, etc, rather than Clinton alone? Makes little difference to me. "Macedonia was not a genocide, but a civil war" Kosovo wasn't a genocide either. It was a series of war crimes commited by UCK against the Serbs, and a series of war crimes then committed by the Serbs against the Albanians. It later became ethnic cleansing. *After* the bombings began. "The attacker is required to avoid targeting civilians - he is not required to use ground troops or in other respects to sacrifice his own troops to avoid collateral damage." Within *reason* he's not required to. But in the Kosovo bombings we saw a method which was largely ineffective military for the given objectives *and* wasteful of civilian lives. You yourself admitted that the Serbs increased the rate of ethnic cleansing after the attacks began. I assume this includes rapes, murders, so on? Wouldn't it make sense to use the military tactics that'd lead to *stopping the ethnic cleansing* not after several months but immediately? Aka, put people on the ground? Aka save lives of Albanian *and* Serb civilians? "and given that Greece won't even recognize THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA by its constitutional name." I've not heard you (or the US government) recently call Taiwan with its constitutional name of REPUBLIC OF CHINA either, so cut the crap, won't you? Greece fully recognizes FYRO Macedonia's sovereignty and borders. We still have a problem with its name, but that has nothing to do with the matter we're otherwise discussing. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-7-29 4:32:08 PM |
| #26 what particularly interesting is that Ari holds the Croatia case up against the US, but not against Germany. And he holds up the Rwanda case against the US, but not against France. Could it just be that hes less concerned with Krajina Serbs, or Rwandan Tutsis, then he is with supporting a Franco-German alliance against American power - a power that is forever condemned, NOT because of ex-yugoslavia or Rwanda in the '90's but because of its support for the Greek colonels in the 1960's and 1970's, support which the majority of Greeks have never forgiven, and which colors their view of the US and NATO? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-29 4:27:03 PM |
| #25 "Yes. Your point?" Well you blame the Americans for not intervening in Croatia, and I'm saying the Europeans did not intervene either. Anywhere. "Not so amazing given they can claim they didn't have the *power* to intervene." You're kidding right? "explain the obvious inconsistencies in behaviour." There is no inconsistency Aris. It only exists in your head. "At least the "Europeans" were being consistent in their weakness." Of all the things you've said, this has got to be the stupidest. You see a guy being beaten to death in front you, but you won't intervene because you're afraid of being inconsistant 'cause you've never done it before??? "What's the obvious?" Using force. "if so they'd have intervened in Croatia, they could." They were waiting for Europe, it was their mess. And if they did intervene, you would be the first one in front of your local US embassy protesting. Speaking of hypocrytical. "if so they'd have intervened in Rwanda" So they're intervening now in Iraq and you're protesting that too. Make up your mind. Oh wait, your mind is already made up: if it's American, it's bad. Yugoslavia, however, was going on for a lot longer than Rwanda. With no solution in sight, because Europeans like you were too concerned about appearing "inconsistant". "for peace or justice in region" There's peace now, isn't there? Unless it's the justice part that you're concerned about, in which case you simply picked a side (anything anti-American). "Clinton simply sided with one murderous chauvinism against another." Well that's your opinion, see the 'choosing sides' comment above. But anyway, what was the end result of the NATO campaign, Aris? What would have happened if NATO didn't intervene? How much genocidal killing does it take to reach your threshold of tolerance? Or are you just worried about appearing inconsistant? You're arguments are weak and irrational, that is, if you were trying to be rational in the first place. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2003-7-29 4:23:24 PM |
| #24 from the report tot he UNSC(2003) of the Secretary Generals rep in Kosovo "The number of returns of displaced persons was still far too small, he said, but a Framework for Returns was now in place. Multi-ethnicity had been gradually improving. Yet, a lot more work was required for Kosovo to become a truly multi-ethnic society. In a positive development, all non-Serb leaders had signed an open appeal urging refugees and displaced people to return. LH - yup, all non-Serb leaders want displaced people (including Serbs) to return. One standard where progress had been lagging was direct dialogue with Belgrade on practical issues, he continued. The recent European Union-Western Balkans summit in Thessaloniki, Greece, had changed that, and direct dialogue on practical issues was put on track. LH - yup, the UN admin is trying to reach out to Belgrade to discuss practical issues. Belgrade is the sovereign power, and the UN and NATO have always respected that. This is not a greater Albania. Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq had all demonstrated h0ow difficult it was to win the peace, to build functioning institutions and to start up the economy, he stated. Kosovo had the added burden of its unresolved political status. Much remained to be done to complete Kosovoâs transformation into a society where all its people could live in security and dignity. But with the help of thousands of men and women from all communities in Kosovo and from most countries in the world, he left behind a solid foundation. LH - yup, the goal here is for all communities to work together. Other speakers in todayâs meeting stressed that every effort must be made to overcome obstacles to freedom of movement, particularly for the Serb community and called for an end to impunity for those who committed violent, ethnic-based acts. Speakers supported the âstandards before statusâ policy implemented by LH - yup, still plenty of Serbs there, they havent been ethnically cleansed. But their condition needs to be improved, for sure. Mr. Steiner. They cautioned that transferring responsibilities to the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government must be gradual and take into account the real capacities of the institutions to assume their responsibilities. Speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, the representative of Italy said at the European Union-Western Balkans Summit of Thessaloniki on 21 June, the European Council had reiterated its determination to fully support the European perspective of the Western Balkan countries. The European Union would ensure that Kosovoâs European prospects were not held back by the issue of final status. Political stability in Kosovo required democratic, stable and functioning local institutions. The common objective was to build effective, transparent and accountable institutions to the benefit of all communities. LH - thats right, of benefir to all communities. Including the Serbs, who are STILL a community there. On the concern expressed about the establishment of parallel administrative institutions, the representative of Serbia and Montenegro stressed that both majority and minority communities must be held responsible for establishing the values of a democratic, multi-ethnic society. LH - yup, serbia and Montenegro accepts the FACT that there is still a Serb community in Kosovo, and a prospect for a multiethnic society. Otherwise, it would be difficult to expect the most vulnerable, the minorities, not to reach out for help elsewhere or to try to create their own institutions. LH- Ah, but if things dont get better for the Serb community, they might try to intervene. The Albanian representative, however, while agreeing on the need for inter-ethnic dialogue to, among other things, ease the speedy return of displaced persons, cautioned minorities to avoid outside influence and consider themselves as an integral part of the political and social fabric of Kosovo. LH - which would make the albanians happy. So the Serbs were not ethnically cleansed, and the NATO intervention opened up the POSSIBILITY of a multiethnic society, but theres squabbling about how to get there. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-29 4:22:13 PM |
| #23 Outstanding, LH. You tell him. We dealt with Milosevic and the Serb thugs because the Yurp-peons wouldn't. Clinton was a scoundrel, but he did finally manage to get things right in Yugoslavia. Milosevic's been jugged, the graves are being uncovered, and the killing has stopped -- for now. But if we withdraw from Kosovo and Bosnia, the killing will start again, just as soon as the French start looking the other way -- about a hour or so. LH is right about Rwanda, too -- we should have gone there, and damn the French for not stopping that. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-7-29 4:16:06 PM |
| #22 first the opinions of the europeans certainly mattered - it was Blair more than Clinton who pushed for intervention in Kosovo (this is often forgotten, in the attempt to tie it to Monica). If the Euros had pushed for intervention in Krajina, its likely the US would have gone along. They didnt, for all the reasons i listed above. As for Rwanda, i certainly think we should have gone in there. I will point out that the Europeans were just as reluctant as we were, and the French were actually on the side of the genocidaires. In any case the US had a severe aversion to humanitarian intervention in africa, due to overreaction to what happened in Somalia. I think (and thought then) that the US should have intervened. I did not march in the streets about it - i was caught up in my own affairs, and it happened very fast, before the horror truely sank in. However I am not proud of either my own or my country's behavior in Rwanda. I do not however see that because we shamefully tolerated genocide there, we are obliged to do so everywhere. Its possible to learn from your mistakes, and i think to some extent our willingness to intervene in Kosovo was caused by our realization of our mistake in Rwanda. As for Macedonia, thats what we in english call a red herring (IE a distraction) Macedonia was not a genocide, but a civil war. Negotiation was the appropriate response. If clinton had simply sided with one murderous chauvinism against another, we would have let kosovars attack Serbs. Instead we have kept several thousand troops in Kosovo, troops who are there NOW, when we need them in Iraq, to help rebuild a multiethnic Kosovo. The statement in your next to last sentence is therefore an outrageous lie. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-29 4:09:10 PM |
