Kosovo, was it worth it? - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Non-SMAC related
  Kosovo, was it worth it?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Kosovo, was it worth it?

Krushala posted 06-10-99 08:08 PM ET
Still a long way to go and a lot more money will be pored in kosovo. I'm curious if you all think it was worth it. Milosevich is still in power and I doubt he will stand trial for war crimes ever. I'm glad we are helping the refugees, but most likely we will have to deal with milosevich in the future.
Kefaed posted 06-10-99 08:15 PM ET
If but one life is saved it was worth it. Stricter action against the atrociters must be taken, though.
Thue posted 06-10-99 08:40 PM ET
It should set an ok presedence, just imagine what the next dictator will think before he starts deporting - Maybe Europe will become a peacefull place at last!?
If but the EU would start allowing new countries in. But we seem to have our hands full with restructuring.
If it was up to me we paid the prize of letting the first new countries in now.
I wonder how Russia will turn out thougth.
Thorokano posted 06-10-99 09:29 PM ET
No way in hell was Kosovo "worth it." What right had NATO to bomb a country they've no jurisdiction over? Anybody here remember the events in Yugoslavia during the early 90's? What could have been a minor conflict was turned into an all-out bloody mess by the capitalist warmongers. Kosovo could've been like that. It wasn't . . . but the next time NATO steps in, they could all too easily repeat their previous mistakes.
The humanitarian thing is all very well and good, but innocent people died for the simple reason that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time during bombing that should never have happened.
I personally prefer theonion.com's approach to the Kosovo situation:
Getting Milosevic
Koshko posted 06-11-99 01:06 AM ET
No war is really worth it, but that doesn't stop people.
k_shane posted 06-11-99 03:04 AM ET
Of course it wasn't worth all the billions of dollars wasted on the war, and even more to come into rebuilding all the Albanians' homes that NATO destroyed.
I guess you don't realize that Milosevic had been wanting an end to this war ever since the beginning, the Serbs fought for their country, for their freedom and families.
A lot of Yugoslav army men and police lost their lives fighting off NATO's aggression, and I feel sorry for Kosovo's losses.
Now the Serb Army are leaving their own country, and letting foreigners take over.
www.serbia-info.com
There is a speech from President Milosevic about the ending, much more truthful and believing than Clinton's lies.
walruskkkch posted 06-11-99 02:44 PM ET
All depends on the value you place on the results and the amount spent arriving there.
The better questions would be, Who won; short term victory or long term triumph and how convincingly.
Famous Eccles posted 06-11-99 04:05 PM ET
Of course it was worth it. The laughs/$ ratio is immense. I mean, it was well worth it just for the entertainment value. watching the pictures of mass destruction , and reading reports of refugees dying screaming, was really a laugh riot.
Krushala posted 06-11-99 09:07 PM ET
Good entertainment yes. What right did we have? We can do whatever we want. If milosevich can do whatever he wants to people then we can do whatever we want. True I would have preferred we not attack a nation that hasn't attacked us first. Usually the ends don't justify the means, but this if successful may prove otherwise. I can understand why you don't believe clinton. But to believe milosevich. Like most leaders in the world have not had mistresses and lied about it to the public. I hate clinton, but there is enough objective reporting being done to believe. And yeah we aren't the good guys and we do violate human rights, but it's terrible over 60 years later we are still putting up with this sh*t. It was worth it in my opinion. And hey we got to test more of our new laser guided missles and bombs. Just like the gulf war was just a testing ground for all the new weapons developed during the 80's.
Victor Galis posted 06-11-99 11:23 PM ET
Was it worth it? No. What did you accomplish? Nothing. Milo�evic is firmly in power as a result. Opposition politicians have watched their support get bombed out from under them by NATO. The US got even more people to hate it. Thousands of additional people are dead, that wouldn't be otherwise. You've cost former Eastern block nations $ billions in trade. What have you done? Have you made Kosovo safe for the Kosovars? No.
What has the US accomplished?
-It wasted money.
-It wasted bombs.
-It consolidated Milo�evic's power.
-It disrupted trade.
-It killed people.
-It hurt relations.
-It discredited pro-Western movements in Serbia.
-It destroyed Serbian infrastructure.
-It set a dangerous precedent.
