1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidYou're the one espousing simple minded Cold War rhetoric, not me.
GFY you disingenuous partisan hack
NATO had every right to intervene in order to stop a genocidal war waged by Serbian forces and pro Serbian forces and defend Europe from the spread of the conflict
Your BS 1960s Cold War anti western BS explanation of the Balkan conflict and its eventual resolution by NATO is a disgusting display of my side right or wrong all because of ...[text shortened]... right the Kremlin would have loved their Slavic cousins to carry on the slaughter in the Balkan’s 😢
It's sad you are so stupid that you actually believe that Western leaders are primarily motivated by humanitarian concerns when they decide to start killing. If you were in Russia, you'd be proudly flying Putin's flag since you are so amiable to such absurd propaganda.
After the breakup of Yugoslavia, a logical solution would have been to incorporate internationally recognized rights of self-determination in deciding where the borders of the new nation states would be. Instead, the West insisted on preserving the internal administrative divisions as independent States. This led to many people being forced to live under rulers they felt no affinity for even though the areas they lived in were primarily ethnically and politically compatible with neighboring States.
Kev's simple minded desire to punish an entire ethnic group for undoubted war crimes (though such crimes were committed by all sides even if we concede that Serb groups committed more) is at odds with the internationally recognized right of self-determination and constitutes illegal collective punishment (itself a Crime against Humanity). NATO continues to engage in such conduct 30 years later denying the human rights of Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo and maintaining by force an unwieldy and unworkable governmental system in Bosnia (Croatia simply solved the problem of Serb majority areas by ethnic cleansing).
@vivify saidno1 has no idea what he is talking about. All he does is repeat nonsense he heard from government officials and news propaganda outlets. Russia had nothing to do with it. Turkey is chummy with Russia. You don't see news of Erdogan being assassinated like Gaddafi was, do you?
Actually, just one more question: why do you think NATO invaded Libya?
I get that Gaddafi was allies with Putin; but was that fact alone really enough for them to go through such lengths for a regime change?
https://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-emails-reveal-nato-killed-gaddafi-to-stop-libyan-creation-of-gold-backed-currency/5594742
Expect no1 to call the truth a conspiracy theory because he cannot handle the brutal truth. The status of the US dollar being the world reserve currency is a really big deal. It is worth invading countries killing millions to protect. NATO is like a organized crime syndicate killing millions to protect the inflation tax scam. The USA taxes most of the world with inflation raking in trillions and trillions. BIG MONEY AND POWER!
Now the western empire can outspend any country in the world. That is why the USA is on a spending spree in Ukraine to outspend Russia in war. But by doing so they have to deprive Americans of spending at home. It is pure evil. Kill people abroad and starve people at home at the same time. Disgraceful!
@kevcvs57 saidWTF man.
Stop talking like an idiot it’s a direct correlation because that’s exactly the situation that the bombing campaign was meant to stop
Just accept you’re a racist who believes that Christian Serbian lives are worth so much more than Albanian / Kosovo. Muslim lives and move on.
How the hell is that any conclusion to what No.1 is saying?
@kevcvs57 saidThe UN security council said “no.”
GFY you disingenuous partisan hack
NATO had every right to intervene in order to stop a genocidal war waged by Serbian forces and pro Serbian forces and defend Europe from the spread of the conflict
Your BS 1960s Cold War anti western BS explanation of the Balkan conflict and its eventual resolution by NATO is a disgusting display of my side right or wrong all because of ...[text shortened]... right the Kremlin would have loved their Slavic cousins to carry on the slaughter in the Balkan’s 😢
Now, you can think of that what you will, but there was no UN basis or mandate for NATO to intervene.
The ethnic hatred that exploded in the late 80’s and 90’s in Yugoslavia was something few actually saw coming. All fuelled by power hungry bastards grabbing land.
The whole situation was a complicated fukk-up and choices were made, some of them worse than others.
However, get off your high horse. To suggest NATO was primarily driven by humanitarian goals is absurd.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidHey man child I do not give a toss what motivated or motivates western leaders, that genocidal war in the heart of my continent needed to be stooped and NATO stopped it. Any non retarded non psychotic anti western troll would celebrate the end of that war. Given their behaviour during the war the Serbs got off very lightly compared to the other ethnic groups involved.