| #21 first the opinions of the europeans certainly mattered - it was Blair more than Clinton who pushed for intervention in Kosovo (this is often forgotten, in the attempt to tie it to Monica). If the Euros had pushed for intervention in Krajina, its likely the US would have gone along. They didnt, for all the reasons i listed above. As for Rwanda, i certainly think we should have gone in there. I will point out that the Europeans were just as reluctant as we were, and the French were actually on the side of the genocidaires. In any case the US had a severe aversion to humanitarian intervention in africa, due to overreaction to what happened in Somalia. I think (and thought then) that the US should have intervened. I did not march in the streets about it - i was caught up in my own affairs, and it happened very fast, before the horror truely sank in. However I am not proud of either my own or my country's behavior in Rwanda. I do not however see that because we shamefully tolerated genocide there, we are obliged to do so everywhere. Its possible to learn from your mistakes, and i think to some extent our willingness to intervene in Kosovo was caused by our realization of our mistake in Rwanda. As for Macedonia, thats what we in english call a red herring (IE a distraction) Macedonia was not a genocide, but a civil war. Negotiation was the appropriate response. If clinton had simply sided with one murderous chauvinism against another, we would have let kosovars attack Serbs. Instead we have kept several thousand troops in Kosovo, troops who are there NOW, when we need them in Iraq, to help rebuild a multiethnic Kosovo. The statement in your next to last sentence is therefore an outrageous lie. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-29 4:06:51 PM |
| #20 "And no intervention from the UN and the Europeans either." Yes. Your point? "Amazing since it is their backyard." Not so amazing given they can claim they didn't have the *power* to intervene. But since the US obviously did have such power (they demonstrated it) it's upon its administration to explain the obvious inconsistencies in behaviour. At least the "Europeans" were being consistent in their weakness. "Well, when you don't see any initiative from the Europeans, and the UN being without balls, somebody had to do the obvious." What's the obvious? Become the ally of UCK? The US in those bombings didn't take a stand against ethnic cleansing - if so they'd have intervened in Croatia, they could. They didn't take a stand against genocide - if so they'd have intervened in Rwanda, it was taking place a hundred times worse there, they'd have intervened earlier in Bosnia. And they certainly didn't take a stand against civil war, or tyranny or whatever. And the result for that inconsistency is that the UCK terrorists saw that intervention for what it was - nothing but a tactical ploy that indicated nothing and meant nothing for peace or justice in region. Serbs had simply lucked out in getting Clinton as an enemy. And the UCK had lucked in in having him as a friend. Which meant that the UCK would have no qualm in provoking even more murder and war in FYRO Macedonia. Which, predictably, NATO (and Europeans and UN, if it makes you happy) would *not* stop to crush, as they had crushed the Serb tyranny. Instead, having the UCK as their newfound pals, they'd try to convince FYRO Macedonia to find a peaceful solution and granting concessions to the separatists. *That* is the problem with inconsistency and arbitrary decisions. Clinton simply sided with one murderous chauvinism against another. No moral bravo there. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-7-29 3:44:59 PM |
| #19 1. ok the serbs started the conflict, not the war. I was responding to the general serb apologist line that what serbia did was justified cause the kla started it. The Kosovars did not start a drive toward independence - they responded to an attempt to deny them cultural autonomy. The serbs initiated the conflict. 2. the ethnic cleansing was by the kosovars against the serb population. Well, no, the majority of kosovar albanians supported moderates who were not part of the KLA. The KLA alone attacked the ethnic Serb population, and they rose in power as the Serbs crushed moderates. Would the Israelis be justified in ethnically cleansing the palestinians because Hamas is trying to ethnically cleanse Jews? 3. No response. 4. Well if you had said NATO was hypocritical because of the Krajina, that would have been different. But you did not. Should we have been harder on the Croats - yes, of course - indeed it would have been better not to rush to recognize Croat independence - but it was newly confident Germany that led the way, not the US. And the situations are not quite comparable, IIUC. For one thing the govt of FRY was actively supporting the ethnic Serbs in Krajina, while the govt of Albania was not supporting the KLA. Croatia was in the midst of a war against FRY, which was attempting to stop Croat independence - no such situation in 1999 Serbia. And loss of the Krajina would have been strategically and economically fatal for Croatia - not the case wrt to kosovo. Nonetheless we should have acted wrt to Croatia- and IIUC we ulitimately did pressure Croatia to allow the return of ethnic Serbs to the Krajina. Certainly Kosovo was seen in the context of NATO failure to act in all the earlier situations, but most notably in Bosnia. 