-And it occupied a portion of Serbia and added it more directly to its empire.
The US doesn't know the first thing about foreign policy. The US helped Milo�evic into power in the first place. Saddam, and Fidel too. Load of good the US has done. And lets not even talk about the School of the Americas, where Americans train guerillas so they can overthrow South American governments and replace them with totalitarian regimes.
Khan Singh posted 06-12-99 09:47 AM ET
Sometimes you have to back your diplomacy up with force. Otherwise your diplomacy will never work.
But let's try to avoid war with Russia over this, shall we? Let's try hard.
Victor Galis posted 06-12-99 11:35 AM ET
Yes, but what does it show the world? Might makes right. Soon the US will inventa situation like this to bomb countries they don't like; just you wait and see.
Provost Harrison posted 06-12-99 11:40 AM ET
Waste of life is never worth it. I agree with Thorokano, it's imperialist assertion of power, nothing more, nothing less. What makes Kosovo any different to Bosnia, or Krajina, or even Rwanda, Congo or East Timor? The list goes on. Milosevic overstepped the mark, and the imperialist powers had to get him 'back into line'. They don't care if he stays in power or not, providing he tows the line. Same with Saddam. All of these wars (Gulf, Kosovo), have been wars waged against the people of these countries, who, to be quite honest, are innocent and have been totally demonised by imperialist powers to 'justify' their bombing.
k_shane: I don't think the money is a problem. The military industry has a very high multiplier effect (spending money on arms is probably even more effective than throwing the money directly at the industries concerned, jobs are maintained, and the money isn't directly pocketed by industry fat-cats, although eventually it will be through all the sectors employed). But this should demonstrate that it is nothing but a stunt to boost profits for the capitalist class at the extent of the poor and needy that are victims to the imperialist thugs. And then, there are lucrative reconstruction contracts to be picked over by the western imperialist powers. Russia won't get a look in, that's a fact.
Basically, I state that this war is one of profit, like any other. Either for imperialist gain of market territory or Milosevic's gain of nationalistic strength. But neither of these lose out - it is the ordinary person, the working class! Either way, western imperialism doesn't lose, they make money either way. Any political concessions are a bonus.
Provost Harrison posted 06-12-99 11:43 AM ET
'But this should demonstrate that it is nothing but a stunt to boost profits for the capitalist class at the extent of the poor and needy that are victims to the imperialist thugs' should read 'But this should demonstrate that it is nothing but a stunt to boost profits for the capitalist class at the [/b]expense[/b] of the poor and needy that are victims to the imperialist thugs'
Provost Harrison posted 06-12-99 11:43 AM ET
you know what I mean
Mcerion posted 06-13-99 05:00 PM ET
If YOU were powerless and an agressor was coming into YOUR town and organizing mass rapes and murders, that is murdering your mothers, sisters, fathers, brothers, wouldn't you want someone to stop them. Go to http://www.princeton.edu/~nanking/html/nanking-gallery.html and see photos of what the Japanese did the Chinese during the occupation of Nanking in 1937. After lookin at these photos tell me you wouldn't bomb the sh*t out of anybody who was doing that to human beings. The callousness and ignorance of these posts is stupefying. The only way to deal with bullies is to ruthlessly eradicate them.
Victor Galis posted 06-14-99 08:48 AM ET
Western propaganda claims another victim.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be bombed, I'm saying you can't stop them wioth bombs, you can only make it worse. In this world realpolitik is still the name of the game.
Es gibt kein Grund, dass Deutscher sollen f�r Amerikanischen Feheler sterben.
Wraith posted 06-14-99 09:34 AM ET
Hail,
This whole Kosovo situation was horrible. The Kosovars (sp?) had it rough, but I don't think the US should have got involved, especially not as part of NATO. If the UN had decided to intervene, then we could have been part of their force, but NATO is supposed to be totally defensive, which this campaign certainly was not.