You're the one espousing simple minded Cold War rhetoric, not me.
It's sad you are so stupid that you actually believe that Western leaders are primarily motivated by humanitarian concerns when they decide to start killing. If you were in Russia, you'd be proudly flying Putin's flag since you are so amiable to such absurd propaganda.
Your way to thick to debate this you should stick with diatribes on legal matters, morality is beyond your grasp.
@shavixmir saidhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1994/02/12/boutros-ghali-sets-authority-for-airstrikes/4df5be0d-1466-4379-89f0-219b317c11f6/
The UN security council said “no.”
Now, you can think of that what you will, but there was no UN basis or mandate for NATO to intervene.
Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali has instructed U.N. troops to work out procedures for NATO airstrikes in Bosnia and passed his authority to call in the first strike to the top U.N. official in the Balkans.
Under terms agreed to by NATO, Boutros-Ghali was given the mandate to call in the first airstrike if U.N. troops are attacked or if Serb artillery continues to pound civilians in the Bosnian capital.
The UN Secretary General did work out plans with NATO to intervene. But this was to include "an immediate ban on shelling of civilian targets", which NATO failed at.
@kevcvs57 saidI understand ethics sufficiently to know that collective punishment of an entire ethnic group for the crimes of a few of its members is morally wrong.
Hey man child I do not give a toss what motivated or motivates western leaders, that genocidal war in the heart of my continent needed to be stooped and NATO stopped it. Any non retarded non psychotic anti western troll would celebrate the end of that war. Given their behaviour during the war the Serbs got off very lightly compared to the other ethnic groups involved.
Your ...[text shortened]... hick to debate this you should stick with diatribes on legal matters, morality is beyond your grasp.
You apparently never learned that.
@vivify saidDidn’t China and Russia veto the use of NATO?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1994/02/12/boutros-ghali-sets-authority-for-airstrikes/4df5be0d-1466-4379-89f0-219b317c11f6/
[quote]Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali has instructed U.N. troops to work out procedures for NATO airstrikes in Bosnia and passed his authority to call in the first strike to the top U.N. official in the Balkans.
Under terms ...[text shortened]... . But this was to include "an immediate ban on shelling of civilian targets", which NATO failed at.
@no1marauder saidIt wasn’t about punishment, it was about stopping a disgusting inter ethnic slaughter.
I understand ethics sufficiently to know that collective punishment of an entire ethnic group for the crimes of a few of its members is morally wrong.
You apparently never learned that.
Punishment for those individuals directly responsible was finally carried out at The Hague in a courtroom based on evidence as it should be.
@no1marauder saidAn entire ethnic group? Go back and crunch the numbers again. Anything is better than some ethnic groups being herded into death camps and slaughtered and dumped in mass graves.
I understand ethics sufficiently to know that collective punishment of an entire ethnic group for the crimes of a few of its members is morally wrong.
You apparently never learned that.
Serbia got a sliver of the group punishment that Putin has meted out to an innocent Ukraine so please dry your crocodile tears and move on.
@kevcvs57 saidMillions of people were denied their right to self-determination by outside force. You are OK with this because of your blind acceptance of Western propaganda.
An entire ethnic group? Go back and crunch the numbers again. Anything is better than some ethnic groups being herded into death camps and slaughtered and dumped in mass graves.
Serbia got a sliver of the group punishment that Putin has meted out to an innocent Ukraine so please dry your crocodile tears and move on.
I don't do "whataboutisms"; I've already said the Russian invasion of the Ukraine was an unjustified Crime against Peace. That crime does not excuse the Western powers crushing the legitimate aspirations of millions of Serbs to live in a Serbian State. Even if intervention was justified, the insistence on "winning" the war for the Bosnians and Croats and maintaining territorial divisions that did not reflect the will of the local populace was not.
1 edit
@shavixmir saidYes.
Didn’t China and Russia veto the use of NATO?
I'm not sure why the UN Secretary General was still able to organize an intervention with NATO.
@shavixmir saidThe article is from '94 so it's possible.
God, I’d have to look into that. Not sure off by heart.
Wasn’t that about the ‘95 intervention, maybe?