5. From their national territory, which they had given up absolute sovereign rights to by their practice of genocide. Yes, they could have done that. 6. Deliberately killing civilians is a war crime. Killing civilians of a specified racial, ethnic or religious group, for the purpose of reducing the numbers of that group, is genocide, and is a unique war crime Attacking military and strategic targets, with the unintended result that civilians are killed, is NOT a war crime. The attacker is required to avoid targeting civilians - he is not required to use ground troops or in other respects to sacrifice his own troops to avoid collateral damage. Was the US obliged to invade europe in 1943 in order to avoid collateral damage (far higher than what Serbia suffered in 1999) to German civilians during our aerial bombing? Did the US stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo - yes we did, we stopped the ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians. And there was certainly no comparable organized campaign of genocide against ethnic Serbs. There were incidents of revenge attacks, and some ethnic serbs did leave. There are still far more ethnic serbs left in Kosovo than there are Germans in Sudetenland or Danzig, and the territory is STILL treated as part of FRY. As far as a civil war in Macedonia, it seems odd for you to be pinning that on NATO, given that Macedonia supported NATO in kosovo, given that NATO has helped to end that civil war (which was fought over different issues) and given that Greece wont even recognize THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA by its constitutional name. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-29 3:32:13 PM |
| #18 "No NATO intervention there for some reason." And no intervention from the UN and the Europeans either. Amazing since it is their backyard. "I don't see any clear moral guideline for interventions here." Well, when you don't see any initiative from the Europeans, and the UN being without balls, somebody had to do the obvious. And I recall the outrage in the US came after those market bombings. So you had a US President willing to step up, seeing that if he didn't, the slaughter would continue. Aris, I've heard of being the devil's advocate, but you're just up the wall sometimes. If it's anti-American, you're there! |
| Posted by: Rafael 2003-7-29 3:13:57 PM |
| #17 "in what ari leaves out is 1. the war was started by the Serbs, who eliminated Kosovo cultural autonomy, closed the albanian language university, etc before the Kosovo revolt began." What's your definition of starting a war? Yes, the Serbs elimininated the autonomy of Kosovo. Them bad. You can call the war of the UCK terrorists started a just one, if you want to, but I don't think that you deny it's they that began the attacks. "2. The ethnic cleansing began before the NATO bombing campaign." It had actually began from Kosovars against the Serb population, then Serbs struck back twice as hard. At the Kosovar population that's true - them evil. But then again the ethnic Albanian would in turn (after victory was given them on a platter) drag FYRO Macedonia into civil war. What did FYRO Macedonia do to them? Other than standing on the way of a Greater Albania? "4. The campaign was NOT a campaign against KLA terrorist, but against the entire ethnic Albanian population in Kosovo." Yes. And the campaign in Croatia's Krajna was against the entirety of the Serb population. No NATO intervention there for some reason. For some reason it let the Serbs be ethnically cleansed out of Croatia -- and yet stopped the Albanians be cleansed out of Kosovo. I don't see any clear moral guideline for interventions here. I see opportunism and hypocricy. Is it bad of me to ask for some consistency here? How can I believe an inconsistent rhetoric by a politician, and how can *you* trust a policy that's inconsistent? What is it about stopping the Serbs at any cost against their actions which didn't also apply to stopping the Croats in theirs? The ICC court has indictments for people and war criminals from all these nations, you know. "5. The Serbs could have stopped the bombing at any time by agreeing to withdraw." To withdraw from what? From Kosovo? Their national territory? But yes, they could have stopped the bombing. Weirdly enough for black-white people in the world, the fact that Milosevic was an evil bastard, doesn't give the *other* side the right to commit war crimes either. "6. Since fighting NATO troops on the ground was obviously Serb strategy, its absurd for a Serb apologist to complain that we didnt use ground troops." I'm not a Serb apologist, I'm a NATO accuser. Did the Kosovo bombing really prevent ethnic cleansing? Or did it simply make sure that the Serbs would be the ones to get cleansed out of Kosovo? With a new civil war igniting in FYRO Macedonia. "No, we're not going to fight our wars in the ways our adversaries want us to. Learn to live with it." Yes well, I'm sure that's what the Serbs must have said to themselves, when the rest of the world condemned their war crimes. And I condemn the USA's. And I condemn the people in those polls who thought it was fine to kill thousands of Serb civilians in the bombings, but somehow thought the war was unacceptable if a single US soldier died. Or were you in favour of bombing Croatia also, to stop the Serb ethnic cleansing? If so atleast you are being consistent -- but the US administration certainly wasn't. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-7-29 2:20:39 PM |