There's an (inevitable) claim in here that this was initiated by capitalists for profit, but that doesn't hold. Clinton is a major One-Worlder and a Socialist, and he's the moron who got us into this. He just happens to be totally clueless about foreign policy, and wanted what he saw as an "easy win war" to pump up his poll ratings at home, in hopes of helping the little wooden boy (Al Gore) elected next year. Now that this is "over", and we've supposedly "won", he thinks he's in a good position. However, we really accopmlished almost nothing except the expenditure of some (expensive) ammo. Clinton's perfectly willing to leave Milosevic in power, even though he's been idicted by the international war crimes tribunal, and he's found out just how poor his grasp of foreign relations is as the Russians muscle in on the endgame. Milosevic wasn't willing to end this war because he was defeated, but because he accomplished what he needed. And now Clinton will go all mushy headed (well, more than usually) and pay to rebuild everything he just had destroyed.
Wraith
"When military experts explained to Bill Clinton that never in history has a war been won without the use of ground troops, Clinton rebuffed them, citing the Rebellion�s victory over the Empire with the sole use of air power."
Provost Harrison posted 06-14-99 10:53 AM ET
Your definition of 'socialist' must be rather loose, Wraith? I am not arguing against that anything was going on mcerion, I am questioning the motives of the west. You have said, this has happened before, and is going on in other places. This is my point. Why don't NATO intervene in Eastern Turkey, Indonesia (E. Timor), etc? Profit is involved. They never batted an eyelid in Krajina. But what makes Kosovo any different? This is my point.
threeover posted 06-14-99 11:03 AM ET
ahh...hmmm...Hitler was doing the same thing before the WW2, and nobody stopped his nazi-ass. Don't like violance, but I hate people like Milosevic (or whatever his f---- name is) even more. Yes, it came at a cost (human lives, etc.), but in this world filled with hate, we fight fire with fire. And guess what, it will never stop. I think that we're the only god damn species on this planet that kill not to survive, but because of what we believe in. Just wait 'til the Chinese develop those "Titans", we'll have all hell break loose.
Mcerion posted 06-14-99 07:58 PM ET
Victor Galis are you saying that you endorse organized rape and systematic murder? Well then you da man! Threeover we did stop Hitler, duh.
walruskkkch posted 06-14-99 08:03 PM ET
Here's an interesting question. If Hitler didn't threaten any of his neighbors(No expansion plans, just revitalize Germany within it's Versailles established borders) and went on to purge all non-aryans from the country(much in the same way Slobo has done, perhaps a bit more systematically)would the western nations have intervened? Since we've been comparing the two why not reverse the comparison a bit.
Your faithful and obedient servant
Mcerion posted 06-14-99 11:29 PM ET
Walrus, how the hell should I know? What I do know is that we did stop him. Bigotry and apathy were just as much the fashion then as they are now. I don't know about you guys, but when I hear stories and then see the photos years later of the atrocities these petty despots commit oh so casually, it turns my stomach.
Bishop posted 06-15-99 05:26 AM ET
Wraith, I must say your definition of a socialist differs quite a lot from mine. I do agree with you however (?!) that US/NATO had no right doing what they�ve done, this was a matter for the UN.
As Victor Galis said this will set a dangerous precedent, what country goes safe from US/NATO agression next time ? I�ve read articles that said that this whole thing was a blow against the European Union, them being a major power in trade and such. Do I belive it ? I don�t know, but I wouldn�t put anything past the US.
I think it�s time that we throw away the notions that US/NATO did this out of concern for Kosovo, as Provost Harrison said why hasn�t US/NATO bombed Jakarta ? (East-Timor). Why does US/NATO allow Turkey persecute the kurds ? Why do US/NATO allow Israel to continue it�s persecutions of Palestinians ? Etc, etc.
Bishop
Wraith posted 06-15-99 08:03 AM ET
Nothing wrong with my definition of Socialist. :P Clinton wants the federal government to control everything, including the economy. Since the government is theoretically by the people, that would place control over resources and means of production in the peoples hands.
What makes this situation different from all the other ones in the world is that some news crew somewhere took notice of it, so Clinton noticed it. He's still under heavy fire from domestic issues (especially chinese espionage), and he, as is his wont, started a "conflict" to try to distract people. There wasn't anything about making money involved, this was Clinton playing his usual political distraction game.
If Hitler hadn't expanded, I'm not sure what would have happened. The US would have stayed out of it, which we pretty much did anyway until Pearl Harbor. As for European countries, I really couldn't say. I thin it would have been much less likely, but certainly possible.
Wraith
Abandon all hope, ye who PRESS ENTER here
Sethito posted 06-15-99 12:59 PM ET
It really depends if we help Milosovich rebuild his country, if we don't we will have spent a lot less money than the rebuilding process. If we help win rebuild we lose.
Victor Galis posted 06-15-99 06:43 PM ET
What I'm saying here is the US has spent a lot of money and lives to acomplish... (drumroll plase)... NOTHING! Slobo is still in power. Those Kosovars are going to get kicked out of Kosovo again before 20 years are up (either that or kick every Serb out.) The peacekeeping forces can not prevent a massive guerilla war should it break out. If the US had really wanted to do something it would have taken out Slobo (not that that accomplishes much). I don't know what the US's motive was, becuase it sure wasn't humainatarian. (Also I read about Kosovo fighting months before the "crisis" "started." There was a reason it made the news bigtime, and I don't know what that is either.)
Provost Harrison posted 06-16-99 03:29 AM ET
You see now, it all becomes clear. The major imperialisms dividing up Kosovo into their own sphere of influences. And thus awarding lucrative reconstruction contracts to their own companies for the destruction they have caused. it will be many years before life for the Kosovars will return to normal after this excessive 'blitzkrieg'. Surely it cannot be hard to see through the thin veil of 'humanitarianism' the west postures.
Provost Harrison posted 06-16-99 03:31 AM ET
Wraith, If Hitler would have taken Europe (including Britain), he would have built his army/navy/luftwaffe back up and started on the US eventually. And probably on Japan as well. But this is merely hypothesising.
kaetux posted 06-17-99 06:24 PM ET
This was just another chapter in the 600 year old Yugoslavian conflict. As the only remaining superpower, we have to remember that we must work for peace at all costs. NATO was an alliance formed as a defense against The Warsaw Pact. That's all it was. It was never intended to launch an offensive attack against a country that was not even threatening it. NATO overstepped it's boundries and most of the other countries of the world are not happy. I'm no saying the Milosivec wasn't a bad man, I'm just saying that with all of our power and influence, the last thing America needs to be doing is launching attacks against small, third world nations that are engaging in ethnic cleansing. I mean, we dropped more bombs on Kosovo than we did during WWII, and at that time we were helping our allies. NATO makes the whole thing sound like a war but it was more like an attempt to prove our power or some **** like that. Remember, at one time the Albanians were most likely doing the same damn thing, but in the past we didn't have some dumbass who wants to prove that he cares about every little third world conflict running the country. This is also going to hurt America in the Worldwide ring, but it doesn't really care since it practically owns NATO and the U.N. This whole conflict has damaged already fragile connections to Russia, who, I must remind you, is still the most powerful nation in the world.
Bishop posted 06-17-99 06:41 PM ET
kaetux
"Nato overstepped it�s boundries"
>>Well not exactly. They changed the rules at the 50-year anniversary, just so they can act as they did in Yugoslavia. This is not the last time NATO will attack "small third world nations".
Beware you who opposeth the new world order. If you do thou shalt be bombeth back to the stoneage
-Sacred writings of the holy NATO, chapter I-
kaetux posted 06-18-99 02:35 AM ET
Bishop:
What I was saying was that NATO was BUILT on the principals of defense and that the attacks in Kosovo went against NATO's true ideals. NATO has become quite admired and trusted by most nations of the world due to it's defensive nature, but now that most poeple see that NATO is just another way to say the United States, it will lose most (if not all) respect and support in sovereign nations.
Bishop posted 06-18-99 04:24 AM ET
kateux
Point taken !
Bishop
Provost Harrison posted 06-18-99 09:24 AM ET
This 700 year contest is ridiculous. It's like England laying clain to Northern France due to the battle of Agincourt. It's just something that Milosevic is using to whip up nationalist feeling so he has support for his campaign of thuggery in Kosovo.
kaetux posted 06-18-99 09:25 PM ET
Provost:
While the British/France incident may have happened a long time ago, by now they have made amends and are no longer fighting. This is much different than the fighting in Kosovo, because it has been going strong all this time. The truth is that America tends to help the weaker man at this point in time, they do not regard past conflicts/occurances and rarely think of future consequences. Just look at Israel/Muslim conflict. America has almost always sided with Israel! Another example: England vs. Northern Ireland. Just because England happens to be an ally, we side with them without any real thought.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Kosovo, was it worth it?