| #16 Carl in NH: I saw Aris' pitch. He threw a hanging curve. Not the first time. If Sosa could whack them out like LH, then Cubs would be in first. Aris: What is it about the Serb-Greek-French triangle? |
| Posted by: Michael 2003-7-29 1:39:24 PM |
| #15 Lucky, I'll see if I can dig up my dummy's guide to 9-11 and look that up for you. I seem to remember reading that it was caused by roots. Not clear on the details, however.... |
| Posted by: Carl in NH 2003-7-29 1:22:28 PM |
| #14 Lots of blame to go around on both sides. I was totally against US involvement in that war. No different than whats been going on all over the world. No dog in that fight. So now what, Serbs and Muslims live with a buffer zone maintained by US arms. When I saw the first Trade Tower burning I thought it was the Serbs. I still can't figure out the jihadis reason, something about allah. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2003-7-29 12:50:53 PM |
| #13 Aris? looks like the |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-7-29 12:21:39 PM |
| #12 To summarize the action so far: Aris Katsaris pitches the following: "Thousands of Serb civilians died in the bombings on Yugoslavia for quite obscure "humanitarian" benefits...the bombings killed dozens times more civilians than the Serbs had killed in Kosovo. " and liberalhawk smacks it out of the park for a 4-bagger. Aris, it looks like it's time for a relief pitcher... |
| Posted by: Carl in NH 2003-7-29 12:09:15 PM |
| #11 pardon my reaction folks, but genocide denial and apology really gets my goat. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-29 12:08:59 PM |
| #10 in what ari leaves out is 1. the war was started by the Serbs, who eliminated Kosovo cultural autonomy, closed the albanian language university, etc before the Kosovo revolt began. 2. The ethnic cleansing began before the NATO bombing campaign. 3. The accelerated ethnic cleansing campaign after the bombing began was well planned, and could not have been a spontaneous reaction to the bombing campaign. 4. The campaign was NOT a campaign against KLA terrorist, but against the entire ethnic Albanian population in Kosovo. 5. The Serbs could have stopped the bombing at any time by agreeing to withdraw. 6. Since fighting NATO troops on the ground was obviously Serb strategy, its absurd for a Serb apologist to complain that we didnt use ground troops. No, we're not going to fight our wars in the ways our adversaries want us to. Learn to live with it. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-29 12:05:18 PM |
| #8 from american radio works (funded by Corp for Public Broadcasting) "Bowing to international pressureâand promises of hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and creditsâSerbian authorities sent the country's former ruler, Slobodan Milosevic, on a secret journey that ended in a jail cell at the United Nations' International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. Milosevic was charged with crimes against humanity for killings and expulsions of ethnic Albanians during the war in Kosovo; he now faces a separate indictment for war crimes during the 1991-92 conflict in Croatia. As a military aircraft was flying Slobodan Milosevic to Holland, Serbian state television broadcast shocking images that exposed one of Milosevic's top secret wartime operations. The program broadcast raw footage of workers unearthing a mass grave on the outskirts of Belgrade. In the report a Serbian pathologist described the discovery of charred remains of some 40 people, including two young children. For many Serbs, the unusually frank broadcast signaled an end to the 13-year Milosevic era, a period in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed and deported in brutal warfare. After more than four months of excavations, Serbian officials now say they have located at least seven mass graves and some 430 bodies in Serbia outside of Kosovo province. Those sites include graves at Batajnica near Belgrade, at Petrovo Selo in eastern Serbia and near Perucac Dam in western Serbia. Serbian police and western war crimes investigators believe most of the victims are ethnic Albanian civilians - including women and children - killed and shipped out of Kosovo in refrigerator trucks. Many were shot at close range." |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-29 11:53:33 AM |
| #7 More form Human Rights Watch: "In general, it appears that the Yugoslav Army was in command during the war, with the police and paramilitaries subordinate to its orders, although top officials of the Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs exercised significant influence over the campaign. The army controlled the main roads and the borders, coordinating and facilitating the "ethnic cleansing." The police and paramilitaries were more directly involved in expulsions and the destruction of villages, with artillery support from the army. It is during these operations that men were separated from women and children, interrogated about the KLA, and sometimes executed. Typically, as told by witnesses from all over Kosovo, the army and special police forces surrounded a village and shelled it from a distance. Regular and special police forces then moved in, swept the village, and gathered the villagers in a centralized location. Men were separated from women and children for interrogation about the KLA. Regular police and paramilitaries then looted the village, as well as stealing whatever the villagers carried with them and destroying their identity documents. The village was then left to the police, paramilitaries, and local Serbian militias, who looted and burned the remains. The women, children, and elderly were often expelled, and men with suspected ties to the KLA were sometimes executed. " |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-29 11:49:58 AM |