Krushala	posted 06-10-99 08:08 PM ET Still a long way to go and a lot more money will be pored in kosovo. I'm curious if you all think it was worth it. Milosevich is still in power and I doubt he will stand trial for war crimes ever. I'm glad we are helping the refugees, but most likely we will have to deal with milosevich in the future.
Kefaed	posted 06-10-99 08:15 PM ET If but one life is saved it was worth it. Stricter action against the atrociters must be taken, though.
Thue	posted 06-10-99 08:40 PM ET It should set an ok presedence, just imagine what the next dictator will think before he starts deporting - Maybe Europe will become a peacefull place at last!? If but the EU would start allowing new countries in. But we seem to have our hands full with restructuring. If it was up to me we paid the prize of letting the first new countries in now. I wonder how Russia will turn out thougth.
Thorokano	posted 06-10-99 09:29 PM ET No way in hell was Kosovo "worth it." What right had NATO to bomb a country they've no jurisdiction over? Anybody here remember the events in Yugoslavia during the early 90's? What could have been a minor conflict was turned into an all-out bloody mess by the capitalist warmongers. Kosovo could've been like that. It wasn't . . . but the next time NATO steps in, they could all too easily repeat their previous mistakes. The humanitarian thing is all very well and good, but innocent people died for the simple reason that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time during bombing that should never have happened. I personally prefer theonion.com's approach to the Kosovo situation: Getting Milosevic
Koshko	posted 06-11-99 01:06 AM ET No war is really worth it, but that doesn't stop people.
k_shane	posted 06-11-99 03:04 AM ET Of course it wasn't worth all the billions of dollars wasted on the war, and even more to come into rebuilding all the Albanians' homes that NATO destroyed. I guess you don't realize that Milosevic had been wanting an end to this war ever since the beginning, the Serbs fought for their country, for their freedom and families. A lot of Yugoslav army men and police lost their lives fighting off NATO's aggression, and I feel sorry for Kosovo's losses. Now the Serb Army are leaving their own country, and letting foreigners take over. www.serbia-info.com There is a speech from President Milosevic about the ending, much more truthful and believing than Clinton's lies.
walruskkkch	posted 06-11-99 02:44 PM ET All depends on the value you place on the results and the amount spent arriving there. The better questions would be, Who won; short term victory or long term triumph and how convincingly.
Famous Eccles	posted 06-11-99 04:05 PM ET Of course it was worth it. The laughs/$ ratio is immense. I mean, it was well worth it just for the entertainment value. watching the pictures of mass destruction , and reading reports of refugees dying screaming, was really a laugh riot.
Krushala	posted 06-11-99 09:07 PM ET Good entertainment yes. What right did we have? We can do whatever we want. If milosevich can do whatever he wants to people then we can do whatever we want. True I would have preferred we not attack a nation that hasn't attacked us first. Usually the ends don't justify the means, but this if successful may prove otherwise. I can understand why you don't believe clinton. But to believe milosevich. Like most leaders in the world have not had mistresses and lied about it to the public. I hate clinton, but there is enough objective reporting being done to believe. And yeah we aren't the good guys and we do violate human rights, but it's terrible over 60 years later we are still putting up with this sh*t. It was worth it in my opinion. And hey we got to test more of our new laser guided missles and bombs. Just like the gulf war was just a testing ground for all the new weapons developed during the 80's.
Victor Galis	posted 06-11-99 11:23 PM ET Was it worth it? No. What did you accomplish? Nothing. Milo�evic is firmly in power as a result. Opposition politicians have watched their support get bombed out from under them by NATO. The US got even more people to hate it. Thousands of additional people are dead, that wouldn't be otherwise. You've cost former Eastern block nations $ billions in trade. What have you done? Have you made Kosovo safe for the Kosovars? No. What has the US accomplished? -It wasted money. -It wasted bombs. -It consolidated Milo�evic's power. -It disrupted trade. -It killed people. -It hurt relations. -It discredited pro-Western movements in Serbia. -It destroyed Serbian infrastructure. -It set a dangerous precedent. -And it occupied a portion of Serbia and added it more directly to its empire. The US doesn't know the first thing about foreign policy. The US helped Milo�evic into power in the first place. Saddam, and Fidel too. Load of good the US has done. And lets not even talk about the School of the Americas, where Americans train guerillas so they can overthrow South American governments and replace them with totalitarian regimes.
Khan Singh	posted 06-12-99 09:47 AM ET Sometimes you have to back your diplomacy up with force. Otherwise your diplomacy will never work. But let's try to avoid war with Russia over this, shall we? Let's try hard.
Victor Galis	posted 06-12-99 11:35 AM ET Yes, but what does it show the world? Might makes right. Soon the US will inventa situation like this to bomb countries they don't like; just you wait and see.
Provost Harrison	posted 06-12-99 11:40 AM ET Waste of life is never worth it. I agree with Thorokano, it's imperialist assertion of power, nothing more, nothing less. What makes Kosovo any different to Bosnia, or Krajina, or even Rwanda, Congo or East Timor? The list goes on. Milosevic overstepped the mark, and the imperialist powers had to get him 'back into line'. They don't care if he stays in power or not, providing he tows the line. Same with Saddam. All of these wars (Gulf, Kosovo), have been wars waged against the people of these countries, who, to be quite honest, are innocent and have been totally demonised by imperialist powers to 'justify' their bombing. k_shane: I don't think the money is a problem. The military industry has a very high multiplier effect (spending money on arms is probably even more effective than throwing the money directly at the industries concerned, jobs are maintained, and the money isn't directly pocketed by industry fat-cats, although eventually it will be through all the sectors employed). But this should demonstrate that it is nothing but a stunt to boost profits for the capitalist class at the extent of the poor and needy that are victims to the imperialist thugs. And then, there are lucrative reconstruction contracts to be picked over by the western imperialist powers. Russia won't get a look in, that's a fact. Basically, I state that this war is one of profit, like any other. Either for imperialist gain of market territory or Milosevic's gain of nationalistic strength. But neither of these lose out - it is the ordinary person, the working class! Either way, western imperialism doesn't lose, they make money either way. Any political concessions are a bonus.
Provost Harrison	posted 06-12-99 11:43 AM ET 'But this should demonstrate that it is nothing but a stunt to boost profits for the capitalist class at the extent* of the poor and needy that are victims to the imperialist thugs'* should read 'But this should demonstrate that it is nothing but a stunt to boost profits for the capitalist class at the [/b]expense[/b] of the poor and needy that are victims to the imperialist thugs'
Provost Harrison	posted 06-12-99 11:43 AM ET you know what I mean
Mcerion	posted 06-13-99 05:00 PM ET If YOU were powerless and an agressor was coming into YOUR town and organizing mass rapes and murders, that is murdering your mothers, sisters, fathers, brothers, wouldn't you want someone to stop them. Go to http://www.princeton.edu/~nanking/html/nanking-gallery.html and see photos of what the Japanese did the Chinese during the occupation of Nanking in 1937. After lookin at these photos tell me you wouldn't bomb the sh*t out of anybody who was doing that to human beings. The callousness and ignorance of these posts is stupefying. The only way to deal with bullies is to ruthlessly eradicate them.
Victor Galis	posted 06-14-99 08:48 AM ET Western propaganda claims another victim. I'm not saying they shouldn't be bombed, I'm saying you can't stop them wioth bombs, you can only make it worse. In this world realpolitik is still the name of the game. Es gibt kein Grund, dass Deutscher sollen f�r Amerikanischen Feheler sterben.
Wraith	posted 06-14-99 09:34 AM ET Hail, This whole Kosovo situation was horrible. The Kosovars (sp?) had it rough, but I don't think the US should have got involved, especially not as part of NATO. If the UN had decided to intervene, then we could have been part of their force, but NATO is supposed to be totally defensive, which this campaign certainly was not. There's an (inevitable) claim in here that this was initiated by capitalists for profit, but that doesn't hold. Clinton is a major One-Worlder and a Socialist, and he's the moron who got us into this. He just happens to be totally clueless about foreign policy, and wanted what he saw as an "easy win war" to pump up his poll ratings at home, in hopes of helping the little wooden boy (Al Gore) elected next year. Now that this is "over", and we've supposedly "won", he thinks he's in a good position. However, we really accopmlished almost nothing except the expenditure of some (expensive) ammo. Clinton's perfectly willing to leave Milosevic in power, even though he's been idicted by the international war crimes tribunal, and he's found out just how poor his grasp of foreign relations is as the Russians muscle in on the endgame. Milosevic wasn't willing to end this war because he was defeated, but because he accomplished what he needed. And now Clinton will go all mushy headed (well, more than usually) and pay to rebuild everything he just had destroyed. Wraith "When military experts explained to Bill Clinton that never in history has a war been won without the use of ground troops, Clinton rebuffed them, citing the Rebellion�s victory over the Empire with the sole use of air power."