| #6 From Human Rights Watch "Human Rights Watch documented 96 cases of rape by Serbian and Yugoslav forces against Kosovar Albanian women immediately before and during the 1999 bombing campaign, and believes that many more incidents of rape have gone unreported. The report said that rapes were not rare and isolated acts committed by individuals, but rather were used deliberately as an instrument to terrorize the civilian population, extort money from families, and push people to flee their homes. Virtually all of the sexual assaults Human Rights Watch has documented were gang rapes involving at least two perpetrators. The 37-page report is the first to combine all credible reporting on rape during the Kosovo conflict, and includes a map (in PDF format)of all documented incidents of rape in Kosovo. "These are not occasional incidents committed by a few crazy men," said Regan Ralph, executive director of the Women's Rights Division at Human Rights Watch. "Rape was used as an instrument of war in Kosovo, and it should be punished as such. The men who committed these terrible crimes must be brought to justice." |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-29 11:46:59 AM |
| #5 "Dear European friends: remind me again why most of Europe was against NATO action in Kosovo?" Well, to quote from an Orson Scott Card essay at: http://www.ornery.org/essays/2000-10-25-3.html **** And now it isn't a fight between two nations. It's Serbia trying to deal with a revolution by an Albanian ethnic majority in the province of Kosovo. The Kosovar separatists have been assassinating Serbs and Kosovars whom they accuse of being collaborators. So far, however, the Serbs have been very restrained in their response (restrained, that is, for Serbs) -- only about fifty people are known to have died in the Serbian counter-revolutionary campaign up to that point. And there was nothing happening that week that was different from the week before. No pressing emergency. But there was that impeachment vote in the House ... So our bombers flew. But they had to fly very, very high, because if Bill Clinton is anything, he's an absolute political coward -- he couldn't bear to face the possibility of even one U.S. pilot getting shot down. So our bombs fell from such a "safe" altitude that we were bound to kill civilians willy-nilly. The Serbs took exception to this. They'd been trying to behave themselves (for Serbs), and hardly killed anybody in Kosovo, and now the U.S. was bombing them. Heck, nobody bombed them for killing tens of thousands in Bosnia! So if they were going to get punished like this anyway, they might as well go ahead and do the ethnic cleansing thing. Drive out all those Albanians and pretty soon, no Kosovo problem. Right? Maybe the Serbs would have eventually gotten around to killing Albanian Kosovars or driving them out of Serbia. We'll never know. What we do know is, not only did the bombs Bill Clinton ordered kill Serbian civilians, they also provided the direct provocation or excuse for Milosevic to turn his boys loose on the Kosovar people. We know the results. The body count. The refugees. The destruction. **** In short, man. Thousands of Serb civilians died in the bombings on Yugoslavia for quite obscure "humanitarian" benefits -- could the Serb attacks on the Kosovar terrorists have turned genocidal? Perhaps they would have. But so far they *hadn't* done so -- the bombings killed dozens times more civilians than the Serbs had killed in Kosovo. And the American de facto support of the terrorists of UCK (who *initiated* that little war, I remind you), is probably one of the indirect causes of the civil war in FYRO Macedonia, and more people killed there. Greater Albania and stuff. But if you thought it a cause worth intervening in, wouldn't it have been nice to send some ground troops instead so that there'd be fewer civilian casualties from the bombings? But the polls showed that public support for the Kosovo bombings drastically decreased if there was a possibility for *any* American casualties. I guess those Serb and Kosovar civilians aren't really humans and their deaths don't mean much. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-7-29 11:02:35 AM |
| #4 ...to count. |
| Posted by: El Id 2003-7-29 8:03:09 AM |
| #3 I have a suspicion that the Bosnians just aren't Islamic enough... |
| Posted by: El Id 2003-7-29 8:02:22 AM |
| #2 Dear Muslim friends: remind me again how it is that the US is racist and only targets Muslims? |
| Posted by: Anon1 2003-7-29 3:32:58 AM |
| #1 Wait a second, after reading this, I want to change my comment, they did abet. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2003-7-29 1:14:22 AM |