Provost Harrison	posted 06-14-99 10:53 AM ET Your definition of 'socialist' must be rather loose, Wraith? I am not arguing against that anything was going on mcerion, I am questioning the motives of the west. You have said, this has happened before, and is going on in other places. This is my point. Why don't NATO intervene in Eastern Turkey, Indonesia (E. Timor), etc? Profit is involved. They never batted an eyelid in Krajina. But what makes Kosovo any different? This is my point.
threeover	posted 06-14-99 11:03 AM ET ahh...hmmm...Hitler was doing the same thing before the WW2, and nobody stopped his nazi-ass. Don't like violance, but I hate people like Milosevic (or whatever his f---- name is) even more. Yes, it came at a cost (human lives, etc.), but in this world filled with hate, we fight fire with fire. And guess what, it will never stop. I think that we're the only god damn species on this planet that kill not to survive, but because of what we believe in. Just wait 'til the Chinese develop those "Titans", we'll have all hell break loose.
Mcerion	posted 06-14-99 07:58 PM ET Victor Galis are you saying that you endorse organized rape and systematic murder? Well then you da man! Threeover we did stop Hitler, duh.
walruskkkch	posted 06-14-99 08:03 PM ET Here's an interesting question. If Hitler didn't threaten any of his neighbors(No expansion plans, just revitalize Germany within it's Versailles established borders) and went on to purge all non-aryans from the country(much in the same way Slobo has done, perhaps a bit more systematically)would the western nations have intervened? Since we've been comparing the two why not reverse the comparison a bit. Your faithful and obedient servant
Mcerion	posted 06-14-99 11:29 PM ET Walrus, how the hell should I know? What I do know is that we did stop him. Bigotry and apathy were just as much the fashion then as they are now. I don't know about you guys, but when I hear stories and then see the photos years later of the atrocities these petty despots commit oh so casually, it turns my stomach.
Bishop	posted 06-15-99 05:26 AM ET Wraith, I must say your definition of a socialist differs quite a lot from mine. I do agree with you however (?!) that US/NATO had no right doing what they�ve done, this was a matter for the UN. As Victor Galis said this will set a dangerous precedent, what country goes safe from US/NATO agression next time ? I�ve read articles that said that this whole thing was a blow against the European Union, them being a major power in trade and such. Do I belive it ? I don�t know, but I wouldn�t put anything past the US. I think it�s time that we throw away the notions that US/NATO did this out of concern for Kosovo, as Provost Harrison said why hasn�t US/NATO bombed Jakarta ? (East-Timor). Why does US/NATO allow Turkey persecute the kurds ? Why do US/NATO allow Israel to continue it�s persecutions of Palestinians ? Etc, etc. Bishop
Wraith	posted 06-15-99 08:03 AM ET Nothing wrong with my definition of Socialist. :P Clinton wants the federal government to control everything, including the economy. Since the government is theoretically by the people, that would place control over resources and means of production in the peoples hands. What makes this situation different from all the other ones in the world is that some news crew somewhere took notice of it, so Clinton noticed it. He's still under heavy fire from domestic issues (especially chinese espionage), and he, as is his wont, started a "conflict" to try to distract people. There wasn't anything about making money involved, this was Clinton playing his usual political distraction game. If Hitler hadn't expanded, I'm not sure what would have happened. The US would have stayed out of it, which we pretty much did anyway until Pearl Harbor. As for European countries, I really couldn't say. I thin it would have been much less likely, but certainly possible. Wraith Abandon all hope, ye who PRESS ENTER here
Sethito	posted 06-15-99 12:59 PM ET It really depends if we help Milosovich rebuild his country, if we don't we will have spent a lot less money than the rebuilding process. If we help win rebuild we lose.
Victor Galis	posted 06-15-99 06:43 PM ET What I'm saying here is the US has spent a lot of money and lives to acomplish... (drumroll plase)... NOTHING! Slobo is still in power. Those Kosovars are going to get kicked out of Kosovo again before 20 years are up (either that or kick every Serb out.) The peacekeeping forces can not prevent a massive guerilla war should it break out. If the US had really wanted to do something it would have taken out Slobo (not that that accomplishes much). I don't know what the US's motive was, becuase it sure wasn't humainatarian. (Also I read about Kosovo fighting months before the "crisis" "started." There was a reason it made the news bigtime, and I don't know what that is either.)
Provost Harrison	posted 06-16-99 03:29 AM ET You see now, it all becomes clear. The major imperialisms dividing up Kosovo into their own sphere of influences. And thus awarding lucrative reconstruction contracts to their own companies for the destruction they have caused. it will be many years before life for the Kosovars will return to normal after this excessive 'blitzkrieg'. Surely it cannot be hard to see through the thin veil of 'humanitarianism' the west postures.
Provost Harrison	posted 06-16-99 03:31 AM ET Wraith, If Hitler would have taken Europe (including Britain), he would have built his army/navy/luftwaffe back up and started on the US eventually. And probably on Japan as well. But this is merely hypothesising.
kaetux	posted 06-17-99 06:24 PM ET This was just another chapter in the 600 year old Yugoslavian conflict. As the only remaining superpower, we have to remember that we must work for peace at all costs. NATO was an alliance formed as a defense against The Warsaw Pact. That's all it was. It was never intended to launch an offensive attack against a country that was not even threatening it. NATO overstepped it's boundries and most of the other countries of the world are not happy. I'm no saying the Milosivec wasn't a bad man, I'm just saying that with all of our power and influence, the last thing America needs to be doing is launching attacks against small, third world nations that are engaging in ethnic cleansing. I mean, we dropped more bombs on Kosovo than we did during WWII, and at that time we were helping our allies. NATO makes the whole thing sound like a war but it was more like an attempt to prove our power or some **** like that. Remember, at one time the Albanians were most likely doing the same damn thing, but in the past we didn't have some dumbass who wants to prove that he cares about every little third world conflict running the country. This is also going to hurt America in the Worldwide ring, but it doesn't really care since it practically owns NATO and the U.N. This whole conflict has damaged already fragile connections to Russia, who, I must remind you, is still the most powerful nation in the world.
Bishop	posted 06-17-99 06:41 PM ET kaetux "Nato overstepped it�s boundries" >>Well not exactly. They changed the rules at the 50-year anniversary, just so they can act as they did in Yugoslavia. This is not the last time NATO will attack "small third world nations". Beware you who opposeth the new world order. If you do thou shalt be bombeth back to the stoneage -Sacred writings of the holy NATO, chapter I-
kaetux	posted 06-18-99 02:35 AM ET Bishop: What I was saying was that NATO was BUILT on the principals of defense and that the attacks in Kosovo went against NATO's true ideals. NATO has become quite admired and trusted by most nations of the world due to it's defensive nature, but now that most poeple see that NATO is just another way to say the United States, it will lose most (if not all) respect and support in sovereign nations.
Bishop	posted 06-18-99 04:24 AM ET kateux Point taken ! Bishop
Provost Harrison	posted 06-18-99 09:24 AM ET This 700 year contest is ridiculous. It's like England laying clain to Northern France due to the battle of Agincourt. It's just something that Milosevic is using to whip up nationalist feeling so he has support for his campaign of thuggery in Kosovo.
kaetux	posted 06-18-99 09:25 PM ET Provost: While the British/France incident may have happened a long time ago, by now they have made amends and are no longer fighting. This is much different than the fighting in Kosovo, because it has been going strong all this time. The truth is that America tends to help the weaker man at this point in time, they do not regard past conflicts/occurances and rarely think of future consequences. Just look at Israel/Muslim conflict. America has almost always sided with Israel! Another example: England vs. Northern Ireland. Just because England happens to be an ally, we side with them without any real thought.